User talk:DanielRigal/2023

Belteshazzar

I noticed the recent SPI. He's using a vpn service [1] as his home IP is still blocked. I have been reporting his sock-puppets since 2021. He shows no sign of empathy or understanding. Every time he is blocked he just comes back after a few months because he has duped himself into thinking he is improving this website. Every edit he has made on this website has been reverted. When his real IP is unblocked, he will just re-create a new account. For now he will just use those proxy IPs. Not possible to get a range block because he is choosing different locations every time. BTW when this user gets bored he stalks users recent editing history and starts making edits to articles you have recently edited. In regard to myself I have 1000s of articles on my watchlist, if he does that to me, I will know and I will report his IPs. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I guessed it would be something like that. My hope is that page protection will stop him reinstating his existing edits but it won't stop him from causing trouble elsewhere. If he does start on stuff already on my watchlist that's probably better than if he picks random targets. At least I'm more likely to catch him if he does that. Also, if he wades into some of the contentious articles I've been on recently then he could easily get himself "shot from both sides" of a bunch of controversies that he doesn't even understand. I mean, I'd very much rather he didn't, but if he does then it might at least offer some grim comedy. DanielRigal (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

He's back on a new IP, now editing articles I have edited [2]. This guy is clearly mentally insane. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Belteshazzar is back on [3] editing Charles Ingram. Do you think it is worth getting page protection on that article? Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Initially I wasn't sure whether that IP really was him but looking again I see that he has edited a couple of articles, one pretty new and obscure, that he obviously found by looking at my recent edit history so, yeah, that's him doing the same thing to me as he has done to you in the past. He is avoiding editing any of the usual policy pages so far but I think that's maybe his idea of being inconspicuous and also that some of them are still protected. DanielRigal (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

He is back editing on the same IP [4], following me around [5]. The admin blocked his IP for only 72hours. I don't see the point of that, they need to be blocked for 3 or 6 months because he will just keep using them otherwise. I am not too happy how this is being handled. We need much stronger blocks here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand why IPs are normally only blocked for a short time but this is the second time he has returned to that one. I agree that it should be blocked for the longer term as I assume it is a proxy of some sort. Where do you think we should go with this? ANI? DanielRigal (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I reported his account to the ANI board. There doesn't appear to be much interest in his disruption, because of WP:DENY which is a good idea he should be ignored but his IPs are too slow at getting blocked. He is damaging articles and it takes time to revert his nonsense. I have had a private email discussion with an admin about his stalking of my editing which has been going on for a year. There is not much than can be done. He is using different VPN, so range blocks will be out of the question. His home IP address was check-user blocked quite a few months ago, probably for 6 months. After that expires he will probably create more accounts. I am watching many articles so will always find him but it is a waste of my time because I have productive things to be doing. I would like an admin to block his latest IP for 3 months or at least weeks, not days. Stronger blocks would definitely help. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I have requested an admin to look into it. Also Margaret Darst Corbett probably needs page protection. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act. Wes sideman (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I've had any involvement in that article before but it looks pretty cut and dried so I've given an opinion. DanielRigal (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Brandon Teena

Yes it was accidental (my fault there). Was looking further for a better reference when you reverted. here is a better source to confirm what I was working upon rectifying.

I fail to see how Playboy is a reliable source, myself, for a topic of this nature above all others. No worries Regards, Kieronoldham (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

