User talk:DanielRigal/2020

Re: EmilyReed2020 Edit To Emily Reed (Singer) Wiki Page

Hi Daniel, thank you for your recent message re the edit that I made for my wife Emily Reed. I think there has been a mistake as the Wiki page is promoting Emily as a Singer and there are indeed already accepted links in the 'references' section taking interested users to other references about her. I presumed that adding a link to her official website would be allowed as it is her official reference of her services? Any advice gratefully appreciated :-)

Many thanks,

Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyReed2020 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Martin. Let me explain why I removed that link.

1. It goes to a specific page on her site which promotes her as a wedding singer and seeks business. This is not normally allowed. To give you an example of a much bigger business being treated the same way, we don't use Amazon links as references for the same reason.
2. Your username implies a conflict of interests and made it seem more likely that the link was promotional. You need to be careful to stay within the rules on conflicts of interests, which means avoiding any promotional editing, and you may also want to change your username.

So, that's not great news but you are right that there is no harm in having a link to the top level of her website. It is not ideal as a reference, as it is a primary source, so I have added it as an external link instead. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Correction to the name of Milly Meadows

You say my correction was not sourced, but I AM the source. Born in St. Andrews Hospital Billericay in 1952. I lived in Langham Crescent till 1964 (Bottom of Bell Hill, previously known as Mill Hill) and then Hickstars lane until 1971. I played there as a child, especially the winter of 1963. It is named Mill Meadows and was called Milly Meadows after the Mill that was situated there. I am providing First hand local knowledge and defy anyone to correct me. The term "mini meadows" arose out of mis hearing Milli as Mini. Even the official name is Mill Meadows for heavens sake. Is it not obvious from that that my correction should stand?

Amstacey (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. You see, we have no way to verify what you say. Now, I'm not saying that I don't believe you, but we need to only have content that we can prove, and other people can check, is validly sourced. This is our only defence against the huge numbers of hoaxers we get. It also avoids arguing when people don't agree about something and there is no proof of who is right. This is why we have the policy against original research. If you know of any books or other reliable publications that cover it then that is a different matter but, as it stands, we can't use it based solely on your say so. Please don't take this personally. I had pretty much the same experience when I was new on Wikipedia. It seems rough but it does have to be this way or we would quickly be up to our eyeballs in a mix of correct and incorrect details with no way to tell which was which. Sorry. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, where is the citation confirming the name "mini meadows?" Wasn't that someones opinion? At least I am providing a source.

Amstacey (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• hi Amstacey and DanielRigal have just removed mention of Mini Meadows from lead as article sources don't mention it, unable to find anything that does (please see article talkpage). kitten stalker - meowr! Coolabahapple (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi {{u|{Coolabahapple|talk]]) and DanielRigal We have had this discussion on the Billericay memories page on Facebook. Both names were and have been in use. Milly meadows is what it was always known as when I was a child and certainly some people (younger than me) knew it as mini meadows. It appears to be an easy explanation. The official name is Mill Meadows. Logic states that children would refer to it as Milly meadows, however, very young children, will find it easier to say mini, rather than milly, hence the name was miscontrued over time. I'm in discussion with the history group to see if they will provide the citation you require, as my personal memories appear not to count. Amstacey (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amstacey: No, claims of personal knowledge do not count at all. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I need a Coach

Ref Magnavisions User:Magnavisions

please i need your assistance on an article i which to edit but am having difficulty with the sandbox and i do not want to violate any community rule . i wich we could talk outside of wiki Whatsapp or Email thanks.

Sorry, but communication off-wiki is a hard no for me. There are people who can help you here. It is better to ask them. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for message

I didn't realize sourcing was required, but will add sources from now on to help with the legitimacy of my edits. Thank you for letting me know Lives4Christ (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That probably won't help much. We don't have an article about Keeper of the Lost Cities so the individual characters are unlikely to be worthy of mention. A source helps with verifiability but not always for notability. If you think about how many books exist, and how many characters they all have, you can see why we don't want these lists to get too long and only want to include major characters from major books. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, Some I added probably weren't necessary, but the one I added to Sophie was the main character from a very popular book series. I'm actually surprised there isn't an article for Keeper of the Lost Cities Lives4Christ (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Lack of source

