This is an archive of past discussions with User:DanielRigal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I don't think that is "my" article even though I seem to have the first edit in its history. It looks like I was merging content into it from somewhere else back in 2008. Maybe somebody else speedily deleted it while I was editing and then I pressed Publish Changes and it got remade, minus its previous history? Or maybe this was me coalescing a load of articles in a walled garden into one article? I have no idea now. 2008 was a long time ago. Anyway, I am more than happy for it to be deleted. I think some of the teams on that list had articles in the past but only one is linked now, rendering the article completely worthless. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Those are not "comments" they are the unacceptable abuse of other editors. It is not vandalism to remove them. You know this. Making spurious accusations of vandalism is also abusive. You are already on Final Warning and you remain so, even if you remove the warning from your Talk page. Any more of this nonsense and you will almost certainly get blocked. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I suppose
I suppose it is "normal for the subject of the article to be in bold in the opening," I just had someone remove some bolding on an article and per MOS:BOLDLEAD it does make sense to have bolding on that title, after reading through the guidelines and WP:BOLDITIS --Historyday01 (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
could you help me figuring out how to contribute useful stuff to a page without being advertisal? this kind of content wasnt meant to be posted directly into the article as it would break the readability. is there any website that is trusted by wikipedia to upload such additions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llarryyllarryy (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
You have a Tumblr Blog. You can post your stuff there. Please leave Wikipedia alone. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. The material you are posting on your blog is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Hosting it elsewhere would not help because the problem not just that it is on Tumblr. The problem is that the content is not of a type that is of any use to Wikipedia at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
David Lammy
Pointless attempts to kvetch about race
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey Daniel! Just wanted to discuss something; you claimed I made a racist comment in claiming David Lammy is not English by explaining the genetics of English people, and how David Lammy would probably not fit the mould, based of what we do know of his ethnic past, and we could not identify him as English unless he had the DNA haplogroup exclusively pinpointed to the Anglo-Saxon migration to Britain, or he himself identified as such, like Idris Elba does. How is the comment racist? I am not claiming his ethnic group (Guyanese) are less than the English ethnic group, I am just saying it's premature to identify him as English if he has not claimed so himself, as well as not fitting the genetic signature of English people. I claimed he was definitely British, just not ethnically English. So I just fail to see the racism, in claiming that, because of his ethnic background and probable non-Anglo-saxon genetics based on that ethnic background, he could not be English. Again I never claimed Guyanese people were less than English people. Could you please just clarify what definition of racism you are using, or if you are using the dictionary definition of racism, how what I said constitutes it. 2603:7000:3B40:B500:DC1C:81DC:FD6F:B393 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
This is off topic. I am not interested in discussing idiotic racial theories. They are utter nonsense and irrelevant to the matter at hand. There is no DNA test for an Englishman and there is no valid concept of "ethnically English" because English is not an ethnicity. Please just stop. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Well then you have failed to persuade me my comment is racist. You cannot deny English people there Englishness, but that's just a matter of opinion. English is definitely an ethnicity, they have their own language (English), customs, culture, religion (Anglicanism) and genetics (R-U106). Side note, I research population genetics as hobby. If you think English is not an ethnicity, than Guyanese cant be one either. So please don't claim science is idiotic. Final thought, if in your personal opinion, you for whatever reason think the English are not native to England, than Native Americans are not native to America either as they originated in Siberia and traveled to North America through Alaska. Much love, your a highly regarded editor on wikipedia it seems, keep up the good work! 2603:7000:3B40:B500:DC1C:81DC:FD6F:B393 (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Misgendering
Hi Daniel,
I noticed that your page says you revert misgendering. A user called Britmax misgendered me yesterday on Paul McCartney talk page. They were rude to me when I asked them not to. Would you mind resolving that? Many thanks. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I revert misgendering in articles and I warn people for deliberately misgendering other users. Britmax's behaviour doesn't look malicious or deliberate. Britmax apologised and tried to avoid incorrectly gendered language even though they didn't quite get it right. Bear in mind that you appear to us as an IP address. We don't know what pronouns to use unless told. We often default to using "they" in that situation. (In fact, that's what I am doing right now when referring to Britmax because it is not obvious to me what their correct pronouns are from their User page.) I think Britmax's annoyance is more to do with the overall pointlessness of that thread, which has clearly spiralled out of control, than anything else. It would have been better if they had just gone back and edited their comment for a second time to correct it fully but I don't see it as worth issuing a warning over. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Please do not delete other users' talk page comments
Pointless attempts to kvetch about other people's gender
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your abusive comment was not "legitimate" and you know that full well. Please don't try to play games with Wikipedia by abusing the warning templates. If you think that you have a point to make then make it without misgendering or abusing anybody and, if it is legitimate, it will be allowed to stand. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
This is an issue about you deleting other users' talk page comments without even attempting discussion beforehand. All I did was state that in my opinion his birth name should be noted somewhere in the article, and there is nothing "malicious" nor "disrespectful" in saying that. The fury in your reaction might be a much bigger concern to the community. I assume you know very well that you are not permitted to delete talk page comments, yet you doubled down and did so twice. It should be clear to anyone that issuing appropriate warnings about this uncivil behaviour is obviously not "play(ing) games with Wikipedia by abusing the warning templates"... it's standard procedure. It certainly isn't the "abuse" you refer to it as. Grow up. 156.57.0.55 (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)
Hi DanielRigal,
I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.