trans woman

That's enough! You all know exactly what you are doing and pretending not to is just disruptive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
HI. I did not understand the hyphen was objectionable. Did some reading and can now see the reasons people might find it so. It remains however confusing to me because you usually use the hyphen to connect two words into the one concept and trans-sexual for example after common use becomes eventually transsexual. Using two words to denote an entity seems odd to me (as in trans woman) - maybe transwoman would be appropriate (... and then no - I suddenly realised what a minefield that would be)? Anyway still negotiating the new-speak/newspeak and didn't mean to offend (I actually capitalised Trans-people because I thought some people might find trans-people/trans people offensive (as in black people/Black people)). Didn't mean offence and apologies if it caused any. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:8C5D:A2D:32B:5E2A (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC) I'm stretching my benefit of the doubt here by assuming you didn't do this deliberately, but you should know that "newspeak" in this context is also a dogwhistle. --Pokelova (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC) I did not do this deliberately other than to point out the inherent wrongness of the association to Rowling and inappropriateness given the nature of the subject matter. The majority of the contributors I have noticed their talk pages might be described as sympathetic (even militant) in their support for LGBT+. I like many people have LGBT persons in my family and am fully supportive of their rights to enjoy a full life in absence of prejudice. I would just note my own experience on this subject: I have been described as 'them' , have had my voice silenced (or truncated to a tab) and been minimised in all sorts of other ways ... illuminating isn't it? The page (and content) has also been described as a Project - odd talk to describe the writing up of someones murder. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:8C5D:A2D:32B:5E2A (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC) I don't know what you think you are doing beyond confirming all my initial suspicions. "The project" is Wikipedia. I don't know what you think it is and, to be honest, I don't much care. If you can edit Wikipedia without being disruptive or disingenuous then please feel free to do so. If not, maybe go elsewhere. Either way, I don't propose to argue further. DanielRigal (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC) ... also everything seems to be a dogwhistle to you. I have never used that term in my life nor heard it before now ... Looked it up: "a subtly aimed political message which is intended for, and can only be understood by, a particular demographic group.". I think you credit me with too much insight into LGBT politics! 144.134.150.203 (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

(Personal attack in section title redacted)

Miscellaneous IP trolls trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Daniel just noted you used the term anti-semitism on your user page. I'm sure you will note as per the conversation we just had (and the standard you set) how this might be interpreted as a codeword amongst antisemites. Just giving you fair warning lest anybody report you for antisemitism. See how stupid people can make this sound - please don't misinterpret a mistake as presupposed by someone else's grammatical standards as an intentional dig on my (or anybody else's) part in the future. Grumpy - dark ale is a good elixir to that (unless it sends you to darker places later on)! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:8C5D:A2D:32B:5E2A (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Clearly it says Daniel can't stand antisemitism. What is your point? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC) My point is that a previous User had pointed out that the hypernation was actually a code-word (dogwhistle is the term she used) for people who are vociferous about something (but don't actually believe it). Nonsense, but the rationale that was used. The point being that the same grammatical rationale can be used in ways you might least expect. Also - the virtue-signalling of the Wikipedia Project being the paramount virtue. I actually agree on this and see the biggest corruption of Wikipedia being on pages that are distorted by special interest groups. I usually engage in topics of history - but this one took my interest. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:8C5D:A2D:32B:5E2A (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Well done. You spotted a several years old spelling mistake which pre-dates my (and my spell checker's) learning about the hyphenation and spacing issues in terms of that type and you successfully exploited it to continue your deliberate trolling and kvetching. I don't propose to be drawn into further argumentation. If you really believed that Wikipedia was corrupted by unnamed "special interest groups" then you wouldn't be trying to argue here. Remember that a successful troll is still just a troll. Now go away before this winds up on one of the noticeboards. DanielRigal (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC) It's not an error Daniel (and don't let anyone tell you it is)! Sadly you're another that feels the need to signal your virtuosity and thereafter conduct yourself by check-boxing everybody else into nether categories (the last being a very English trait). It doesn't take a genius to realise why you might always be grumpy. I'll check back in a month or so and if you wish for any professional help I'll be happy to oblige (or else, I'll just FO). In any event, Best Wishes! 144.134.150.203 (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Sealioning

Hello DR

I would ask you to have a look at my contributions, to the Minshull article and generally, and reflect on your comment.

In that article I have been trying, as constructively as I can, to get the point across that it's not just the sources. It's what you make of them. I, like everyone else who is criticising the way that we present that information (some very forcefully), get stonewalled.

As you are 'uninvolved' I take the forum comment on the chin but I'm trying to get some engagement with the point I make above and you are right in that it ends up being forum.

I am at a loss really.

Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Cab Rank Rule

Hi, I was reading the subsequent edits of the IP editor from Cumbria and wondered if the history section is an example of WP:COATRACK? Rankersbo (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Possibly. It definitely seems excessive coverage with the quotes and everything. DanielRigal (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The detailed quotes are of similar prominence and intended to provide an important balance to the existing unbalanced historical note and quotes.