We're done here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Good evening, I would be grateful if you could provide a source to back up your comment ‘clearly not connected to the labour party’ as without one it seems like an inappropriate thing for a site administrator to say? I appreciate the reason for some of my post being deleted and accept that and in time look forward to the source being provided and the post being reinstated, however in the mean time I would be grateful if you could restore what I did provide a source for as she is company director... I think people may be surprised on the rest perhaps do some digging for yourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:7603:FD01:B1D2:AACE:38E:3878 (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Daniel's not an admin (I am though!). It's your job to provide sources for any info you add, don't even suggest that others should look for them for you. Taking a quick glance at the article Jayda Fransen, I'm seeing plenty of sourced information about her being a member of various far-right groups (such that even the Conservative party wants nothing to do with her). You even cited a source (although WP:PRIMARY) that says she's in a group that is not Labour (which even this American knows is not far-right). If you continue to suggest that she is in Labour without arriving at a consensus on the talk page (based on professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources), you may be blocked as a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC) as an admin you must realise that saying ‘this American knows’ is not proof, I find this highly disappointing... as previously stated I appreciate the reason for my post being deleted and I accept that... my gripe is the clear conflict of interest going on here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:7603:FD01:B1D2:AACE:38E:3878 (talk • contribs) It is not for me to provide sources that prove a negative. There is nothing to connect her to the Labour Party at all. She is a Fascist and a former senior member of a proscribed organisation. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that Labour, or any other mainstream political party, would touch her with a 10 foot pole. That edit was clearly and probably deliberately untrue. The bit about this company she seems to have set up might be true but it is not notable unless it is covered by reliable sources. It stays out of the article until then. Also, I am not an admin. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Momentum article

Hey Daniel, thanks for the revert. I never know quite where to flag up early signs of IP vandalism but I'll let some of the more recent editors on that article know to be wary of our oh-so-hilarious friend and take it from there :) doktorb _words^deeds 22:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You realise that there is a clear difference between blatant vandalism or trolling, or in this case posting prematurely without a source... but time will of course tell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:7603:FD01:B1D2:AACE:38E:3878 (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

LED Art

Unproductive kvetching
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Explain to me how those artists are non notable --2A02:C7F:9034:AE00:DDAA:DDD7:11C0:152B (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Look them up especially that Strober, they are very underrated and deserve more attention --2A02:C7F:9034:AE00:DDAA:DDD7:11C0:152B (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC) That is not how it works. The onus is on the person adding content to demonstrate notability. Please stop before you get blocked for spamming. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC) What so this is isn't a free internet, someone disagrees with you, must be harassment or spamming. Get over yourself I see through your fragile male ego bollocks --2A02:C7F:9034:AE00:DDAA:DDD7:11C0:152B (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC) This isn't about me. It is about your behaviour. You called somebody else a "wanker" in an edit summary. You are promoting (i.e. spamming) your favourite artists. You need to stop abusing Wikipedia and insulting its contributors or you will be stopped. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC) It's not spam if it's good art --2A02:C7F:9034:AE00:DDAA:DDD7:11C0:152B (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit

Please pardon me for being frank, but I believe the vast majority of the people clicking on Tom Ellis' Wikipedia page are far more interested in obtaining genuine information, then becoming richer by utterly boring biological facts. If I were a famous human, I definitely wouldn't want people to read about my life as if that of the first president of the US. Luckily I'm retired so I won't inconvenience you. You may cross out the 'bravely', you humans might regard that as emotional. Also, if Wikipedia were a serious site only edited by sophisticated and professional intellectuals, please tell me how is it relevant information that Joe Gilgun lives in the middle of a forest? Other than, of course, asking for autographs. AJcrowley666 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant. Please do not make improperly referenced joke additions. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: edits to the Inflation page

Please don't edit pages where you are not an expert or have done proper research. You do not know the definition of the word inflation. Leaving the old entry causes harm to society by misleading the public into thinking inflation is rising prices. It is not. Inflation is an increase in money supply. Rising prices can be caused by inflation. the term "inflation" is related to "expansion" prices can't expand or contract. Prices go up or down, and that is different. Prices increase/goes higher/ or decreases/goes lower. Money supply increases/expands/inflates or decreases/contracts/deflates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightside (talk • contribs) 13:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

LOL. Sorry but, no. You can't gaslight me that easily. I may not be an economist but I do know enough about economics to know that there are multiple competing views about inflation of which yours is relatively fringe. It is already covered in the article, as it should be, but it does not get to supersede the other, more general, definition or the other, more mainstream, interpretations. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If you admit that you don't know anything about economics, why don't you do some research before making incorrect edits. You are causing harm to society by misleading them to the causes of price increases in their lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightside (talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I said I was not an economist. I do know a little about economics. I am quite certain that I know more than you about inflation as you completely refuse to even acknowledge that there are multiple views about it. This is indicative that you have done absolutely zero research so please do not try to stand on credentials that you don't have. You seem to have read a couple of very biased sentences about inflation and assumed that that is all there is to it. You are incorrect. The Monetarist view of inflation is only one of several and does not get priority in the opening. We do discuss it, in detail, but we can not elevate as the primary viewpoint because it simply isn't the primary viewpoint. You need to stop editing the article as this is becoming disruptive.

