User talk:Dave Dial/Archive 1-Old

Approval rating
It would be cool to break down Obama's approval rating by group but perhaps more appropriate to do so on another page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbata80 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is an article for it, but I can't find one. I searched Wikipedia for an article about in depth polling about Obama, but none turned up. Despite there seeming to be every other kind of article available. I then searched for an article about George W. Bush, and the same criteria, but there isn't one for him either. The articles we have now are comparison articles and polling averages/updates, but no in depth breakdowns. Someone can create their own article, but it would have to be reliably sourced and presented in a neutral manner, without original research and synthesis. Good luck! Dave Dial (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool. I'll start by creating one page and see how it goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbata80 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Plain English
Agree. You covered all the important bases at Civility enforcement/Evidence. -Buster Seven   Talk  18:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I think many are not going to like the blunt language. In any case, I knew that wading into that drama-filled mess was not without it's drawbacks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As the case clerk, I've tried to keep all contributions to the various case pages as constructive as possible; in these two edits you posted what appears to be just a rant; as such, I've removed it. However, since I believe the essence of your comment may be material to the decision of the case, you're welcome to rephrase it. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's priceless. No. I'm not rephrasing anything. Dave Dial (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me also state that those comments were on the case Talk page, and directly relevant to the case. Discussing the case and my opinion on the proceedings. On the Talk page. What you describe as a "rant" is just one editors opinion. That you feel the need to alter or remove another editors opinion on the Talk page is something else. It's not like I called other editors a "cunt" or something. Unbelievable. ArbCom should note the tactics used here. Dave Dial (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you believe I acted inappropriately, then by all means ask Arbcom to review my actions. I believe I did what had to be done. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 19:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Never expected THAT drawback, didja? Its like a movie. A B movie!--Buster Seven   Talk  20:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. I have to say I didn't expect to have my comments removed. I thought the idea of a Talk page for the case was to let editors express their opinions on the case. I wonder how many comments, on the main case page or any of the other Talk pages, by Malleus and those defending him were deleted. I have a strange feeling a bunch of kids on IRC are having a laugh or too. A plea for those to not act as if Wikipedia is 4Chan is treated in a typical 4Chan manner. Oh well, I was never much of a drama board participant. But I do vote in the Wiki elections. As far as the Pistons are concerned. Woe is me. heh-heh. I don't know what the organization expected. Their big off-season moves were to re-sign Stuckey and Prince, and add Dom Wilkens little brother. Pathetic. I do look forward to watching Brandon Knight, Greg Monroe and Jonas Jerebko play together. Sans that, I probably wouldn't watch a game this year. Dave Dial (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

XCentristFiasco
Hope you don't mind, but I merged your 3RR report with mine, since I posted one a few minutes before yours! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind at all. Yours seems better presented in any case. heh Dave Dial (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The 3RR helper tool makes reporting edit wars easy, although it does leave out a few items. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh. Thanks, Hoss. Dave Dial (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Natural born citizen
Hi Dave. I do not understand why you deleted the subsection "US Supreme Court". Can you please explain? It is odd that there is no such a subsection in the discussion!Buenavista2008 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI complaint
I complained about you in ANI. You should be blocked.

If you do not like my edits, then rationally discuss them.

When you do not discuss but yell "sock", it makes you a bad person.

My suggestions to the article are very good. For example, making the introduction chronological instead of jumping back and forth in time and to eliminate House and Senate details not relevant to Mr. Obama and instead include new details very relevant to him, like his move to eliminate a bad provision of Obamacare that would have required hundreds of millions of 1099 tax forms to be issued.