I am keen to get this history to a point where everyone is happy with it.

Please discuss on the Talk:Cab-rank_rule page.

194.113.45.137 (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Allah as Lunar God

After many years of contribution in Wikipedia, you are telling me (as a novice to you) that if any paragraph in any part of the introdution (which is the main block of any entry in any encyclopedia, including Wikipedia) is not cited, it is thoroughly OK, because some other part of the article mentions the citation for that uncited sentence? Am I right? If it is the case, then I must say I must leave this medium. The.shahab (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. We don't need to cite the same thing twice. Citations in the introduction are allowed but they are not required. So long as it is cited in the body that is fine. The point is that the introduction is meant to summarise the body. The policy is MOS:LEADCITE. If you really want to have the citation in the introduction as well then I guess we can but we don't really need to.

Can you explain why you want to remove that one rather uncontroversial paragraph?

--DanielRigal (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

If all paragraphs are not cited, thats totally fine, but If three paragraphs are cited but this paragraph that you want it uncited is going to be uncited forever because you like it that way, its a totally different issue. If you really like that paragraph meaning, why don't you add a simple reference instead of removing my added {{}}? The.shahab (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't get it. What is this really about? DanielRigal (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics replace discretionary sanctions

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	What, trolling ISN'T the primary purpose of a talk page? Who knew? Last1in (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Re: Glen Frank

I answered on my talk page.Antonio Cute boygirl Martin (queeeee?) 15:45, 28 April, 2023 (UTC)

Charles Ingram

I decided to look through the editing history of Charles Ingram because Belteshazzar's socking is back. I actually edited this article in May 2020 [6] and by this time I had already had issues with Belteshazzar's disruptive editing on Bates method. I wasn't that active in May and June 2020. In July, Belteshazzar started editing the Charles Ingram article [7]. I suspect that Belteshazzar read my recent editing history. I don't think he has any real interest in Charles Ingram, he just gets obsessed with a target. This seems to be a very early sign of his stalking. Obviously the stalking thing has got well out of hand now and is happening usually within 24 hours of me editing an article. I have emailed the WMF. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Potential Collaboration

Hi @DanielRigal!

I've been editing the Ekadashi page and saw the suggestion you made (many many moons ago) about fixing related ekadashi articles. If you like, are you up for a possible collaboration on cleaning up some of these articles? Let me know:) Chilicave (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Trolls

There's been an influx of similar editors at Talk:White pride, I assume that some corner of the Internet outrage machine has people stirred up. I protected Talk:White pride after enough trolls had appeared. Acroterion (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably just upset that it's Pride month and they are not invited. ;-) DanielRigal (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Kvetching
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ooooh, I see. A troll means someone you disagree with. When you said this "Lately I have noticed a pattern of bad editing (mostly far-right trolling) from long established users. The editors typically joined several years ago, contributed fairly constructively for a while and then drifted away. Then they come back after several years of inactivity and they are like completely different people. I am sure that some of them are different people." Is it possible that you have changed and not the "trolls"? Nothappycamping (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Oh dear. Did you accidentally post that as the wrong account? DanielRigal (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Nope, I only have one account. Why when I am talking to you in another thread would I want to hide who I am when talking about your opinion on "right wing trolls". Now I see what you mean by trolls and sock accounts. Its mostly in your head I guess. The world hasnt changed, you have. Nothappycamping (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Biography of Living Persons and Crime

Hello, your revert made here [8] is currently being discussed at the BLP noticeboard. This involves two individuals, who are not famous, who have been charged with a crime. The source referenced by the news articles who reported on it is a twitter account that accused them of belonging to an organization that has denied involvement. Per WP:BLPCRIME: "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." No news organizations have followed up on this event with the outcome, and it doesn't meet the notability guidelines of WP:CRIME. Please provide your justification for keeping the information at the notice board below, otherwise, it may be removed.