Inflation is fundamentally defined by an increase in prices, not the money supply. An increase in the money supply is one of several possible reasons for a rise in prices. it is widely agreed that a large increase in the money supply will typically cause inflation but there is no consensus that all inflation is caused in this way. In fact, that is a fairly fringe viewpoint which is not taken very seriously by mainstream academics even if it has a small number of adherents. If you get your economics from PragerU, or other sources that push the monetarist viewpoint, then you might not know this. Please try reading a bit more widely. The references used in the article might be a good starting point.

Once you have had a chance to gather sources and think about it, you are welcome to discuss any changes that you would like made on the article's talk page if you like. If you are right, and I am wrong, then there will be people there to back you up and I will look like an idiot. (Hint: That won't happen if you persist in your current line of argument because the academic consensus does not support your current position.) --DanielRigal (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a controversial topic. The meaning of "inflation" is to expand. And the original meaning of inflation in monetary terms is expansion of money supply and credit. These are facts I am telling you. I assure you I know more about economics and inflation than you do. Why don't you take some time out of your busy day and read up on these things I am telling you. Maybe go to a library and look up a dictionary prior to The Federal Reserve redefining the term to suit their policies. Open a book. Here is an article to help get you started to enlightenment. https://mises.org/library/defining-inflation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightside (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a controversial topic. Economists have been arguing about this for decades. You can't credibly pretend otherwise. You need to stop edit warring before you get blocked from editing.

The Mises Institute is entitled to its interpretations and opinions but they are opinions and not facts. There are multiple views of inflation. Theirs is one but it is not the main one. Please stop trying to insist that your preferred interpretation should have priority over the academic consensus. You do know that most economists disagree with it, at least in its most hardcore formulation, right? Keynsean economists do not agree. The Marxists do not agree. All sorts of other people do not agree.

We already cover Monetarist viewpoints, in considerable detail, on Wikipedia. We even have a separate article on Monetary Inflation. This is as it should be given that Monetarism is a notable economic theory. Even so, it is not the only notable economic theory and it is not for Wikipedia to uncritically endorse it. Just as we don't endorse any one religion as correct, we don't endorse any one economic theory as correct.

If you want to advocate for an economic theory then Wwikipedia is not the place to do it.

Please, please, please consider using the article's Talk page. That is where we can have a discussion with multiple participants and discuss improvements to the article. That is your only way forward here. If you don't stop blasting your opinions over the top of the existing, well referenced, article content then you will have to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. Please don't make that necessary. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Small question

Hi Daniel, I read your comment on the Breadtube talk page, and you refer to RSes a number of times (ex. That is for the RSes to decide.). What does that refer to? (I keep getting stuck on pRimary Source but I'm guessing that's not it.) ReneeWrites (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I was being lazy by not linking to it. It means Reliable Sources, i.e. the sources we can use as valid references. In this case that mostly excludes things like Reddit posts, Tweets and YouTube videos. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Current Affairs / BreadTube

Hi there, I left a link to the Current Affairs youtube channel so I am not sure why there is resistance for including this particular entity on the BreadTube article? Here again: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSmOl7Hau-YX2VKfz1CMAZQ/videos - and this brand is clearly mentioned under the BreadTube banner. Officially Mr X (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

We can discuss this on the article's Talk page. That way other people can give opinions, not just the two of us. I've already made a suggestion there.

I will just say that a channel with <30K subscribers is very unlikely to merit inclusion on the bulleted list even if there is RS for it as BreadTube, which I don't see at present. We can't just add our favourite channels to the list. I removed several of my own favourite channels from the list for being too small for inclusion. I'm not picking on you here or trying to hold you to a higher standard than myself.

What you can do, if you want to, is add some content to Current Affairs (magazine) saying that they have a YouTube channel. If you can find an RS reference for it as BreadTube then that might be enough to get it mentioned in the BreadTube article, although probably not on the bulleted list. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Harold Eric

Hello, I've been doing a bit of digging into the Harold Eric article and the associated sock puppetry case and I think I've figured out what's going on.

As noted by other editors at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zachary_Neil_Tarnopol it appears that CanadianBBQ is an undisclosed paid editor, which also explains why their contributions mainly consist of a random collection of poorly sourced articles on non notable politicians, companies and youtubers. I believe that CanadianBBQ was paid to created the first version of the article, probably by Harold Eric.

When the article was published to Wikipedia I think Harold has then contacted his friends from his musical career to improve the article, evidenced by Derekbeagle mentioning that he received an unsolicited link to it here. This would explain why the sock puppet investigation came up negative and how a new user found an article about a non-notable actor so quickly.

