User talk:Dave Dial/Archive 2-Old

Archive 2

I invite you to discuss the dead links by clicking above link. --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up the user 69.171.176.173 (contributions) did two edits very similar to the ones by Kelseyxxx15 that you reverted. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, the IP is the same editor as Kelseyxxx15. But I've already reported Kelseyxxx15 to

talk) 05:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see you on Special:ListUsers/checkuser and so am not sure how you know 69.171.176.173 is the same as Kelseyxxx15. Another possibility is the IP editor was someone pissed at you for vandalism cleanup elsewhere and reverted some of your attempts at cleanup. Thank you for your anti-vandalism work. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it's an obvious

talk) 05:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is BLP violations, wikilawyering, and tendentious editing by Tdadamemd. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/ DD2k I was not spamming the pages I was adding relevant information that is not available on any other website government or private. I don't think you took the time to really explore the pages within our voter index area. Every sitting senator or representative has an individual page with how they cast their vote. Example On Passage of the Bill S. 815: A bill to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Vote Date: November 7, 2013 http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=S001141 Jefferson Sessions page. You can go here and see how he voted on 70+ key bills. You my not agree on how we rate the vote but what you should see is the information is relevant to his user page on Wikipedia. I added a citation that wasn't in anyway malicious to the pages I edited.

Each bill on the voter index page on The New American is linked to the bill. The information provided on these pages carry weight and add to the [BLP]. This is how they voted on a specific bill. If the person viewing the page wants to understand the bill all thy need to do is click the bill name that is linked and they view the bill. This is factual information. The above bill in my example is linked to http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00232

I looked up what Americus55 (talk): said Rv - no, this is an non-notable site and has no weight on this BLP

This is a notable website and I disagree with this statement and the information provided is backed up by reliable sources validating the edited I added were reliable sources.

DD2K Please provide me with a link that I can go view all this verified information on every standing senator and representative in one source.

Weight is defined- Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#cite_ref-3

I am asking you review the content within the freedom index and let me know if you feel your still correct and say I am spamming.

If your decision remain unchanged I would like to request this discussion be passed to a moderator. Thanks Jmullinax (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are not many members of Congress that care how The New American/John Birch Society rate their votes. And

consensus

to add these ratings to Congress member articles.

Also, start new threads at the bottom of pages. That is the correct manner to add threads. Thanks.

talk) 16:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My update for Yee's Voting on SCA-5 could be found on http://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SCA5/id/313934

please check for the info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tingtone (talk • contribs) 07:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on your Talk page. Do not keep adding new sections to Talk pages. Thread your discussion by using (::)colons. Thanks.

talk) 17:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Following on from the discussion, CFredkin is now claiming that because the sources he provided on Mark Begich's page were not reliable, completely different sources on Michael Grimm's page are now also "not reliable", despite the source in question being a named journalist and political director. There is a discussion going on at the talk page and your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong about the

You don't owe me any kind of apology whatsoever. I wasn't mad at you, I was just trying to let you know for next time, so there would be no need for a block. You're obviously a constructive editor, and disagreeing on certain aspects of articles is healthy. Good luck, and thanks!

talk) 15:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi DD2K: Your consensus for section blanking at the "Obama" page for Legacy section blanking is being stated there, could you glance at this. FelixRosch (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your outstanding work in unearthing the true origins of Jews and Communism Coretheapple (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

First I wanted to thank you for the outstanding work you've done on

@Coretheapple:First of all, you're welcome and it's no problem. I have had experience with such nastiness before. As for the articles being duplicates, it's hard to say right now, because of the edits by other users. Although some wording is almost exactly the same, and the intent is clear. For example, the Metawiki article states:

In June 1917, the number of Jewish Bolsheviks present at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets was a minimum of 31 percent, in addition 37 percent of Unified Social Democrats were Jews.[3] In the 23 October 1917 Bolshevik Central Committee meeting that discussed and voted on a "armed insurrection", 6 of the 12 participants were Jews. Vladimir Lenin,✡ Leon Trotsky,✡ Grigory Zinoviev,✡ and Grigory Sokolnikov✡ consisted the four of the seven Politburo members responsible for directing the so-called "October Revolution."