Denaar (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Revert talk page collapse

The discussion you collapsed on the GAG talk page is absolutely relevant to the RfC, so please revert your collapse. As I explained in my edit summary that you did not respond to, The RfC is about whether these claims should be included in Wikivoice, and this discussion is about whether the sources at hand can support said claims in Wikivoice. Oktayey (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not doing your third revert for you just so that you can avoid the 3RR. Please stop before you end up at one of the noticeboards. DanielRigal (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how the discussion was off-topic. I already gave my explanation for how it clearly isn't. Oktayey (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Please stop sealioning. I'll admit that it is tiresome but it isn't going to grind people down to the point where they get so exhausted that they just give in. You have already have two separate threads on your talk page where several highly respected editors try to discourage you from further bludgeoning and general disruption. Where do you think this is going to end if you keep this up? DanielRigal (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, DanielRigal. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 07:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

About your collapse on Talk:Afghanistan

I really don't see how collapsing this whole discussion can be justified. Maybe you could argue that the last remarks were unconstructive, but collapsing it in its entirety—including the parts appearing to be written in good faith—comes across as a means of censorship. Oktayey (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Collapsing a troll thread to discourage further engagement is normal. It's not a slight on anybody who replied in good faith. DanielRigal (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure you know what a troll is. That user didn't seem to me like their goal was to rile people up, but rather, they themself were getting frustrated in what they intended to be a constructive discussion. Their demeanor definitely needs some work, but I think labeling them a troll is wrong and only serves to further alienate. Oktayey (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh come on. WP:Assume good faith is not a suicide pact and the troll got blocked as WP:NOTHERE without me even needing to report them. If you want to make a general point about being careful not to bite new editors who get off on the wrong foot then that's fair enough in general but this particular editor was an obvious no-brainer of a troll. Also, given the way they started off angry from the very outset makes me think that they were very unlikely to have been a truly new editor. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Blanking

Hello Daniel. I kindly request that you strike your comments out on the ROGD talk page, in which you say I "unambiguously blanked" the page and should have been issued a warning notice. According to WP:PAGEBLANKING, blanking is defined as editing a page and removing its content to leave it completely blank, or without any substantial content. I removed two paragraphs out of a very long article and provided a clear reasoning inside the edit summary in my initial removal. This is not blanking, and your comment was uncalled for. I would appreciate a strike. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That is our policy on page blanking. Other unjustified content removal is frequently also referred to as "blanking" even when it does not blank out the entire article. I'm trying to assume good faith here but I'm struggling. You removed a significant chunk of valid content twice and whether we call that "blanking" or something else is not the issue here. Both page blanking and other significant content removal are covered in the same set of warning templates. You were lucky to avoid getting such a template after the second removal. Please do not assume that this will always be the case if you continue in this vein. If you find yourself considering making a second attempt to remove non-trivial and plausibly valid content, after having been reverted for a plausibly valid reason the first time, then please take it to the article's Talk page. DanielRigal (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Daniel, I know you mean well, but the rules state we should never discuss editor behavior on the talk pages of articles, and this is discussing editor behavior: [9], specifically "Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." There isn't a direct link to this outside WP:TALK. I removed the comments, including my own. We should all have the same goal: Any improvements needed to get the article to good, by talking about the content of the article. As WP:CIVIL reminds us: " referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to them feeling unfairly attacked." Denaar (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. The pinging issue got under my skin a bit and it shouldn't have. I'll just issue warning templates in future. DanielRigal (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Woman Page Protection

Although I, like you, suspect that the recent influx of bad faith comments on the talk:woman page is due to trolling, I do believe that a valid point has been brought up by them. This website is supposed to be a global village of sorts, a place where people of many different cultures and ethnicities can come to obtain information. This site also strives for objectivity. Now, I am not trying to defend bigotry here, but using a picture of a transgender woman to define what a woman is both creates undue confusion and alienates editors from communities in much of the Global South. Besides, isn't there a trans woman article already? Wouldn't it make more sense to put that picture on that article and keep an AFAB woman on the woman article? It simply makes more sense to use something that the entire world can agree on in an article with a broad scope and something more specific on an article with a more focused scope. TheLawnMowingMan (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't even know who the woman in the image is. I'm not sure why people are so sure that she is trans. She might be but the "we can always tell" brigade get it wrong surprisingly often. Anyway, I've already made a suggestion that it would be better to use an image of a small but diverse group of women as the lead image. DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Belteshazzar

