User talk:DanielRigal/2018


Defiant Wrestling

If i remove the history of the titles can you remove the fansite, overly detailed, third-party and multiple issues tags????? I did just like the Progress Wrestling article but if it's not fine i can remove the titles.

Defiant logo and some last changes

Sorry, I'm nowhere connected with the company, I wish I could but not, so instead I will be uploading the logo with the true license if you want to. But do you know what? Those are my last edits on Defiant including the license and I am done, do what you want with it. But one thing we might consider is that not a stub anymore, I think. However that is in you're hands if it's good or not, I only gave my best. TheCorageone1 (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Nazi party

Thank you for your comment about my edits on the Nazi Party page. I am adding no personal commentary. The claim that the Nazi Party is a party of the far right is not supported by history, and does not belong in this article. I think you are the one who is confused, if you assert i am adding personal commentary to this page by removing this false claim.Dsteakley (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. Please read the FAQ. The Nazis have been regarded as far right by almost all scholars since 1945. Only a very few have dissented for reasons that are in any way coherent. It seems that a lot of Americans are getting angry that this long established fact makes right wing Americans sound like Nazis. Don't worry. It doesn't! Most right wing Americans are not Nazis. The ones waving swastikas are the exceptions. Nobody is calling anybody else a Nazi just for being right wing. If somebody has told you otherwise and sent you here to spread their misinformation then they are just using you to push their political propaganda. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Peppa Pig the Second‎

Yes. Holy moley. Not looking too productive ... :( Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Spellings

Thank you for letting me know. I reverted so many of his edits I’m not surprised that at least one was an error by me. Red Jay (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Advice

Many thanks for your comments.

I must say though that the "Michael Rassias" page, together with a few others I have noticed, seems to me like a pretty clear-cut case of vanity wikipedia page. I think this is well reflected from looking at its history. Note that the issue of lack of notability has already been noted by an academic mathematician in the page history section. "Co-editing" a book (whose content is a series of papers by other people) with a famous senior mathematician is more or less a secretarial type job and is not in itself a criterion of notability.

Were the above "co-editing" really a big deal in the academic community, it would clearly translate into something more tangible which could be evaluated. Looking though at his scientific profile, it seems so far below the usual threshold of notability for academic mathematicians on wikipedia that I don't know what to say. He does not hold a prestigious position, he is not a recipient of any major prizes, etc. To give context, few full professors of the mathematics faculty at the University of Zurich, where he works, have a wikipedia page. So it is very strange to say the least that a post-doctoral fellow, i.e. with a position well below U.S. assistant professor, should have such a page! Mathchecker (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for offering your help and links to me. It is most appreciated. Now I know who to ask for help. :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaxywing01 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Synth-Pop

Hello Daniel, is it ok if I add "Better source needed" for the opening of the Synth-Pop article? I was told by an admin that this would be the best idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakyBoy (talk • contribs) 14:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean Template:Better source? If so, I think that sounds like a good idea. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Edwin Rose 2018

So they decided to create another account in another name (R.Luxombourg) in order to add links to their self-promotional articles. May as well hold a huge sign saying "block me, I'm a sock!" Canterbury Tail talk 21:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

That's disappointing. Maybe he could have been a force for good here if only he was interested in anything other than promoting himself. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
That's why I've only blocked his main account for a week instead of indefinitely. So he can try again and see if they can be productive. Canterbury Tail talk 21:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Caidin-Johnson on YouTube?!

I heard from a user whom I communicate with a lot on YT named TylerTristar2IsBack that there is apparently an impostor account made out of him. Judging by what the content of the impostor's channel, it's likely it's Caidin-Johnson trying to branch out into YouTube. Your thoughts? Link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm1eMOkfwEDtpJW-QyMfTTQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse Coffey (talk • contribs) 20:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, and I'm not keen to increase his view count if it is him, but the titles suggest that you might be correct. Whoever it is, I presume YouTube will block anybody who is genuinely impersonating another user, or at least make them change their name and stop the impersonation. I think that would be the best way to deal with it. If Caidin wants to make silly videos with his usual nonsense in then that seems harmless enough, so long as he respects copyrights and doesn't impersonate or harass other people. It would probably do him good to find a place where he can play around without upsetting other people. No matter how inane, he certainly wouldn't be the worst thing on YouTube... --DanielRigal (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I saw that he also has an account posing as Blue's Clues co-creator Traci Paige Johnson. And he's also stolen videos from other channels such as TR3X PRODUCTIONS (a channel that does logo history videos).
Here is the link to the channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv7BT6npONqTO4WLTxSWq3Q DeathMaster2001 (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks

