User talk:Dave Dial/Archive 6-Old

Archive 6 -- The begining

Lesson Learned

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dave Dial (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have read the guidelines and agree that I violated the rule that was listed. I also agree to not violate the rules again DD2K (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That doesn't convince that you understand what you did wrong.  Sandstein  10:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{Unblock on hold|1=Daniel J. Leivick|2=The reasons are in the deleted section of my old "Talk" page, which I can't view. I have explained a couple times that I understand that the Living Persons Bio rules are there for a reason and that I realize that I violated the editing of Larry Johnson's page,(regarding WP:LPB) and that I may have also violated the [WP:COI] policy, since I was involved in one of the incidents. I don't know how to view the deleted page, or why it was deleted, but the explanations are there. Also, Wiki states that:[1]

Blocking is the method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment.

Something that I believe has been accomplished. Since I have outlined various times that I now understand the rule/s I broke and will not violate them again, any further blocking will accomplish only punishment. Thanks.DD2K (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)|3=Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)}}

Blocking admin contacted. Please await his response. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would unblock, if this user agrees not to edit the Larry C. Johnson bio which caused these problems or other article with which this user has a personal connection. --Leivick (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree to that. Even though I have been a Wiki member a long time, I never had reason to read the rules. I agree that I am involved in some of the LCJ events and shouldn't edit his page because of the WP:COI rules. After being blocked for awhile, I actually went and read about the rules you said I violated. You were right. Thanks. DD2K (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked your account, given your agreement and to the blocking admin's stipulations. You are now free to edit. Via con dios. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this. And thanks to both of you for helping work this out.DD2K (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Good luck editing in the future and don't hesitate to ask for help or advice in the event of any conflicts. --Leivick (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Great catch

Great catch. This certainly isn't the first time he's tried to (1) mischaracterize a study; (2) insert his POV; or (3) turn Wikipedia into an ideological battlefield where he can somehow validate his beliefs. Good save. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blaxthos, I probably erred using the TPM link. It gave those who have a different WP:POV an excuse to alter the entry. But it was the first link in the news that discussed the poll. In any case, thanks again. DD2K (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Perception, not Bias

Please explain why you moved it from perception to bias when the study is about the perception of viewers? It is hard to assume good faith when you are simply blanket reverting any changes without even consideration that another editor can add an improvement. Arzel (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

FNC

Hey, can you review this edit? From your edit summary, it looks contrary to what it sounds like you intended to do... ? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; I agree that there need not be two, nor does it need to go so far as to say "Self described Progressive" when it's uncontested. I think you'll find that SeanNovak is dead set on labelling MMFA in the outset on the paragraph, especially given the NPOV noticeboard discussion. Turns out I was wrong about MMFA's mission, so I'm going to disengage from this point unless there becomes more contention about limiting the descriptions. Carry on, good sir! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, be careful -- "liberal" is not the self-descriptor chosen by MMFA, "progressive" is. This has been a HUGE point of contention in the past. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Tb

Hello, Dave Dial. You have new messages at QueenofBattle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Let me know if you don't need the Tb template. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Dave Dial. You have new messages at Fat&Happy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

03:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Dave Dial. You have new messages at Fat&Happy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

04:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Blog usage policy

Please note that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons disallows the use of blogs as sources for statements about living people. See WP:BLP#Self-published sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Obama claims

I am in complete agreement with you concerning Jzyehoshua's misrepresentations with respect to infanticide, eugenics, etc. Much more of this stuff and we will need to consider filing an WP:RFC/U or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

checkuser

please use checkuser. the only reason i edited the article is to get Bali's attention since am banned from editing his page it seems--Mirroryou1 (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't go against consensus

