User talk:Dave Dial/Archive 4-Old

Obama
Look it up! Either here or on official government sites. Official style for the POTUS, domestically, is The Honorable. The Rigt Honorable is distinct and British. In foreign settings, POTUS is often Excellency  Spartan7W   &sect;   05:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nahh, I think that's bull. I looked on the pages and none of them are sourced, or the sources are dead links. The only source that is listed is from the New York Times(Washington Star 1891) states "HOW TO ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT; HE IS NOT YOUR EXCELLENCY OR YOUR HONOR, BUT MR. PRESIDENT". So I think we need to remove all of the articles that state anything but Mr./Mrs. President unless it's sourced. I'm off to bed. Good night. Dave Dial (talk) 05:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Mr. President is the informal address. If you see here, there are several examples of the usage: Official Correspondence from Speaker John Boehner to President Barack Obama and Formal letter from the New York Bar Assc. to President Barack Obama and Secretary Jeh Jonhson. That article you cited is from 1891, and seems somewhat tongue-in-cheek.  Spartan7W   &sect;   14:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, those are a couple of examples of people using that title, but they are primary sources and using them would be OR. The source I listed is an actual reliable source, and I doubt it was 'tongue in cheek', although it may be if you have a source to back that up. In any case, this is a discussion for the article Talk page. I don't think it belongs there, most especially not introducing Obama. Others may disagree, just bring your suggestion to article Talk. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're saying a newspaper article from 1891, whose author escapes us and the section and context in which it was published is unknown, is "an actual reliable source", but official correspondence between presiding officers of the federal government, isn't?   Spartan7W   &sect;   17:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In short, yes. Any further discussion should take place on the article talk page. Dave Dial (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case accepted
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Obama
I have only one question, did you actually watch the video or automatically assumed YouTube=>WP:UNDUE? Alex (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First, YouTube isn't a reliable source. Second, Alex freaking Jones isn't a reliable source, and linking to a video from Alex freaking Jones from an unknown YouTube schlep is just icing on the cake. You shouldn't be editing any BLP articles if you think that those are reliable to use for BLPs. Now stay off my page. I've no use for Alex Jones conspiracy theorists. Dave Dial (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

disruptive behavior at Talk:Jimbo Wales
Please do not close discussions at other people's talk pages, before that person has even weighed in, with dishonest statements like the arbcom is closed. That's very disruptive. —Мандичка YO 😜 18:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * smh.... Dave Dial (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

RO's indef.
FWIW, EC is not an administrator. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, I know. My wording is screwed up. I just meant admins like Neelix and editors like EC are given every chance, but it seems if you are a pain in the ass and a women, first choice seems to indef. Dave Dial (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of RfC on Eagles of Death Metal at Content Resolution Noticeboard
Greetings,

A discussion of the content dispute about content proposed for the Eagles of Death Metal article, in which you are involved (and named in the RfC) has been opened at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Eagles_of_Death_Metal.23Threats_to_bataclan_wording.

You are invited to participate in this discussion.

Thank you, and all the best.

Ronreisman (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Clippers
Be careful when reverting multiple revisions of vandalism, as it can get tricky. You inadvertently made Curry the owner of the Clippers twice. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw that the first time, and I was reverting to the version from the editor Oshwah, and I must have checked the version before that. Arrgg. With all the vandalism that page has the past week or so, you might want to semi that page for awhile. Dave Dial (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Nevermind, I see you've already done that. Thanks! Dave Dial (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

AN/I discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an editor for whom you have interacted. The thread is Professor JR on political articles. Thank you. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman
Hi there,

You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.

I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Blood libel
Thank you for your comments at Galassi's talk page. I was beginning to think that I was insane, because my correction of another unregistered editor's deletion yesterday has been repeatedly undone by a number of registered editors.

By the way, I'm sure ClueBot undid my edit because of the shouting and profanity in my edit summary.

Thanks again. 66.87.114.118 (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed
''You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.''