Hello DR. You are one step (or two or three) ahead of me everywhere tonight (my time) - SPI, RFPP etc. :-) Many thanks for your vigilance. MarnetteD|Talk 01:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Cnn

Good evening, from Great Britain: The land of the drill rap and the home of the super injunctions. Why is wikipedia suppressing the truth? Canyoutietheminaknot (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Dude. If you want to spout your opinions then get a blog. This is an encyclopaedia and you are not helping. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

My opinion does not matter. Facts occur irrespective of my (or anyone's) belief - Free bonus philosophy lesson here. If CNN want to be biased I do not care - let them make a mockery of themselves. The fact is that 93% of Trump coverage is negative. I do not critise people who agree with their view - just those who suppress the truth. Canyoutietheminaknot (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


I think we should revisit the CNN bias debate. From an administrators point of view, it is a mistake to leave out information because it is critical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canyoutietheminaknot (talk • contribs) 22:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

My apologies Daniel, I see you are from London. Doug you are right to point this out. Maybe as an admin you can reinsert the paragraph. Goodnight. Canyoutietheminaknot (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

OP blocked for forging a post from someone else. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Wow! That's low! Thanks for sorting it out. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I knew the username was familiar. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Froome2017. I should have caught that. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Full flavor (cigarette type) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Full flavor (cigarette type). Since you had some involvement with the Full flavor (cigarette type) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Daniel

After much searching I have finally worked out how to access the talk section! (I am very slow at all aspects of technology!) Greetings from Attila the Stockbroker (John Baine) and thanks for your comments on the edits I have put on my page. I am embarking on a new musical project and a few edits are needed. One thing I'd like to do is change the photo to reflect my current musical activities. How the hell do I do this? Or am I not allowed to? If I can, I'd love it if you'd explain how to upload one. (As if talking to a 3 year old!) Is it Ok if I simply ask someone who has taken a good photo for permission to use it and get it on when they say yes (as they will) Thanks for your time Attila/John Attilathestockbroker (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Uploading an image is quite easy but the licence needs to be one that Wikimedia can use. That will also mean giving other people rights to use it. This is not to say that it has no copyright but that it is licensed in a way that gives up quite a lot of control. (It may be that you don't want to do this with one of your official publicity photos. Or maybe you don't care. It is something to think about anyway.) The licensing and ownership requirements may seem like a bit of a faff but we have to be strict about it because we get people trying to upload stuff that isn't theirs all the time and we need to stop them for the sake of the people it really belongs to. If you hit any problems, or if you are challenged for proof of ownership then please don't be too annoyed. It is just our process for stopping people stealing other people's stuff.
I think that the easiest way to upload an image without any problems is to pick a picture of you in a public place and for the person who took the picture to upload it to the Wikimedia Commons here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard (Wikimedia Commons is a big library of media that Wikipedia can use. Uploading it there might be better than uploading it to English Wikipedia as it makes it available for use on the other language Wikipedias too.)
Getting the person who took the photo to upload themselves it saves all the faff of proving that their rights to release the image have been transferred to you if you try to upload it yourself.
Using a picture taken in a public place avoids any need to prove permission. Even so, it would be a good idea for them to add a note saying that they are uploading it at your request, just so nobody mistakes this for anything sneaky.
I think the form itself is fairly self-explanatory.
Once the image is uploaded to the Commons it is available for use in Wikipedia articles.
--DanielRigal (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, I forgot how to write back so I left a message for other volunteers on my talk page but have now worked out how to do it again. (Sorry, I am not a natural at IT!) Thanks for your reply. Once the people have uploaded my photos to Wikimedia Commons, how do I access them? And i have added additional biographical material and can't work out how to remove the additional citations bit, or to make a citation (you could do that, using my 'autobiography as the source) Sorry, I'm not being lazy, I am incredibly busy and really do find the technical aspects very hard) Attilathestockbroker (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Revert reverts on war

It's been a week now since you asked for discussion of the re-structuring I did of the article "War," but no one has responded. I will take that as a sign that nobody watching the article thinks the matter is worth discussing. I'm not sure what aspects of my edit you did not think good, or what controversial, but I imagine that, if you consider one at a time each reason for each change, you can make any local improvement you think necessary. Thanks. Wordwright (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. This is disappointing. I really was not expecting that silence. You would think that this was an important article that more people would pay attention to. As I have said before, my objection was the extent of the change coupled with poor coherence in the first part. I did not review it in great detail as this is not a subject on which I feel qualified to make detailed decisions.
You have been patient enough and you can't be expected to wait forever for a response that seems not to be coming. If you want to redo your edit then I'm not going to object. I merely suggest that you read the result through carefully afterwards, to make sure that it is as clear and grammatical as possible. I'll be happy to just let it sit there and we can see if anybody else objects or makes any amendments. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Bias