While the current

Jews and Communism

article states:

In June 1917, the number of Jewish Bolsheviks present at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets was a minimum of 31 percent.[16] In total, 1090 deputies were registered for the Congress, of which Bolsheviks had 105 seats.[17]

In the November 1917 election, the only free election of this period, Russian Jews voted for Zionists or for democratic socialist parties, rather than for the Bolsheviks.[18]

In the 23 October 1917 Bolshevik Central Committee meeting that discussed and voted on a "armed insurrection", 5 of the 12 participants were Jews. Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, and Grigory Sokolnikov were three of the seven members of the Politburo, an ad hoc organ for political supervision of the armed uprising.[16] This Politburo should not be confused with the "core of the core" Bolshevik organ with the same name established in 1919.

Very similar, and sourced to the same sources. The words were prettied up for Wikipedia, but some parts are exactly the same. I don't have experience in copyright violations, so am unfamiliar with the policies.

talk) 17:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Let me add, the more I look at the articles, the more they are almost EXACTLY the same. Especially the article that was created first, before any other editors had edited it here. Really, almost exactly the same.

talk) 17:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I'd suggest that you raise the issue with Jehochman, the administrator who has gotten involved in this. There is a board, Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and I guess he may refer you there, but as an administrator he can also act on his own. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of raising it with Jehochman myself. This is very important stuff. Thanks again for your outstanding work in rooting this out. Coretheapple (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's an issue of plagiarism, possibly, but it needs further investigation. I think you might want to gather the evidence and post to ANI. The list of Stormfront threads is very important also. If we can't get this sorted simply, I am prepared to request arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I'm not familiar with arbitration, but I thought that was to resolve ongoing and unresolved user conduct issues. Here the user conduct issue seems to have been resolved, unless the blocks are lifted. That remains the issue of what to do with the content, such as it is. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I have to run some errands(shopping and such). I will do some more research though. I will say that either the Wiki 'article' creator plagiarized from Metapedia, or is the main author there. I will try to do what I can, if it's necessary. I would rather the article deleted and relevant portions added to other articles, with the people who created it blocked. Thanks.

talk) 19:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Well you know, I have a hunch that the plagiarism/copyvio aspect, if there is one, may well be at the, or at least a, deciding factor in determining if the article is deleted and if its creator(s) is/are blocked. I went online, blundered around, used some plagiarism checkers to no avail. Just no good at that. So if you can, it would be really helpful. Possibly crucial. Imagine the embarrassment to Wikipedia if it develops that an entire, rather large article on a sensitive subject was essentially created in tandem with a far-right website. I don't think the project can thank you enough for all your work on this. Coretheapple (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I have an issue apologizing, that much is simply not correct. But I actually understand a great deal of what you say (if heated and not exactly AGF), so for that..thank you.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not heated, and am sorry if I came off that way. Honest to God dude, I am not mad. I hope my pointed and linked post doesn't make you think I am too much of an asshole, but I did know it would get your attention. But I am definitely not mad and hope everything goes well for you. Take it easy, and thanks.

talk) 05:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi DD2K. Another recently registered account tried to repeat the same edit on the list page despite the move review. Could you please keep an eye on the page? Best, Middayexpress (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I respect the work you've already done and your position; you could well be right. But I would prefer to be described as struggling to be co-operative or trying to develop consensus (though not the unanimous kind) or well, pretty much anything rather than "collaborative"[1] - especially when I've just been reading Chetniks. NebY (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Sorry, Hoss. I didn't even think about the

talk) 16:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at

Hey is there some legit justification for reverting my comment on the Admin Notice board?--Atlantictire (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just what I asked in my Undo, that it was inappropriate and adds a lot more fire to the discussion than anything else. I won't edit war over it, I just thought you should perhaps rethink about posting that particular image.