Obama article discussion-JB50000
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The facts are that he is non-denominational. Don't dumb down to Christianity, Muslim, Hindu broad categories. If so, then say "Obama is the 44th President of a North American country." JB50000 (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC) For Pete's sake, give me a break. You are certainly love to put on this big act and make everything an extreme. Not buying it at all. DD2K (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Please do not follow me around and don't take out useful links. I put in Alex Baldwin and it redirected me to Alex Baldwin (porno). I couldn't figure out how to get to the real Alex Baldwin until finally I found that the famous actor's name is Alec. So please leave the Alec Baldwin link in the porno actor's article. I can see why some don't want the porno actor's link in Alec's article because they don't like the way it looks but the other way around is very helpful to direct traffic to the intended page they want to see. JB50000 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I AGF and accept your explanation of following me only to look for religion forum shopping. No, I am not forum shopping. The religion portal edit was just to get people to help me define the different religions and denominations as the Obama editors are not experts in that field. I am satisfied that my idea of the religion is a reasonable good idea. Even if the consensus rejects it eventually, there are enough people who understand my idea and enough people who support something similar to it. JB50000 (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC) With that out of the way and some kind of understanding reached, can you be my friend? JB50000 (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC) The Original Barnstar Will you be my friend? JB50000 (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Want to start a new article together? JB50000 (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Ok, that's fine with me. The reason I picked you is because I think you're ok. Some people in the Obama article are not ok, in my opinion. Cave in to them and they will think you are weak. I intend to defend the ideas that I brought up but transition to other articles and new articles. Those ideas that I brought up in the Obama article were for article improvement, discussing what the best way to include opinion, how to handle political positions (all of them, current ones, next election, or what?), bring his religion up to the same standard as other presidential articles follow, etc. Some mistake that for being anti-Obama. I can start a new article myself. I have several ideas. JB50000 (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Just as I was slowly exiting the article, there's a new fight. People want to change 12 attorney law firm to small. Small is vague. Nobody is discussing it. Even if I don't like the current version, it seems that it must stay until changes discussed. Small might be considered demeaning because the truth is that the firm is somewhat famous and should be degraded as "small". JB50000 (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your New Twin

Check out DD2010 (talk · contribs), it seems like you've got a new fan. Dayewalker (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

MoveOn.org

Tiring back and forth

Thank you for letting me know that every time I correct the membership box it dissappears. Does not do so on my end. Step 1: MoveOn.org claims to have the cure for cancer. Step 2: The Huffington Post reports "MoveOn.org claims to cure cancer." Step 3: DD2K will post on Wikipedia that "MoveOn.org CURES CANCER!!" Step 4: DD2K will claim it is sourced and needs to be left alone.

That is not how things work. Especially here on Wikipedia. I have left you many pages to read about how Wiki citations should be substantiate. If you have found that other pages here on Wikipedia are done this way than FIX THEM because they should not be that way. Let me ask again, which of the 18 NRA pages is in question? Bikeric (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is cut and pasted from the page I requested you to read. Since you did not, I will post it here.

Self-published sources (online and paper) Policy shortcuts: WP:SELFPUBLISH WP:SPS WP:TWITTER WP:V#SELF

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable.[4]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Where did you find that line of yours? Bikeric (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama break

I have written to an uninvolved editor. I will lay off Obama related pages for 36 hours and probably longer. Longer if you agree to do the same, maybe for half a week. This would be a show of cooperation. 05:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 (talk • contribs)

MoveOn.org

I removed the offending statement about yourself and Dayewalker being meatpuppets or sockpuppts from the MoveOn discussion page. Your welcome. I will not make those statements again without definitive proof.Bikeric (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

About this Recent edit

Mh, guess, we know who that IP most likely is: [2].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That was my suspicion too. Although dealing with that particular user has been exasperating, so I decided to put in a couple references outlining the fact that the organization is considered an organization. It's a trivial matter that the user seems to want to use WP:OR to prove something. Much like the last issue on that article. Keep up the great work. DD2K (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dale Ogden

I am new here and I wanted to get some facts out about this candidate. The problem is there is very little out about him so I have trouble finding good sources, and apparently I can't write a section on his views from his campaign page- thanks, 1penguin30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.146.235 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

List of African American Firsts

I cannot see how my edit does not satisfy NPOV or any of the other policies you have stated. The edit has not been discussed on this page at all, and its inclusion or noninclusion on other pages has no merit as to whether or not it should be included on this page, which is of an entirely different nature than the pages you are refering to. Discuss it on the article's talk page if you will.XavierGreen (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Obama Citizenship Conspiracies - Thanks for the help

I finally feel satisfied. Thanks for giving me an good explanation of why those sources were invalid. That really helps put my mind at ease. Other editors left some very vague, explanations, which was somewhat irratating. Happy editing and thanks for looking out for Wikipedia.

Your request for rollback

Hi Dave Dial/Archive 6-Old. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Tiptoety ^talk 01:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Public Image of Barack Obama

Hi Dave Dial/Archive 6-Old, I undid your edit changing the citation of Clarence Page as being from the Chicago Tribune. This is because though he may be a senior editor etc. at the Chicago Tribune, the article citation and the link given clearly is from chron.com, the online presence of the Houston Chronicle. If you found an alternative reference, then the reference itself should probably be cleaned up. Let me know here if you disagree. --Mistsrider (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought you just made a mistake, but if the reference is to where the link is directing, then it was I who made the mistake. I know Page is a syndicated columnist picked up by various media outlets, but his main job is columnist and editor or the Tribune. In any case, I agree. Thanks for the clarity. DD2K (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Response