Please stop being a bad person and think about how to work cooperative with others. But you win. You have proven to me what I already knew, that Wikipedia is flooded with bad people hell bent on an amateurish encyclopedia-wannabe. Please try to be a better person. Midemer (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Amazing - you haven't changed a bit. Tvoz / talk 08:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the complete craziness at ANI(1,2) and the SPI case, I agree it's amazing. Amazing this sock isn't blocked yet. I'm not all tat active right now, so if Wikipedia wants to allow this troll to disrupt it's pages, that's too bad for them. You don't have to have experience in behavioral science to see the obvious. Dave Dial (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Too true - and it is exactly the same person I dealt with ad nauseam in the last election cycle, 2007-2008, who was more than mildly disruptive, and eventually banned.  But, he's come back multiple times, and this is him again, I am sure. (Good to see you, anyway - it's been a while.) Tvoz / talk 17:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi
I do not understand why you are reversing my edit.

I am referring to this:"(cur | prev) 10:19, 30 March 2012‎ DD2K (talk | contribs)‎ . . (48,855 bytes) (-539)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 484642938 by 129.2.64.165: rv - This is not acceptable --ip seems to be trolling. (TW)) (undo) "

Please assume good faith.129.2.129.220 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Simple. And it states the reasons why in the warning I gave your other IP you're editing from. You cannot make defamatory claims about a living person. And no, tabloids aren't reliable sources Dave Dial (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thankyou for taking the time to do this.  I am very interested in this policy.  But, you must trust me, I am not trolling.  I have just read the policy and it seems like you are incorrectly interpreting the policy.
 * "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
 * None of my contentious material has been removed immediately and I have not violated this policy "persistently or egregiously." But, thankyou very much for making me aware of the policy.129.2.65.60 (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a minor=That much more leeway
If it's not a privacy issue in a news article, it should not be a privacy issue here on Wiki. In a juvenile criminal case, US law forbids the publication of the person's full name, and requires that court transcripts be secret. Despite her psychological issues, however, as Paula Jean Little is not a minor (she was 39 in May 2011, probably 40 by now, exact date of birth not given), we should therefore have more leeway than in the case of someone under 18 in similar condition or similar trouble with the law.

I understand that different countries have different privacy laws, but in the USA we have some leeway as long as the person is of age. Although Wikipedia is a private site, we should interpret our own privacy policies with respect to the law of the land in whatever country the person in question is a citizen; such is only fair. An entire article on her would indeed violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a news site, but not so a subsection, being conservative coverage as referred to in the opening paragraphs of WP:BLP. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I probably wasn't very clear, and in no way was trying to bring up laws(US or otherwise). It was more of a Wiki guideline, plus asking for moral compassion for the lady and her privacy. Dave Dial (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was also talking about Wiki guidelines, laws being an interpretive framework and nothing more. A whole separate Article on her would violate WP:BLP, but not a short subsection. As sentences or small subsections in Articles about some broader topic, it is OK to post "conservative" (short and to the point) material about a person who isn't particularly famous. Consider just any person that isn't encyclopedically notable on their own (not warranting another independent Article about him or her, that is).
 * Furthermore, the only things that can violate privacy are personal details not previously published. This is by definition, since already published material is not private whether it's on Wiki or not. That said, all privacy violations on Wikipedia are also violations of WP:NOR. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Obama Approval Ratings2.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Obama Approval Ratings2.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 14:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible interview about Palin/Revere edit war in June 2011
My name is Sara Marks and I am doing research for a masters thesis at Fitchburg State University. My thesis has to do with resolving conflicts on Wikipedia entries and I am focusing on what happened to the Paul Revere entry after Palin's comments last summer. I have been going through the archives and would really like to talk to you about what happened after her comments, especially your part in it. I want to get a better idea of what happened and your thoughts on the resolution process. You can get back to me on your talk page, my talk page or via email at librarygurl at gmail.com. I can also answer any questions you may have about my thesis. I look forward to hearing from you. --LibraryGurl (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I would be happy to help, although I don't really remember the exact sequence of events from almost 2 years ago. My recollection is that much was being made about nothing. There didn't seem to be a concerted effort to change history, although there did seem to be an editor or two that wanted to massage the facts to fit Palin's error. Most of the problems arose from those who claimed the article was being changed to fit Palin's version, if I remember correctly. Dave Dial (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your memory may not be perfect about what happened. Many of my questions will be general and I can provide you with referenced sections in the archive for specific questions.  I have a list of questions that I can email you, but first it would be best to start with my informed consent form. --LibraryGurl (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why did you remove my posts.
Hi, within every political representative, there is a link to that person's page for the sites ontheissues.org, project vote smart, and a number of other for profit sites. I posted a link to another political site that actually provides more information about the candidates and you removed the link and accused me of spamming.