talk) 01:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

That's cool. I probably don't have to explain to you how this show of civility and willingness to take at face value Director's claim to have been ignorant of the article's antisemitic origins will result in his continued ability to edit articles on Jews. It's not like he has a history of taunting people about these kind of victories or anything. Yay?--Atlantictire (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea about how most of the editors(except perhaps TFD) involved in this issue react one way or the other. I don't venture into these topic areas much at all. I came to Wikipedia because it wasn't like the BBS, Usenet, IRC, political message boards. Of course, except for in some parts of the project. Which I try to avoid.

talk) 03:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Right. No offense, but this is the problem when people weigh in on things without really knowing who they're dealing with. They assume their generosity will be appreciated and reciprocated as it would with any normal person. I've certainly made that mistake with Director. I encourage you to spend some time in the magical world that is the Jews and Communism talk page if you'd like to find out more about Director's capacity for acting in good faith and being reasonable.--Atlantictire (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		You reopened a close that restored people's faith in administrators. Thank you for your effort to stem systemic bias on Wikipedia. USchick (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, just trying to help get closure for that issue. Take care!
  talk) 04:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks for reverting; I should have read the context. --JustBerry (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I thought it was something like that. That word doesn't doesn't pop up often.

talk) 01:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

as far as i can tell from the edit history, you have NEVER edited the Edward Furlong biopage before.

YET you pop up, 20 minutes after my edit, to revert it WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EXPLANATION.

got a reason for doing that? just wondering...

if you concern was an "edit war", i'd politely suggest that you should examine the page-history more carefully.

this dispute started with user:binksternet unilaterally removing the image, WITHOUT providing a valid reason.

the image was placed on the article over a week earlier by another user, & is not "controversial" or in factual dispute.

it is also one of only 2 images we have of the subject, & is debatably a better photo.

so, i would be fascinated to know your reasons for becoming involved here.

regards,

Lx 121 (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sometimes I read ANI and sometimes I make edits to enforce Wikipedia policy. Check the Talk page of the article, where I posted after reverting you.

talk) 16:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much for catching my mistake and reverting my revert :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem, Hoss. I almost did the same thing when I saw it. It's a strange article with a bunch of examples of word use and misuse. Changing "child" to "chill10d" definitely looks like vandalism. heh-heh
  talk) 15:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just a note to point out that the AfD result was a procedural delete with the note, "At this point any editor (actually in good-standing) is free to re-create an article on Denise Donnelly if they so choose..." VQuakr (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. I want to make sure that editors know what is being attempted here, and that reasonable minds are paying attention. I also not the closing admin stated that any mention of incel should be avoided or brief, cased on months of community consensus. I've only heard of this recently, and don't really want to become too involved. The subject seems like it could be studied by psychology experts, and I'm not.

talk) 05:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello DD2K: Did you see that someone changed your edit on Putin yesterday. Your Grover Cleveland example looked convincing. Maybe you could look at that Page to see what happened. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But...meh. I saw it and the editor who reverted me is having problems right now. In fact, he has been disrupting the project for awhile. I think I'll wait and see and let others debate about how to list Putin. I do think the article would be better if it reflected the same type of info the Cleveland article has, but as long as the basic information is in the article, the listing isn't that important. Thanks again!

talk) 00:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Dave, you deleted my edit on the XOM article which concerned the Gates Foundation being the largest single shareholder of XOM stock. It seems that you somewhere got the idea my edit was stating the Gates Foundation held the most shares of various funds but it only concerned which single shareholder held the most shares of Exxon Mobil stock. I guess it was the rather rambling messages that preceded yours that gave you the idea my edit was about something else but I'm just guessing. Anyway, let me know something.TL36 (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the article Talk page.

talk) 05:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You mentioned Wikia on Jimbo's Talk page, but it sounded as if you weren't aware of this discussion. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I would have liked to include Wikia sites on our articles. Most of the Wikia sites are very helpful to people seeking in depth information on certain characters(game,comic,TV), as well as plots inside games(for example, decision making in RPGs). We do not, and should not, provide such information here at an encyclopedia. Thanks again.
  talk) 16:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