I was not convassing. It was nonpartisan and unbiased. I'm trying to get a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Nothing biased, just trying to get more opinions.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• The user is now mass canvassing other editors to get the results the editor wants. That's not true at all. I'm simply trying to get more opinions so we can get a compromise. The invitations I sent out were nonpartisan and not biased at all. I don't understand why you have a problem with me sending out nonpartisan messages to get more opinions. Why do you have a problem with that?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR

I think that was the #5 revert by you today. If you revert the last one, I won't report you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I would withdraw the 3RR notice, but I don't know the proper etiquette on the page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Obama's Stimulus

Read this article: [3]. Although the CBO does disagree. We should include all of this information in the article.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The term African-American

African-American is a term denoting cultural heritage for American slave descendents. Obamas heritage is Kenyan. The ancestors arent the same, so I disagress with your view that "one does not has to be descended from slaves to be African-American". Culturally you may be right but ancestrally you are incorrect.68.34.12.93 (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You may disagree with me, but the fact is the overwhelming number of sources disagree with you. African American denotes Americans who are decendants from Africa, especially those of Sub-Saharan ancestry(1,2,3). Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and verifiability, not personal opinions. Also posted on you IP talk page. DD2K (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I don't see the duck. Can you be more specific? Toddst1 (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Since I've quoted you here, I thought I should pay you the courtesy of letting you know. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama Vandalism

Someone is vandalizing the Presidency of Barack Obama section. Thanks for your help! Cmguy777 (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I see it, and have undone the edits. I think. Someone needs to report the user as a sock. The exact name of the sock is on the Obama talk page. I am working right now, or I would file a report. Dave Dial (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Increased protection on this page is possibly warranted. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help re: disruptive edits

Duchamps comb has repeatedly removed sourced material from Rand Paul without discussion, and then began disrupting Paul's talk page by introducing misleading quotes. Duchamps posted this on the talk page:

"and its registered team only has one ophthalmologist" --[that entry is wrong because] Paul has had over 200 other Opthamologist re-certified by his NBO. --Duchamps_comb MFA 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In reality, the sentence said:

"its [the NBO's] registered team only has one ophthalmologist, Paul himself, listed in the annual filing submitted to the Kentucky registering agency."

Additionally, the source is a document that Rand Paul penned himself! When asked to cease the removal of sourced information in the article without discussion, Duchamps declined. As you've dealt with Duchamps previously, regarding similar actions, I believe this situation would benefit from your help. The Original Wikipedian (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I know almost nothing about Rand Paul and am not very interested in that article. That particular user does have a penchant for linking to sources and claiming they state something they do not, but I don't wish to get involved in issues I have little knowledge or interest in. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OR

This is not OR. I am not disputing your decision to remove the entry, but please be more accurate in your edit summaries. This is essential to preventing unnecessary irritation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You Owe Me An Apology

Will you apologize to me? Ikilled007 (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SORRY. It is better to wait for an apology instead of demanding one. –MuZemike 22:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been wrong before and will surly be wrong again. Obviously I was wrong here, and I apologize. And I mean that. Dave Dial (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That is very big of you, and I appreciate it, and all is forgiven and forgotten. Thank you for being a stand-up guy. Ikilled007 (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Obama - Muslim Registration

I just looked at this article for the first time today and made my edits based primarily on what I found in the cited source. I searched the archives (which are substantial) to find any discussion on this, prior to making an edit, and couldn't. If there's a consensus on this... could you point me to the discussion?

It doesn't appear that either source says that kids are registered by their fathers' faiths. One says they often are, and the other says Obama was. I think it's misleading and to suggest that this was the standard - absent a source for that.

Also, is there a prohibition on using an external scanned document as a source (as opposed to a direct link)? It would seem helpful to the reader to be able to see the document (which appears to be undisputed).

Thanks.

John2510 (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Kilpatrick-Cox photo

Fair enough, solo cox picture it is. Thank you. Jeff_Jeff_Yo

That Cox and Kwame picture is 100% LEGIT! No photoshop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Jeff Yo (talk • contribs) 17:32, September 13, 2010

ESaid/BObama

I don't know if I can ever meet your concerns, nor you mine, but I've given it another try here.