I'd just add that people should not be using offensive dogwhistle phrases … even on talk pages.
On the one hand, I agree that phrases like that are best avoided in civil discussion. On the other hand, it does expose the person using the phrase for where they stand on the issue. What flag they're flying, as it were, even if we haven't quite adopted a WP:NONAZIS-grade policy for gender issues. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Rupert Clague article restoration
Hi, I see you reversed my edits on the page and restored links as references that included the person's personal website, articles written by the person and other sourcing that does not match Wikipedia's standards. I would urge you to read before you restore in future and not judge people by their usernames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumplives46 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The "Gender Dysphoria" section within the "Dysphoria" article.
Pointless kvetching in the wrong place which can not serve any purpose.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In response to your comment on editing the article after my removing of the "Gender dysphoria" section:
-- Gender dysphoria" is an example of dysphoria but doesn't necessitate a paragraph in the overall psychiatric definition of dysphoria (Its initial insertion appears to be very partial and could potentially mislead readers). "Gender dysphoria" will still remain mentioned and linked to its respective article in the "Related conditions" section within the "Dysphoria" article, providing equal informational importance to all the mentioned conditions of dysphoria.
--That does not seem like a valid reason to remove a whole section but lets see what the Talk page thinks
To you, what I see may not seem valid to you. But you shoudn't be an editor if you don't value impartial and equal representation of information. Clearly, the the insertion of the "gender dyshporia" section is one-sided to one instance of dysphoria but overshadowing all related instances of dysphoria. I have found that the "Gender dysphoria" section was added to the "Dysphoria" article somewhere back in 2013, before the respective article for "Gender Dysphoria" was created. That's why it has been around for so long in the "Dysphoria" article, because it was initally most likely to mention the importance of gender dysphoria when it was popularized( but not officialized) at the time. Conclusion, it was biased from the start but understandable due to the lack of information on gender dysphoria, at the time. But time has passed, and a comprehensive article has been created for gender dysphoria, therefore the insertaion of a "Gender dysphoria" section in the "Dysphoria" article is now only biased a nessecitates removal because it risks misleading the average readers on what dysphoria means, in psychiatric practices. If the reader wishes to learn more about "Gender Dysphoria", they may wish to click on the term in the "Related conditions" section and read its respective article, in full detail. Alexanderrahal (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I already started a discussion on the article's Talk page here: Talk:Dysphoria#Removal_of_gender_disphoria? (That's what you should probably have done, btw.) That is the place to discuss this. Lopping out a whole section of content, which you yourself admit has been in the article since 2013, was always going to be controversial. I don't see any justification for your allegation of bias but you can try to explain it there if you want to. If you do, please bear in mind that this perceived bias is not as self-evident to other editors as it is to yourself. For almost a decade people have been looking at that content without feeling any need to remove it. Please try to explain where this alleged bias actually lies. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I am here now, talking, I have no obligation to you and I will "talk" where I please on your talk page because Wikipedia allows me to. If you wish to know where I found bias, to simplify, I noticed that the insertion of the paragraph about "gender dysphoria" above all other related conditions of dysphoria (that are linked, but do not have paragraphs or descriptions) gives too much importance to gender dysphoria (which could give the wrong impression on the psychiatric definitions of dysphoria as a whole). So for example the reader looks at the psychiatric defintion of dysphoria and they're like "oh so dysphoria in psychiatry is mostly about the condition of gender dysphoria, and a bunch of other conditions like major depressive disorder, ADHD, SAD, PTSD, ..."
The amount of time without dispution is a terrible argument. You could firmly belive you're doing something right until someone tells you you're not. It happens more often than not.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here but I'm not interested in arguing with somebody who is already on final warning. You need to stop with the blanking, with the insertion of your own synthesis and with the weird emojis in articles. DanielRigal (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
You must be from those gamergate editors, exactly it's useless to argue with a person with fascist ideologies against political freedom and neutrality JanaMelitzana (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Please do not further sabotage and disruptively edit the violence against males pages. We need neutrality and your anti male bias makes that difficult, especially given that you are just deleting valid sources and links to make the page look weaker than it is and reformulating neutral lines to be more emotional and biased against males. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Violence against men, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.157.37 (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Hardblocked the IP for a month and revoked talk page access. It is not, in fact, a public IP; he appears to be editing from his workplace. If you see more IP disruption or experience more personal attacks, let us know. I will protect that AFD page if I have to, but I'd rather not. Katietalk13:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, @DanielRigal! I recently proposed your article Mia Mulder for the Media-Wiki project Translation of the week. I would really appreciate it if you could vote for it here so that other Wikipedias are encouraged to translate it into their language, especially now that Mulder's been elected as a representative in the municipality. Of course, you can check out and assess other proposals if you feel like it. Thank you in advance and keep up the good work! --Brunnaiz (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. It would be fun to see the Swedish language article expanded. Unfortunately I'm not up to that. I've been relying on Google Translate the whole way. DanielRigal (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Edit war on KF
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
It's a pretty one sided edit war with multiple editors reverting the bad edit. I was considering taking it to the noticeboard. I'll give the Talk page a try first but I don't know how much good it will do. DanielRigal (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Guildford article
Hi
Thanks for the comments on my change. I based the change on the content of the following web page where the image of the front cover shows the “Pictorial” spelling. If the citation in the article must depend on the ISBN record and that has “Pictoral”, then that’s fine.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:DanielRigal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