Can I ask what the basis is for claiming that the site I linked to has less merit that the other sites already linked under the profiles?

The wikipedia external links guidelines states:

Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

The site has a great deal more information than the sites already listed as external links. This includes video and voting records that don't fit into the article. I don't see why it is any less valid than the links already present.

Thanks for you help. If I did something wrong in the way I posted it, let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The ut tick (talk • contribs) 23:56, April 25, 2012‎

DRN notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Ted Cruz". Thank you.  Equazcion  ( talk )  04:46, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I replied there just as it was being closed. I think that reply should answer any questions as to why the links were removed. Thanks again. Dave Dial (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've started a discussion regarding whether ThePoliticalGuide.com is appropriate for the external links section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#ThePoliticalGuide.com Arbor8 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. Dave Dial (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Balance
You have asked me not to post about the global lack of balance of an article. You have also hatted and closed my discussion of this in the Obama article. I ask you to self revert these actions. To quote Wikipedia policy on Balance:

Balance Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

Nothing in this policy requires that the balance discussion be limited to a single sub-issue. Therefore, the global concern should be fair game for discussion. Thank you.

Thank you. William Jockusch (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, and your assertions are not correct. I hatted your giant wall of text, but left your intro and sig. I also never wrote anything about some perceived "global lack of balance", and your reading of the passage you are quoting from is distorted. Much like the rest of your accusations. This all seems very familiar, and I won't spend too much time answering any more of your misplaced accusations. Dave Dial (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, let's look at the policy on "Wall of Text": The wall of text is a disruptive noticeboard and talk page tactic where an editor attempts to shut down discussion with a mass of irrelevant kilobytes. Not all long posts are walls of text—some are nuanced and thoughtful—but when an editor responds to a cogent complaint with a post that looks like a short novel, the odds are good that it's a wall of text. Remember, the more you type, the less people will read.  So, I will concede that my post was long, but I still believe it was perfectly relevant.  I would also note that it definitely did not shut down discussion; quite the opposite.  Lastly, I will note that if you are going to accuse someone of distorting something, it would be respectful to say what you believe they are distorting, and how.  Otherwise, you give an appearance of simply wanting to accuse the other person of something, for whatever reason.  I'm sure that's not what you intended.William Jockusch (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua sock puppet comments on my page
Still trying your old tricks at starting an edit war by deleting discussions on the talk pages, huh? Don't you guys have anything else up your sleeves than musical chairs edit warring attempts? Pathetic. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Josh, you were topic banned and block indefinitely for a reason. You don't simply get to edit from an IP address to bypass your block, you have to ask for an unblock of your account and prove that you will not exhibit the same behavior that lead to your indef block and topic ban from Obama related articles. Which would have a fat chance in Hell of being accepted now, since you are socking from an ip and doing the same exact things that lead to your current situation. Dave Dial (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV". Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard/ regarding your recent edit warring and unreasonable deletion of well-sourced edits. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama#UNDUE? Has to be a mistake
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. – Lionel (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