Thanks for your interest. Here's hoping! Swliv (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hogwash

Speculation concerning Mike Cox's Assistant Attorney General's motivation for his highly unusual behavior is patently relevant to a discussion stream there. The story has generated a national following and the Attorney General is a politician who may or may not be pursuing a political agenda. If Mr. Shirvell were motivated by closeted self-loathing (as the other writer speculated based on physical and audible cues from his national interview) and if employment decisions were being made to pacify an anti-gay policial base all of it is of prime interest to readers of wikipedia.--Fpetes (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Do not post bullying warnings to attempt to censor speech that you do not like based on your rigid policial deficiencies. Who do you think you are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpetes (talk • contribs) 14:38, October 5, 2010

Barack Obama Presidency

Hello. I think we should add somewhere in the article about the results of the elections in 2010 and the Republicans retaking control of the house. I couldn't figure out where else to put it or I would have put it somewhere else. Where should we add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politics2012 (talk • contribs) 16:38, November 8, 2010

Sorry about that. I started a discussion on the Discussion page of the Barack Obama Presidency article. Please let me know what you think. talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

Can you help me fix something?

Hello. Sorry to bother you, but could you help me fix the infoboxes on the article Randy Hultgren. The names in his various office boxes are too far over to the right and it just seems all messed up. Thank You! Politics2012 (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama (polls)

Closing edits from obvious sleeper sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, DD2K. Could you explain, why you dislike RCP. After all, it includes data of all major polls and has individual poll results, besides the average one. It also includes links for every individual poll. So I think there is nothing wrong with it. Sasha best (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC) You see, I wanted to update approval rating data in the main article, as it is rather outdated. Ii doesn't include Gallup poll results. If you insist on using Gallup, I'll add Gallup poll results. Is it all right? Sasha best (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I am afraid you are wrong. According to Gallup, his current approval rating is 43%. It is a significant change compared to 49% and I inisist on mentioning his current rating in the article. It won't harm anyone after all. Prooflink: http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

re: Go Daddy edits

Thanks for pointing that out. The last time I reverted the edit I hesitated about giving a final warning, but I went ahead and did that after reading your message. I wasn't quite sure what they were doing. Dawnseeker2000 02:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

More eyes needed on Talk:Health care reform in the United States

Hello,

An IP editor has been aggressively/passionately arguing for an addition to Health care reform in the United States about how the individual mandate is a bill of attainder which is apparently illegal. The IP editor tried to edit war in the addition then went to the talk page to continually push the point. I and another editor asked the IP editor to provide sources for the criticism so we could work on it and see if it should be added, but all we got continually were law excerpts, supreme court rulings, etc not directly on the bill from the IP editor with his/her interpretations of those excerpts. When the IP editor did finally proved a good source, we wanted to see if we could write something, but the IP editor reverted back to their previous pattern of excerpt quotes and interpretations.

I was hoping for a couple more eyes on the situation so that something good can come of this because I'm getting to my wits end and I don't have the time for the continual back and forth. Like I stated on the talk page, if it can be neutrally written, then it should be added.

Thanks for taking a look. Brothejr (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflicts birther article

Sorry DD2K - I did not see your reversion of my edits, I was in the middle of making additional edits, posted them with a section cut and paste and the edits were accepted with no indication there was an intervening edit. So it looked like a re-reversion, but was not. I then saw your revert, attempted to correct and acknowledge, but you had already intervened again. There is presently a very long upload for changes, and that could be part of the problem.

To address your point about changes to captions being discussed earlier, I did not see this when I read discussion page yesterday, but am in accord with your statement that I should check them out and seek consensus after finding and reading the discussion.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem , KeptSouth, that happens here frequently. heh. The captions for both of the images have been much debated. For the most part, what has been decided is to refer to the Factcheck.org source to describe the Obama birth certificate(after many, many discussions on the article talk page), and there is a long discussion for the caption for the other image too. Thanks for the note. Dave Dial (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful response pointing me to the archives. I was going section by section and made it up to archive 9 but this search is helpful. I will spend some time on this later. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

FRC

I take exception to your reverting the wikilink. From WP:RTP, "As a rule, editors should not edit each other's comments in ways that affect meaning." How does the wl affect the meaning of PRBeacon's comment? Lionel (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You can take all the 'exception' you want to. If that editor wanted to link to your little project, he would have. You have no right to alter his comment at all. Period. Dave Dial (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Tarcccc

I indeffed the account & deleted the edits, good catch. FYI (to answer the question you put on the AIV page): AIV is as good a place as any to report those incidents. You could also try WP:UAA, AIV is probably faster response though :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the other place(WP:UAA) I was thinking of, thanks! But you're right, AIV is pretty fast and the admins that patrol there do a great job. Thanks again! Dave Dial (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Buffalo Butt" on Good Times