Thoughts? Does this sound crazy? If you agree do you know how to report undisclosed paid editing? I don't know how to do it. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

What you say is possible although I don't think we can be sure about the details. The sockpuppet report seems to be having a positive effect as it remains open while the possibility of meatpuppetry is investigated (and also it found a sockpuppet, just not the one I expected). I'd be inclined to let that run its course but, if you do need to report UPEs in future, the instructions are here. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I've sent some private evidence to the email address in that link, and left a message on the SPI page, thank you for your help! 192.76.8.82 (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

No point arguing with vandals
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Poorly sourced citations? The citations news articles based on the official CAS report. https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_Semenya_ASA_IAAF_decision.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benc0lins (talk • contribs) 15:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC) Well, that took less than 30 seconds to prove to be utterly untrue: Click the link. Ctrl-F. Search for the word "hermaphrodite" in the document. Fail to find it because it isn't there! Please do not lie to me. Please do not assume that I am an idiot who can not check very basic things like whether a certain word actually appears in the source that you attempt to attribute it to. Please do not attempt to reinsert your abusive edit using the offensive and outdated term "hermaphrodite" or any similarly offensive variation. If you do, I have a clear receipt for your obviously intentional dishonesty right here so you don't get any further assumption of good faith. You get reported and, almost certainly, blocked from editing. Please just give up your pathetic grudge against Caster Semenya. Go edit some other article in a constructive and non-abusive way if you want to stay on Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC) There is no grudge against Caster Semenya, just a passion for the truth. It would appear that the only grudge here is being held by yourself towards me! :( Please consider:- I didn't claim the word "hermaphrodite was in the CAS report". I claimed that the findings of the CAS report (46 XY DSD) are referred to in the medical sphere as "Hermaphrodite". I provided separate citation to show this. You claim that hermaphrodite is a derogatory insult. I think I've shown that it is an accurate term that is still used today in the medical world without any sense of the perjorative. However, in an effort to placate you, I modified my text to bring the focus back to "Intersex" and then qualified the term with the "46 XY hermaphroditism" definition, so that it is clear that the term is meant as a condition and not as a label / insult. The term "Cis-Gender" is a divisive term as it assumes one accepts Intersectionality - a hotly debated topic. However, given the reader accepts the term, it has to be applied as is meant. i.e. Cis-gender meaning someone who's view of their gender matches their biological sex. This is patently not the case with Caster Semenya. The fact that you won't accept that gives me serious concern. Wikipedia is better if we stick to the facts. Do not let your agenda cloud your judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benc0lins (talk • contribs) 16:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Help to me

Hello again :), I want to improve Wikipedia and add resources, how can I find pages that need improvement?. And what should I add to these pages? ItsObjectiveee (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that you missed out on the standard "welcome" message on your User Talk page. I've added that at the top. That has lots of helpful links. I hope that will help you to get started. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User talk:157.52.2.37 Edit to Patty Hajdu (Canadian politician) Wiki Page my

Hi Daniel, my edit to Patty Hajdu's Wiki Page was not defamatory. I hold a PhD from the University of Toronto and I am former professor of political science at the University of Ottawa. Hadju has been criticised by some pundits as being unqualified for her different Cabinet roles, and some media attacks on her intelligence, after she stumbled in an interview with the Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal. After this interview, Hajdu was featured in The Hill Times, where the article referenced Hadju's I.Q. and literacy test she took as part of the employment insurance initiative (this is a Gov't run program). My edit was to help counter some of the slanderous rumours about Hadju. She struggled to finish high school and the program help put her on the right track. I have a paper copy of the article, but I am unsure how I can reference this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.52.2.37 (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure Jan.

I'm sorry, I mean Jan PhD.

Seriously though, you accused her of having an IQ a little above 80. You offered no evidence for this defamatory assertion. Neither intelligence nor IQ are even mentioned anywhere else in the article so you clearly were not here to "help counter some of the slanderous rumours". If anything, you were here to either start or spread said slanderous rumours. Your overall tone was clearly sarcastic and that is utterly unacceptable. I would have hoped that somebody with a PhD would not need to be told this. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Shon Faye

Hi there. I was having a look at the article on Shon Faye. I agree with the anonymous contributor who you have reverted that the book Pinkwashed doesn't seem to exist. I know from working in publishing that having an ISBN doesn't necessarily mean the book ever actually appeared - that gets assigned well before publishing, often before any book has been completed, to aid pre-sales, and will still remain if the book is cancelled as seems to have been the case here. The publisher makes no mention of it on their website, there's no cover image anywhere or evidence it was ever in stock at any bookseller. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I saw several listings on Amazon, which made it seem like a published book at a first glance but maybe they were speculative listings. I don't know. It looked genuine to me but I didn't go very deep and maybe I was too quick to assume the removal was incorrect due to recent problems with people spuriously removing other stuff from the article on obviously bogus pretexts. Your point about ISBNs is fair. I think it would be best to ask about it on the article's talk page. If you want to remove it in the meantime then I won't object. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll remove from now and make a note on the talk page in case anyone wants to discuss further. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)