sock puppet
Do you think the user MJKingofMusic is a sockpuppet of Rockosteve and Drugsarebad89?Jpcohen (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely. I've been waiting until I had more time to file a SPI, but the edits are all the same. The infobox cramming of all that trivia is a dead giveaway. I'm still busy right now, about to start dinner, but if the account is still around I will file a SPI tonight. Dave Dial (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Info Box
please stop changing MJ's info, all the associated acts have collaborated with him either in live perofrmcane or on songs, michael was also called the king of pop, rock and soul by elizabeth taylor and from then on by his fans. if you want any evidence of my edits then just ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJKingofMusic (talk • contribs) 11:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
hey man, you need to check your facts. saying that michael forged a reputation for being a touring artist. his two tours in the 1980's were hugely successful. Michael and his brothers put on a show like no other at that time. When he came back with the bad world tour, he broke numerous touring records, this tour still remains one of the most successful of all time. while his other two tours dangerous and history were great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJKingofMusic (talk • contribs) 16:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Info Box
Hey man, could you please tell me why you keep changing Michael Jacksons other known aliases. He is not called Michael Joe Jackson, and yes he is known as the King of Pop, Rock & Soul. This title was given to him by Elizabeth Taylor and was adopted by his fans from then on. Please refrain from changing it. Thank you MJKingofMusic (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice
I'm glad you beat me to this... I laughed and laughed and laughed. That guy is malfeasance incarnate. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And yea, he may as well have sent an 'investigator' to Iceland to investigate the coming invasion of Wooden nickels. Dave Dial (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please Help
I am not a sock puppet. I'm knew on Wikipedia, i edited an article a few weeks ago and after that i got an account. I don't know what to do about this, i recently received an e mail saying that someone else was using my IP address on Wikipedia which doesn't make sense as i'm the only user on this computer. Please tell me what i should do.MJKingofMusic (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding recent reversion
Hi there, please be advised that your recent edit to Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama was undone and a discussion has been opened on the talk page. prat (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are making fringe innuendos on Living persons articles. You should self-revert before this goes any further. Dave Dial (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Æðð (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh Dave
Oh Dave, always bringing along your troublesome, inconvenient facts to a debate. :)  John Shandy`   • talk 15:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha! Well, many times facts get in the way of thinking in a tunnel. One can call themselves anything they want to, but sources and self-identification seems to be the policies around here. Our friend should see - Conservative coalition. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Kurtz National Review article about Obama and the New Party
This discussion may involve you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&pe=1&#Stanley_Kurtz_National_Review_article_about_Obama_and_the_New_Party William Jockusch (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please reconsider
MART2012 is a unique person, and not a sock puppet. We have views that are sometimes the same, and sometimes different. It is not fair to punish her for inserting the same main stream news link (along with the proper and tested URL, title and author coding) about a topic we discussed. She is no one's puppet. It was her choice. Please consider restoring her account. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetcafebooth6 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account and that account are ✅ to be sock puppets of each other by a check user. Even without a CU, it's blatantly obvious you are the user of both accounts. Saying my 'little brother/friend/roommate' did it is a common defense. Someone else may believe it, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. And I can't restore any blocked account in any case, nor can I block them . I'm not an administrator. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: User Talk:SkepticAnonymous
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASkepticAnonymous&action=historysubmit&diff=505920610&oldid=505844099

Also, I left a note on WP:ANI. If none of you can see the corruption involved in Dennis Brown closing a discussion involving his own misbehavior and the larger misbehavior of admins, I certainly can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.84.153 (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral notice of an RfC
A Request for Comment has been posted for an article on which you have been an editor. If you wish to comment, go to Talk:List of African-American firsts. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Proper and Improper way
There is a proper and improper way to dispute anything on Wiki, including bias information on a talk page. You were highly improper in your remarks. I removed mine.

Please, remember you are not an administrator when you speak to editors here. Incivility is blockable for your information. Mugginsx (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the proper and improper procedures of Wikipedia. You don't have to be an Admin to remove inappropriate comments. It's up to all volunteers that care about the project to do so. If you feel that I have been uncivil, please take it to the appropriate board. Otherwise, keep your comments constructive and don't cast empty threats at other users. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidentally you are not aware of Civility guidelines or you would know you were and are yet again uncivil. If you knew me you would not call them empty threats but more of a serious advisement. Mugginsx (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidently, you don't know how to spell evidently. And like I stated, if you think I've been uncivil, take it to the appropriate board. Don't post your empty threats here again. Any further silliness will be removed. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please remember that while everyone can and should warn others and police ourselves for civility, sometimes editors tend to over do it. I think you did that on at least one occasion. Please remember it does not help a dispute to begin another.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: John Link
Hello DD2K. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of John Link, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''none of these reasons apply. "Professor of Music" is a claim of importance.''' Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Contesting a recent revert
. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC) 16:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)}}