How can you say this information shouldn't be there? It was a commonly used nickname. I think people know the man better as "Buffalo Butt" than anything else.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just cleaning up the article due to vandalism, and saw that and thought it was unnecessary too. I've watched the show many times, and he was called "Buffalo Butt" derisively by the Evans family many times. But he was also refereed to as "Booger" and other derisive nicknames. I just thought it was not needed in the casting information(as well as being not encyclopedic), and still do. I left the sentence that did describe the nickname. Dave Dial (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see that one reference to the name did get left in. I guess you're right. I had forgotten 'Booger" until I did a search, and I also saw that Willona called him "Buffalo Butt", which I had forgotten. I guess it's fine the way it is.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the messages. Dave Dial (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Odd

Isn't it odd how just a few lines above this, you wrote "You have no right to alter his comment at all" in ref to PRBeacon's words, yet find the need to aid PRBeacon in altering someone elses. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't see the difference, that's your problem. It's explained for anyone that has a sense of Wiki guidelines. Dave Dial (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, and yours it the only "sense"....now I understand your problem. Thanks for clearing it up. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, re this revert, the source says, "This line was developed in a series of papers by John R. Seale, MA, MD, MRCP, a London physician. Seale's explanation enjoyed a semblance of being hard science by virtue of the publication of his papers in very respectable scientific journals, including Nature and the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. On close examination, however, these papers turned out to be letters to the editor and highly speculative opinion pieces." Five publications are listed on pages 188–189 of the book; they include 2 letters to the editor, and 3 papers. A response to one of these can be seen here. Could we work on a better wording to summarise this? I would like to have this point in the article, following the reasoning of the cited source. Cheers, --JN466 15:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

For reference, the papers were these:

• Pathogenesis and transmission of AIDS,
• Kuru, AIDS and aberrant social behaviour,
• Origins of the AIDS viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2: fact or fiction? Discussion paper.

--JN466 15:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That is still one individual that is making claims that have been thoroughly debunked, in the very sources provided. I would liken it to Snopes or Factcheck.org citing Orly Taitz making claims about Obama's birth certificate. In any case, the wording I removed wasn't a revert, the text did not state what the source described. If something is added that does fit, I would guess it would be appropriate. Dave Dial (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the source is describing a historical situation; in the early 1980s much about AIDS was still very uncertain. Of course the claims did not hold up to scrutiny, but at the time, they were discussed. Here, to compare, is what I wrote, and what the source states:

• Me: "In the mid-1980s, some writings along the aforementioned lines were accepted for publication in a number of respectable scholarly journals, lending a degree of scientific credibility to LaRouche's ideas."
• Source: "This (LaRouche's) line was developed in a series of papers by John R. Seale, MA, MD, MRCP, a London physician. Seale's explanation enjoyed a semblance of being hard science by virtue of the publication of his papers in very respectable scientific journals, including Nature and the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. On close examination, however, these papers turned out to be letters to the editor and highly speculative opinion pieces."

I thought that was a reasonable paraphrase, given that the article states, three sentences further on: "The proposal was opposed by leading academics, who argued that it was 'based on patently inaccurate scientific information' and ran 'counter to all public health principles.'" We don't need to state that twice in close succession.

The best wording I can come up with to address your concern would be this:

• "In the mid-1980s, some speculative writings along the aforementioned lines were accepted for publication in a number of respectable scholarly journals, lending these ideas a superficial veneer of scientific credibility."

Would something like that do it? As a last resort, we could just quote the source: "a semblance of being hard science" --JN466 16:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why we would add anything about it, really. It was one person, Seale, who doesn't have an article here and doesn't seem notable. Not to mention any of the sources put forth are to either debunk Seale or criticize him. Dave Dial (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The LaRouche movement managed to get a referendum off the ground on this in California; this bit is part of the narrative in the source leading up to that. There was an agreement on the talk page that there should be more about the AIDS thing; this is what was in the source. <shrug> --JN466 19:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Could I ask that this discussion continue on the LaRouche talk page? That would mean others would see it and could join in. Also, does anyone object if I copy this there? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any problem at all with it being copied to the LaRouche talk page, it belongs there as a content dispute. Although I don't really have much more to say, the portion I removed was because it did not fit what the source stated. Dave Dial (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll copy it. You were right to remove it, because the source made clear these were not serious papers; it's being discussed on the talk page, so I'll add this there as a sub-section. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Citizen Grand Jury

Hey Dave,

There is no where that mentions the actual term citizen grand jury. It is given rise from the interpretation of the fifth amendments use of Grand Jury. In order to add information, one must continue off of this interpretation. The Supreme Court cases that I posted are clearly referring to it to be interpretted as a citizen's jury, which is the reason it was mentioned in the first place. How are you supposed to add information to a speculative concept without drawing these connections? Appreciate the help. Burkeew (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Using Twinkle to edit war