My main concern was whether clicking on the link itself could lead to malware, or if the link was to a place notorious for malware. Obviously, the user in question was clueless as to how to express any legitimate concerns he might have had. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for reverting your edit. Misunderstood edit summary. Warrenkychu (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me wit the editing? I quoted the same sources that were used in web page on Jan Karski but you refused to include them into the web page on Roosevelt. Why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus19771107 (talk • contribs)

You are inserting

talk) 21:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the proposal, I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus19771107 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC) And I must apologize for not complying to the rules, I simple did not know them. Thanks for the help!Marcus19771107 (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your comment about John having posted on my talk page and that you thought this was canvassing on his part. FYI I had actually approached John first, and at the time I was in the process of advising him on how to improve his editing (and we were actually having some success). John has suffered quite a bit of abuse, false allegations and attacks here and few people have reached out to offer him any support or appropriate guidance in perfecting his editing style and instead they just make the problem worse. He was fully entitled to ask me for further advice/input (in fact I'm pleased that he did for once) and his message was simply a part of an ongoing conversation. That said, in isolation it could look like something else, so I fully understand how you cam to the conclusion you did. --Shakehandsman (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DD2K, Your edit suggestion of adding "closely-held" on the president's page for Healthcare looked good and I supported it by posting it with consensus from 5 editors. Another editor has called your edit suggestion a "redundant" expansion and against consensus. Could you take a glance at it. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits made this history section much better. I would put it under "provisional" as the two citations still don't meet WP:Reliable sources, but I am now convinced a reliable source does exists. Actually, that new second source might be, but the link is dead. Can you fix that? Also, that link to the town website is not a WP:Reliable sources, however, the link suggests the information comes from the Brownstone Historical Society. A direct reference to their publishing of this history would likely be WP:Reliable Source, but the town website is not. Anyways, if you have any questions feel free to ask. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't what to get into another dispute about this. My only concern is that the source does not say that they are conservative but that they have the same concerns conservatives have. Whether or not you agree isn't really an issue, because that's my position. So what can we agree on in terms of wording that would satisfy both of us? I'm fine saying they are conservative leaning if there is a source for that. Heck, I'm fine with saying it was founded by conservatives if there is a better source that says so explicitly. So what language would you propose?--v/r - TP 21:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the revert, but haven't had time to fully check out what's going on again. I was under the impression that it was agreed to leave in the descriptor, but evidently I was wrong. I do know this has been going on for the past 6-7 years or so, with the descriptor being there most of that time. I'll have to check it out and see.

talk) 22:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The last I remember on the issue was that it was removed and we went to dispute resolution, we all left comments but the DR volunteer was inactive and the case was eventually archived.--v/r - TP 00:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a significant edit, but I think that reverting my edit to "Grumman Olson" is wrong. I changed "Grumman Olson" to "Morgan Olson" as the company/product name changed more than 10 years ago (2003). These vehicles are not only old vehicles - brand new Morgan Olson vehicles are being purchased by UPS today. Further, the link "Grumman Olson" takes us to the Morgan Olson article. A google search for Grumman Olson does the same. If the term "Grumman Olson" needs to be mentioned anywhere then it's only on the Morgan Olson page as part of that company's history. Dariomur (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• talk) 13:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Didn't see the correction at the time, sorry. All's well, thanks. Dariomur (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I definitely mistakenly reverted you and you must have received that message. Thanks for the messages.

talk) 01:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, you bumped my unfinished work. Now you're obliged to engage on the talk page! No hard feelings, I look forward to continuing the discussion. Womby838 (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not content with the fact that critical theory is already Marxist she adds even more Marxism to it, and is a feminist too. An yes, Marxist feminism is a thing. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also don't remove 12 kilobytes of content to make a point of disagreeing with 2 words. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, do not make mass changes to articles without an edit summary. Most especially, do not add descriptors of people that can be controversial without sourcing. And Talk page consensus.