POV, etc.
Regarding your recent threat here to escalate a matter to Requests for comment/User conduct, feel free. My POV on this is that you need to to try to keep your POV under control. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop revising New Party (United States)Article -
You're a Marxist-Leninst communist

My references

Committees of Correspondence of Democracy and Socialism. (Marxist-Leninist) http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/New_Party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegadeviking (talk • contribs)  10:35, February 22, 2013

Joseph McCarthy edit summary
At the Joseph McCarthy edit summary you wrote the following:

"Undid revision 543592648 by LesLein (talk) No quote on claimed source, nor page number referenced"

In fact, you did not undo my revision, you merely removed my Kennan information and moved Kennan's name to an earlier paragraph. I provided a quote from the claimed source. I also provided a page number, 457.

You indicated that Kennan was a conservative latter-day author and commentator. Actually, Kennan was a diplomat, a very important one with a lot of knowledge on the subject.

In brief, nothing in your edit summary is true.

You should read the Edit summary help article. It says: "Avoid misleading summaries."

Thank you for your time. LesLein (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
I've mentioned your name at Dispute resolution noticeboard.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Awards lists in play articles
Based on your past editing activity, you may want to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

2012 U.S. Presidential election
I keep changing the total on the 2012 US Presidential Election because that link from the FEC is OLD. '''4 states have since amended/updated their vote totals since that link you keep posting was finished. The states of New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin have since UPDATED/AMENDED their vote totals since that link you keep posting was done.''' I will continue to change it as long as you keep posting that OLD LINK from the FEC. The link I keep posting is from Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report. Wasserman has been keeping track of the vote totals and updates of the vote totals. LarryDavidfan38 (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryDavidfan38 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Some would consider the .Doc file used by Wasserman not to be a reliable source, or original research. You aren't supposed to remove a reliable source because you don't like it. Wasserman's .Doc is probably correct, but we can wait for someone to either get Talk page consensus to use it, or the FEC to become up to date. We don't need to have an edit war because of a small percentage of votes are not reported yet. Dave Dial (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop changing it, I told you FOUR STATES HAVE SINCE UPDATED THEIR RESULTS. LarryDavidfan38 (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply to warring warning
Hello Dave ! I have answered Your warring warning at my talk-page. Please also have a look at the talk page of the Nazism article, if possible. Please. I smell possible sock puppyting N-HH and TFD. And also "Page owning". And at talk page of N-HH others have made accusations that N-HH sometimes logs in, and sometimes not. I did actually defend him, giving him "the benefit of the doubt". And since, even if I have auto-login in use, after editing other Wikipedias it doesn't work. However I belive him/her to be a native speaker of English, which makes it less likely that it's whithout intention, I think. TFD seems to wright the same as N-HH, just using a more intelligent tone. I'm not sure of sock-poppeting, but cannot rule it out eighter. (I'm from Scania, southernmost ex-Danish province of Sweden. When editing I always use a dictionary, at talk pages more seldomly. I may sometimes misspell word in Swedish by pressing wrong key. It's actually more difficult to discover misspellings of your own, than of others. Hope You understood this.) I also want to add that I always before have avoided warrings. But this case is different, I do not find the opponants thustworthy, TFD seems to "own the article", or atleast its lead, I've already made my comments on user N-HH. Best reg Boeing720 (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User Saddhiyama
I think this person, that now has reverted several attempts to acchive a solution, but that do not participate at the talk page at all, now also ought to get the same kind of warring-warning, as I did get. Possible others aswell. But Saddiyama only makes edits / rejects edits in the lead, without explain himself at the talk page, wher I now atleast begin to see a possible solution. Sorry to have bother You again, Dave Boeing720 (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN/I discussion notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (An SPI?) --Shirt58 (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. As for SPI, I've grown disillusioned with that process. The last few sock puppets have done the same exact things as this one(opening ANI threads about me as soon as I see they are socks-- DD2K needs to be blocked for incivility and attacking & Dave Dial should be immediately blocked), but nothing is ever done. In fact, the last SPI I filed I was accused of making the report in bad faith. In my opinion, anyone that can't see these are the same person trolling Wikipedia, isn't competent to work at SPI, or maybe even be an Admin. The accounts also don't edit long after being found out. Probably in order to keep IPs stale. But thanks again for the notification. Dave Dial (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Miguel Cabrera
Thank you, it was an error. and i didnt know how to go back.