Don't. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify this for me? I never use the Rollback feature to revert any edits that are not 100% for vandalism, but I do use "Restore this version" along with an edit summary in cases where it's questionable. In this case, I saw this edit reverting Muboshgu on the Barbara Boxer article. Which lead me to believe it was Rodchen editing from an ip again. Upon further investigation, I determined it was not Rodchen, but a different ip that was reverting the edits of Muboshgu on a few different articles. Removing what I believe to be consensus templates and wording. So I then compared versions and restore them to the previous version, in several cases. I did use the "Undo" feature in one instance where the wording seemed better, but it seemed to me that the ip was just reverting Muboshgu for reasons other than content(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9), and could be considered vandalism. I'm not really interested in the other articles, but I also want to make sure I am using the tools correctly. I want to make clear that I did not use any of the "Rollback" features here, either from granted permissions or from Twinkle. But I did use "Restore this version" while comparing edits. If that is incorrect usage here, I apologize. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm more concerned by your use of it at Radiohead. If you want to get into a content dispute, that's your prerogative, but you should do it without the aid of any extra tools or permissions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess that answers my question on where "Restore this version" is the same as using Twinkle-Rollback, but I am definitely not in a content dispute at Radiohead. My impression was there is persistent vandalism on that article, including from the ip in question. Who it seems has been adding a Wikilink to England on the article since February 7, 2011. And then whichever user removes the wikilink, the ip then goes and reverts numerous other edits from that user on other pages. The ip has done so with WesleyDodds(1,2,3,4,5),Snoop God(1,2,3,4) and then Muboshgu(1,2,3,4). So it sure seems when the preferred wikilink the ip wants to insert into the Radiohead article is taken out, they then go and revert other edits by that user in retaliation. As for a content dispute, if there is any on the Radiohead article, I don't want to be involved. It was my impression that editors were trying to keep the page up to Wiki guidelines and an ip was vandalizing the page, and then retaliating against editors who removed their edits. I won't bother using the "Restore this version" tool in cases where there are not a clear intention of vandalism again. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Upon (much)further consideration, I have come to the conclusion that HJ Mitchell was completely wrong in this instance. The community has decided that is no longer a need for a Twinkle "blacklist" and that Twinkle is just an easier version of the "Undo" feature. Also, this is an obvious case of an IP that was reverting other editors in retaliation for reasons other than content. So it seems that HJ Mitchell was incorrect on all aspects here. Dave Dial (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama BC image

Oops! Thanks. That was me; must have replaced both images when I restored the caption to the other. Every time I decide a change is too minor to (p)review, I get burned. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha! No problem. I wasn't sure which edit did it, but I thought it must have been accidental. Thanks for the note. Dave Dial (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediation around Abortion articles location

After the latest move request has landed up with about equal numbers for both sides I've started a mediation request. Please indicate there if you wish to participate. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A proposal has been made to rename the two abortion articles to completely new names, namely 'Opposition to legalized abortion' and 'Support for legalized abortion'. The idea, which is located at the Mediation Cabal, is currently open for opinions. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• In response to both of the above notifications, I have left my views on the renaming of the articles here, and agree with the proposal. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What a joke

You make a personal attack, then leave a template on my talk page about personal attacks? WP:DTTR. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

NPA

Please desist from further personal attacks. You have now twice resorted to them and I have not nor will I respond in kind. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack? Nah, just an observation based on the history of your edits to the conspiracy pages. If you believe otherwise, you're welcome to take it to the proper venue. Dave Dial (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at AN/I regarding your POV tag deletion. The thread is Newly placed POV dispute tag subjected to multiple reverts. Thank you. — JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny. How'd that work for you? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by not reporting your edit warring on an article that is on probation, which giving your past penchant for disruption, I should have known better. Using tags to continue an edit war is considered the same as reverting. Next time, take your objections to the Talk page without the extra drama. Dave Dial (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 24, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

A cookie for you!

Hello DD2K! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism patrolling

I just declined your report at WP:AIV for User:Micmacpattywac. First, the user hasn't vandalized again since their final warning, so I can't block (blocking is only to prevent disruption, so if the person has stopped, there is no disruption to prevent). Second, you can't warn the editor the way you did. That is, looking at the time stamps, you spotted one piece of vandalism the user did, and gave them a level one warning--that's fine. Then, I presume that you checked the user's contribution history, spotted more vandalism, and reverted that, which is also fine. However, you can't give escalating warnings for each of those pieces of vandalism. Basically, you can't give another warning until after the user vandalizes again after receiving your warning. The point behind escalating warnings is that you're saying, "Hey, I told you what you did was bad. Now, seriously, listen, or things will get worse."