talk) 04:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

No, do not mass reverts CONTEST THE FUCKING THINGS YOU DISAGREE FUCK. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really hard to remove smething manually? Is it? --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it hard to not sneak in your unsourced anti-feminist bullshit into articles? More editors should keep their eyes on you. You are a detriment to the project, and very much so.

talk) 04:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Lx 121 (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer to closing the ANI out is to completely remove the post. That way no one can say you are altering anything. GB fan 20:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, but I will for sure not be doing that now. It's absurd. The second post was made almost 30 minutes after the first, and as I was reading the first. There is a history here, and those that refuse to look into it and throw mud can continue to do so. The post stays as is. Thanks for the suggestion though.

talk) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You've got some, please reply at your earliest convenience. Worm^TT(talk) 09:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  talk) 18:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yea sure, except I don't need to go to the Talk page to restore sourced material or remove CN tags erroneously placed in the article. If you remove something as unsourced, or place a cn tag, without reading the sources and the source is in the next paragraph, it's like vandalism. Stop it.
  talk) 22:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You'll note if you look at the article that whatever source you are referring to is most surely not in the same paragraph. The last citation is about Udall's golf championship. Then the paragraph ends. If you've found a source that verifies the class presidency, please be so kind as to add it as an inline citation immediately after the information it corroborates. That will help future readers, like myself, who are seeking to corroborate the information via a reliable source. Champaign Supernova (talk)
    • No, you are seeking to disrupt the article and remove any hint of positive information. Everything in an article does not need to be cited after each word or sentence. One of the sources that state that he was HS President is in the very next paragraph, and the others are further down. Once again, read the sources if you want to make changes. ALL of the sources, before you remove something.
      talk) 22:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I don't appreciate the accusations of "trying to disrupt the article and remove any hint of positive information." Please give
        WP:AGF a read. I am trying to improve the article by making sure all information therein in reliably sourced. Udall's high school class presidency didn't have an inline citation or a readily available source I could find. I didn't remove the information, I merely added a citation needed tag in the hopes that someone with a source would come to the article and add it. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if I eat your brain? Just because I don't edit much doesn't make me a zombie account. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Listen
  talk) 19:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Listen you, bud, I've been fighting you damn deletionists before there was GG, regardless of how I've come across the page. I found out about the attempt to get rid of it through KiA, but I've been watching the page since before that. So kindly stuff it. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add that it's the deletionist and special interest attitude at Wikipedia that has caused my reduced editing here, as well. Why bother contributing when there are folks like you to cut and spin everything? --coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • FFS, I'm not a 'deletionist', under logical definitions. I probably have !voted in less than half a dozen AFDs. But I do understand when articles are not articles, but platforms for
      talk) 21:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Hi Dave Dial, I've noticed that you have made a rather uncivil political insinuation about me in your edit summary here. Please respect WP:Civility. This is your second reminder from me tonight, and it appears that I am not the only editor that has needed to remind you of this recently. Wikipedia works better for everyone when we all follow the policies and try to interact constructively with each other. If you have concerns about my edits, I will be happy to have a rational discussion about them on the talk pages, in hopes that we may find a mutually-agreeable consensus. TBSchemer (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not uncivil to state the truth in an edit summary. Your edit summary claiming some kind of "discussion" on the Talk page was misleading at best, since you were the only participant in that "discussion". And your hostility towards the subject of the article is obvious. There is
  talk) 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Oh my! On the principle of "you have to laugh or you'll cry", I shall say thanks for the free entertainment! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yea, that's about the only thing one can do at this point. There are dozens of "seek and destroy" operations. I believe Jimmy isn't purposely causing extreme havoc on the project, but the results are the same. I refuse to even post anything at the ArbCom case, or any of the effected articles, at this point. I just have to shake my head and hope sane people see the obvious.
  talk) 19:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]