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannyxtorm (talk • contribs) 19:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the 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 find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:RealClearPolitics. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — v/r - TP 20:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anarcham (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem with another editor
I appeciate what you did and I have problems with User:75.90.232.5 and User:75.146.15.253, who have made the same inappropriate edits to Freestyle Music Park. I have asked for oversight of my user page.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, I saw the edit on that article and was in the process of reverting that too, but you beat me to it. It's difficult to steer editors who have no desire to follow Wiki guidelines into the right direction. Especially when they make edits like the soon to be oversighted one. Good luck! Dave Dial (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to get into a 3RR situation. I haven't seen what the person did because I don't have sound on my computer and my Internet is too slow to watch videos anyway. It could have been valid journalism and appropriate for the article, except the person was obviously promoting himself. Then he goes and accuses me in an edit summary of promoting myself. I have no connection to this park beyond the fact I used to enjoy shopping in the mall that became its offices, much less a fictional story about it, but I seem to have become the self-appointed protector of the article.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, YouTube is not a reliable source anyway. Plus, the video seems as if it's some kind of poorly made satire. In any case, it does not belong in the article. Dave Dial (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your statement should be on the talk page then. I decided to give the person the benefit of the doubt for the content of the source rather than the edit itself.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

talk page
Please stop deleting my talk page edits. They are civil, and belong out in public to gain information if an SPI is warranted. I am neither going to keep silent, file an SPI immaturely, or conduct a back-of-the scenes investigation, which are the alternatives you would leave me. There is no intimidation, I am not telling H not to edit. If you continue to delete my comments I'll file a report for WP:3RR and talk page violation. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh....You do not have those options. If you feel filing an SPI is immature, you should know that making the accusations on an article Talk page with no evidence is even more immature. Goof. Dave Dial (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Selective enforcement
Did you know that earlier this month Pass3456 changed my New Deal talk page comments, removing a new section and scattering its contents? That's what caused the problem you complained about when you reverted my later edit. If you had been consistent in enforcement, the whole problem never would have occurred and my edits wouldn't have been lost.

The New Deal article has some conspicuous original research waiting for you to remove them.

There is also a fringe theory if you check Supreme Court jurisprudence on constitutional rights. LesLein (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

My account
I am using this account for school project, so please don't indef block it. Ef alt (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Both accounts blocked for 1 week for block evasion. Canterbury Tail   talk  16:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, I figured when he tried to CSD the page it wasn't going to end well. I tried to give him a warning on the alternate account to just stop, without reporting the Socking. But.... Dave Dial (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Claims he needs the account to edit his sandbox for school, but made no attempt to edit the sandbox. And the last edit to it was... not exactly school appropriate. Not buying it. Canterbury Tail   talk  19:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, I don't understand the guy. Can't you edit your sandbox while you're blocked anyway? I was trying to give him some leeway by not posting to his main Talk page, because I know when an admin sees block evasion that's it. Instead he flagged admin attention with a CSD. So yea, this doesn't make much sense. Thanks again. Dave Dial (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Feel free to ping me if you feel the need on this. Just in case something comes up that I don't notice. Canterbury Tail   talk  19:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Thanks and keep up the good work. Dave Dial (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)