Let me be clear, though, that I am not criticizing your work--anti-vandalism is absolutely vital to the project, and your help is extremely appreciated (I used to do it myself, with both Huggle and Twinkle, though I don't have as much time for it now as before). I just want you to know how the system works so that you can be most effective in the future. Keep up the good work! Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it's a vandalism only account. Not an ip. And it's an account that made 6 straight vandalism edits over 5 articles. I don't have the time to babysit the account, but you can be sure more vandalism edits will follow. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but eventually. And the problem is, the edits being made aren't easy to pick up if one doesn't know the subject of the article. Sneaky vandalism. Which erodes the value of the project. In any case, I get your technical reasons for not blocking, but I've seen accounts that are obvious VOAs blocked before they made 5 edits. Cheers. Dave Dial (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's true, I could have made that call. Personally, I like to see at least one piece of vandalism after at least a level 1 warning, although if the vandalism is also offensive or BLP-violating, I'll dispense with even that. I guess the main thing is that you can save yourself some time--no need to add the additional warnings, because they don't change how an admin makes their decision. One thing I sometimes do is, if I tagged someone with a level 1 automatically but then noticed a bunch more vandalism, simply replaced the level 1 with a level 4 and a personal note saying that it seems like the person is only here to vandalize, so, you know, no more warnings will be forthcoming. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey Dave. In case you haven't checked/noticed, you shouldn't need to worry about that particular account vandalizing again; Materialscientist indeffed it about four hours after your warnings. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea it popped up on my watchlist last night, but thanks Hoss. I'll mark this as advice taken and a mental resolved. Done heh-heh Dave Dial (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

drugsarebad

Just a note that since the kerfuffle happened to be right at the top of my watchlist when I opened up WP a few minutes ago, I acted right away and blocked that user for 2 weeks. I also made it very clear in the block notice that if the behavior repeats after the duration of the block, next time it's indefinitely. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Q(hope it's ok to refer to you by that), 2 weeks should be enough time to file a CU at SPI and get the account indeffed. It's an obvious sock of some sort of long term vandal. Take a look at this edit I made at Fred's Talk page. Dave Dial (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see pre-existing article talk page section on "progressive stack" material you reverted

Thanks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please keep these discussions on the appropriate Talk page. Also note, a reference to a partisan blog isn't appropriate for a RS concerning that article. Dave Dial (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No kidding

Now care to show the secondary sources so you haven't left OR in the piece. I haven't seen them yet. BTW, I get what OWS is about, but just cuz I think there is a link, actually, I'm pretty damn sure, it doesn't excuse OR pushing. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, DD2K beat me to it, thanks (; B^e——C_ritical 04:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - The sourcing is there. Organizations and such get the benefit of the doubt to define themselves, unless contested by reliable sources. In any case, I've been busy and don't have a lot of time to discuss. Plus, I'm only mildly interested in the article. Good night fellas, and good luck. Oh, and thanks Becritical. Dave Dial (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm why?

"No, not an rs or close" - what it mean?

My insertion of: "The 200s Aristide presidency was supported by gangsters(from slums part of Port-au-Prince), which even showed they faces and were talking about during it in mainstream movie." was not based on my political views( I am really non related to politics in Haiti or other, and it gives me an objection view) - it was just true, as far as it possible - this document look real, and basing on other source it is.

I think the violence in Haiti is basic condensed in this document. Maybe it may be written better for wikipedia standards - but it still actual in some way, even that it was made some years ago. I will undid revision, and please find another wikipedia redactor, and consult Your delete. Maybe if style is not good please take another better wikipedia writer to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.70.254 (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

no vandalism

Please do not remove sourced information from the Obama article.

Please do not be sarcastic by saying "For Pete's Sake".

WARNING

Thank you. Jack Paterno (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

POV

Could you please explain to me where on this page it states that the consensus of corporate cable news, where individuals of a certain political persuasion which I will not name get nearly all of their information, trumps any other form of media?--Cyrrk (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You are going to have many problems on Wikipedia if you believe those sources aren't reliable, while at the same time trying to cite blogs and conservative talk radio. Please continue any discussion of this on either your Talk page(I have it watchlisted and will see your response) or on the appropriate article Talk pages. There is no reason to keep replying to me on my Talk page. Let this be the last time, on this issue. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