The has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

If you insist
If you insist on starting drama I will answer your question without pointing fingers, I wanted to determine if this editor Libercht was in fact a sock of another editor. But that really is has nothing to do with the discussion on hand. If you followed the whole discussion you will see that I was blasted for adding an SPA tag to him, when in fact that editor had less edits than User:Andrey Rublyov who was tagged as an SPA. DGG is an editor's who judgment I trust and he did not wish to be involved, therefore we can see that neither editor is an SPA. I also want to inform you that I was harassed offwiki regarding this subject, but I wish not to include the details of that harassment publicly I hope this answers your questions. Valoem  talk   contrib  01:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what you are talking about, as far as off-wiki harassment, but I'll take your word for the anon email thing. Although I would point out the irony of focusing on the one SPA that voted Delete, while there were at least 3 voting for Keep. Thanks for the note, however. Dave Dial (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't delete comments
You may not have liked where the comment was placed (though I think it was better) but if you must, then move it rather than delete it. Hobit (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's you that should move it. Per Wikipedia guidelines, do not alter other editors comments. You altered mine, so I undid it. If you want to place it somewhere else, I am not stopping you. But do not make comments within mine again. Dave Dial (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To alter implies to change. I changed nothing of yours.  I responded to a point in-line.  That is not at all unusual.  I'm not going to get into a silly "is/is not" argument with you past this, but yeah, I think you were wrong here. Hobit (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed Mohamed clock incident
Hi, You reverted my edit to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. You say it was a pencil box. Do you have a source for that? The photo shows a suitcase. cagliost (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I found a source but it's not ideal. I've moved discussion to Talk:Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident cagliost (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, DD2K!


Happy New Year! DD2K, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Obama citizenship
Hi, you reverted my edit to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories claiming "not reliable sources." But the two sources I linked are not merely backing up what I write but are actually the pieces of work I referenced. Since the fact in question is whether the webpages existed, I'm not sure how to prove this more authoritatively than linking directly to them. Do you know of a way I could write the &lt;ref&gt; to make this clearer perhaps? JamieMcCarthy (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not just that you direct link to those websites, it's that those websites are not reliable sources. Which I do believe you have been told before by User:TracyMcClark here, when you made a similar edit to the same article in 2013. Dave Dial (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if maybe you just saw the domain names on the URLs (possibly via bot) and decided to revert without reading? The claim I stated is that the rumors were propagated in March 2008. For proof I linked to the rumors being propagated in March 2008 -- the actual websites on which the rumors were published and are still published with the original dates. With my reference, I am not trying to say someone on Free Republic *says* the rumors began in March 2008, I am saying that someone on Free Republic *began* the rumor in March 2008. Is there some better way Wikipedia has of demonstrating this? Because if not, then the page will continue to falsely imply that the rumors began in April 2008. JamieMcCarthy (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand exactly what you did, and you may very well be right. But you need a secondary reliable source to put that into the article. You can't use the Freeper site or personal blogs. You need a newspaper, journal or book to cite. Please read WP:RS. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just hard to believe that Wikipedia cites an incorrect, biased Politico story claiming that Hillary supporters started the rumors in April 2008; I correct the page with links to the rumors that actually began in March 2008; and Wikipedia's rules insist the corrected version be removed. I guess Wikipedia's gonna have to stay wrong, then; oh well! JamieMcCarthy (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:ObamaPolticifact.png


A tag has been placed on File:ObamaPolticifact.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Majora (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:TrumpPolitifact.png


A tag has been placed on File:TrumpPolitifact.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Majora (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

please stop hatting wp:truth
it is apparent many wikipedia editors wish to discuss the classification of a political party as left or right. most political scientist reject the left right debate as simple and irrelevant. by stopping debate you and others are insisting on wp:truth as agreed by committee. this is not scientific, nor wikian, we do not establish truth, rather compile resources. as resources are continually updated, so should wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

please retract your accusations and remember to wp:agf. your insistence that you are the arbiter of reality is part of the problem.
edit summary here