I have plenty of evidence Cenk denied the Armenian Genocide and did so for decades. He never fully apologized for his past claims, and wrote numerous articles disputing the Armenian Genocide. We should apply the same standard we did with Alex Jones and his absurd Sandy Hook conspiracy theories. It should be mentioned at the top of his article accordingly.Toronto2005! (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Pack it in! First up, you have shown nothing to prove that his apology was incomplete or insincere. You are clearly deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to make what you imagine to be a point. We have a policy for that: WP:POINT. You remain on final warning and several different people have all tried to warn you that you won't be here much longer if you keep on behaving as you have done. Seriously. Pack it in and pack it in now! If you think we are biased then clearly Wikipedia is not for you. Other websites exist. Maybe find one that wants to read your opinions and vent there? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Hello. I am LPS and MLP Fan, who you recently talked to. I removed the “Criticism” section because I am extremely critical and really hate it if anyone criticizes what I like negatively (or vice versa if someone likes what I despise). My Little Pony is one thing I really like and I hate it if someone negatively criticized it. That is why I removed the “Criticism” section. Thanks for understanding.

P.S: Please teach me how to nominate articles for speedy deletion, block someone, etc... I am just a beginner. LPS and MLP Fan (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be using the wrong website. This is an encyclopaedia not a playground. Please go and play somewhere else. If you keep this nonsense up you will be blocked. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
What you said really hurts my feelings. Please don’t use defamatory language against me. I am not playing on Wikipedia!— Preceding unsigned comment added by LPS and MLP Fan (talk • contribs)
Nothing I have said is defamatory. When I look at your edit history I see a mixture of edits that might be OK and ones where you are behaving very badly. The comment you started this thread with shows completely the wrong attitude for Wikipedia but some of your other edits seem to be OK. I don't know why you are behaving so inconsistently but you should keep to the good edits and not do any more bad edits where you add personal opinions or remove big chunks of valid content just because you don't like or agree with them. If you can manage to do that then you can stay. If you genuinely don't know the difference between the good and bad edits then just look at your contribution history and see which of your edits were reverted and which were allowed to stay. I have not reported you for vandalism and, if you behave yourself from now on, then I won't. It's your choice. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Homealone1990

Thanks for filing the SPI. That guy was starting to get annoying. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anti-Communist Action. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. OnceASpy (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. If you really believe that a review of your edits and my reverts on that page today will not get you blocked then I invite you to report me for edit warring. Just don't start crying when it doesn't go they way you hope. It is up to you. Do you really want to invite administrators to look into your edits today? Really? Think carefully. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and I'd also remind you, that while you are perfectly free to remove warnings from your user talk page, those warnings for not adhering to neutral point of view, for editing contrary to the references and for abusing the warning templates by issuing a comically bogus edit warring warning are still valid and in force. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Friendly reminder that you're at the 3RR and at this point it would really be a good idea to participate in the Talk. OnceASpy (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Correct. I have reverted three times and will not revert a fourth. You have made your fourth attempt on the article and are breaking the 3RR rule, which you foolishly just admitted to knowing about and hence breaking knowingly. You know where the talk page is, and indeed you have used it to make an unhelpful comment about another question today. You do not seem to want to propose or discuss your edit. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DanielRigal. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DanielRigal. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

On the subject of November 2018 "Disruptive Editing" for the page "False Prophets"

This IP user/IP address is the address for a hotel wi-fi system, so any successive disruptive edits (whether they're disruptive or not, I don't know or care) are going to be coming from different people staying here short term. Blocking this address from making edits would seem unfair, as indeed would be sending angry messages out of the blue to innocent people settling into a new hotel room (more of a barracks really) and browsing wikipedia for regional differences between goulash recipes. 92.6.238.255 (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)92.6.238.255

Oh, further to that, and not being snooty but it'd have been helpful if you'd originally linked to the change, it took me ages to work out why I was getting messages about edits to a page without evidence of the edit having happened. That's just...advice for the future or whatever 92.6.238.255 (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)92.6.238.255

Sorry for repeated edit, but I had to add: that was a fun revision. Weird religious nuts jumping in to bash people of a different religion over the head with scripture from their OWN religion is definitely my jam 92.6.238.255 (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)92.6.238.255

December 2018

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Openlydialectic#Neil_deGrasse_Tyson. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Openlydialectic (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You do not get to make serious BLP violations and then accuse others of not assuming good faith. If you want your assumption of good faith then admit that you made a very big mistake and stop digging your hole deeper. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Openlydialectic, you are way out of line here. And, WP:DTR O3000 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Happy Christmas!
Hello DanielRigal,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 18:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thank you for helping with The Ravyns AfD! Best,

‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)