You sent me a warning saying that I had vandalized. I haven't vandalized anything or edited anyone else's comments on talk pages. Show proof of even a single instance where I have edited someone else's comments. It would be a great help if you could get your facts straight and stop accusing people of things they haven't done.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You are constantly altering other editors comments, both from your account above and the ip you....use. Proof? One, two, three, four, five, six. And that is just in the last 24 hours or so. I've not checked your previous edits. If this happens again, we are going to have to take this to WP:ANI. Enough. Dave Dial (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you insane? Those were all ME editing MY OWN comments. Is this a joke? Get a life. And don't act arrogant to me, fool. "feigning ignorance" "enough". I have had "enough" of your idiocy. What a waist of my time.--Jacksoncw (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is going to be stupid enough to fall for that bullshit. The warning is there and valid. Do it again and this is going to WP:ANI. We are done here, do not bother responding. Dave Dial (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Jacksoncw, DD2K is right--it's completely obvious that in every single one of those edits, you added your own comment, but at the same time changed one or two words in other people's comments. That's clearly deliberate disruption. Maybe you don't know how histories work, but we can see who makes each single change, and in every one of those, it's clear that you are changing what other people write. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Qwyrxian, it didn't occur to me that the editor didn't realize we could see his edits. I thought he was just messing with me/us and feigning as if he didn't know we could see the edits. In any case, here we are. Dave Dial (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Why would I do that? What possible reason would I have for removing the term "African-American" from Rewinn's comment? That doesn't help my argument or support me in any way. Also, Dave accused me of being a "serial offender" when there are only two instances of that happening to other people's comments, they both happened yesterday and I honestly don't remember doing either of those two things. They are also both pointless, minuscule edits that don't support me in any way. No, I know that you can see history, there is a giant View History tab at the top, and you can see it in archives and I am not trying to hide anything or "feign ignorance". I think my computer might have glitched or something because this has never happened before and it doesn't make any sense.--Jacksoncw (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently still somewhat accident-prone. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. The user also made his first edit after the warning by Qwyrxian by removing the word "African American" from Qwyrxian's post. This is obviously some sort of game for the person. So I looked at more edits. The user started removing other editors comments last December on the Mexico Talk page. Then continued on the Christianity Talk page(1,2,3, 4, 5). The last one was restored and a warning was issued. The editor obviously has a problem with race and homosexuality. This isn't some "computer glitch". As if anyone is naive enough to believe that. There is a definite ANI case here. Dave Dial (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Dave Dial

You know you've 'made' it on WP when someone writes an article about you! Too bad you don't seem to have E-mail activated, I was going to send the text to you. I do have a copy but it's not very complimentary (nor is it profane though) so I won't post it here for your amusement. It has already been deleted will probably be deleted before you log in again, so you can contact an admin if you're interested in what it says, or I can post it if you like. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 01:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks 220 of Borg. I saw the page after it was tagged for CSD. I thought it better if I just let others handle it. I have to say, it was somewhat amusing and gave me a chuckle. The most concerning issue is that you stated I don't have email enabled. I thought I did, went and checked my preferences and it shows I do, but could there be a glitch or something? It should be in the toolbox. Also, great username. I just watched "The Captains" last night, it was pretty damn good. Gotta love Bill Shatner. Thanks again. Cheers. Dave Dial (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Toolbox:"What links here/ Related changes/ Upload file/ Special pages /Permanent link/ Expand citations" are all I can see no "E-mail this user".
• But I have "Twinkle" activated and it does appear there (Tenth item down in the User menu. Easy to miss). Didn't even think to look there, originally! A bit new to 'twinkling'.
• The username was a bit spur of the moment as I had been/am editing on a static IP for over 2 years, and decided it was an auspicious time (11/11/2011) to get 'assimilated' into the WP 'collective'  :). I had a little trouble getting what I wanted accepted (too similar to existing users), and forgot about a few really good ones that I had been tossing around. So thinking of 7 of ⁹, 8-D, I became 220 of ^Borg. (I must remember to drop BorgQueen (talk · contribs) a note. My Queen, my Queen!)
n.b. (P-| Borg Emoticon from myemoticons.com - 220 of ^Borg 04:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh the irony

You hatted a discussion about hatting discussions. I know from your earlier comments that you won't understand how bad that is. I can move on. I just hope that one day you and others like you with such closed perspectives can too. Good luck to you. I genuinely wish you well. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, quite the irony. Since this accusation is yet another claim that isn't correct. I did not hat any discussion, though I perhaps agree that it should be hatted. We don't need to feed the trolls. And yes DENY-Do Not Feed The Trolls is about Trolls, as well as pure vandalism. To the other editors who posted in your thread, the trolling was obvious. But for some reason, you seem unable to see it. I count 5 other editors in your thread trying to explain this to you. I hope that you understand this isn't anything against you, only long time editors trying to keep trolls from overrunning articles. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)