Hi, just to let you know that Belteshazzar has been globally banned by the WMF [10] 3 days ago (update I see you already noticed it). Unfortunately I have also been harassed by this user in emails. I know you are still finding Belteshazzar's sock-puppets on proxy IPs. Thank you for creating the long-term abuse report. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Belteshazzar is not responsible for the emails in question. You earlier accused Chamaemelum of this: [11] [12] [13] The fact is, it could be anyone that you have ticked off. Or it might be that someone was genuinely concerned about whatever it was that you uploaded. 1.54.250.26 (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

And you know this how exactly? DanielRigal (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

A more interesting question is how Psychologist Guy came to the conclusion that it wasn't Chamaemelum, after repeatedly accusing them of it. 1.54.250.26 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't give a crap about any of that. I want to know who you are to claim certain knowledge of this? Are you Belteshazzar? If so, then you were recently globally banned from all WMF projects and you need to just go away from Wikipedia forever. Are you Chamaemelum? If so, I just looked you up and I see that you are blocked indefinitely from the English and Chinese language Wikipedias and you need to go away as well. If you are anybody else then you don't have any basis to claim certain knowledge of this matter and there is no point in kvetching about it here, or anywhere else for that matter. DanielRigal (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

These IPs are likely to be Belteshazzar as they are proxies and he is also leaving Chamaemelum messages on Commons. I apologise for creating this section on your talk-page, you might want to archive it. It's best to ignore Belteshazzar and not give them any open venue to communicate as they are globally banned. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

LGB vs LGBT

While LGB is not a neutral term, saying that Navratilova is an activist for LGBT rights is tacitly false. Having that as a subheader without any discussion of the following sections is misleading of her opinions (transphobic). Clams-Kessino (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not against changing it but we can't use "LGB" in Wikipedia's own voice. If you want to change it then maybe other options are acceptable. Maybe "Lesbian", "Gay" "Lesbian and gay" or something along those lines? DanielRigal (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, thanks! Clams-Kessino (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Lesbian and gay". That's doesn't have to be the last word on the matter but I think it is an improvement. DanielRigal (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Clams-Kessino, this discussion needs to be at Talk:Martina Navratilova. Valereee (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick comment

Hey, just a heads up, I replied with two near identical comments at the PragerU talk page. I am concerned it may look like badgering so I wanted to apologize up front just in case. That isn't my intent. I had looked at the YT like to the video from one of the source and it looks like a site that is trying to present as part of PragerU. If you disagree please let me know. Also, sorry for the double reply on the talk page and bothering you here. Springee (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries. You are right. That video is definitely fishy. I had no idea that it was even possible to pull a stunt like that. DanielRigal (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Britain First

Hi DanielRigal, please note that the only type of vandalism exempt from the three-revert rule is "obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language". Your edit at Special:Diff/1176641203 does not qualify for this exemption, since even though the other editor removed content from the article against consensus in Special:Diff/1176640680, the content discussions at Talk:Britain First indicate that the edit falls short of the "obvious vandalism" standard. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 03:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking that the sockpuppetry (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheologyAnswers), in which the two accounts were tag-team editing at one point, pushed it into obvious vandalism but, as you say, that's not the same sort of obvious vandalism as in those examples. It is hard to know when/whether WP:IAR applies at times like this. Sorry if I pushed it too far. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I see the sockpuppetry concern, but the 3RR exemption for sockpuppetry is also highly limited: "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users". None of the editors listed in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheologyAnswers are currently blocked or banned, and even if they were, it would be best to wait until an editor is blocked for ban/block evasion prior to using this exemption to revert their edit. The time frame of 3RR is only 24 hours, and when there are active discussions on the talk page, there is a high chance that other interested editors will participate to enforce the prevailing consensus. Thanks for understanding. — Newslinger talk 03:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Your disruptive editing on Talk:Anti-gender movement

Per WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS, do NOT delete other users' comments for expressing article POV concerns with reference to reliable sources about public opinion, as you did here.

Furthermore, do NOT accuse other users of "trolling" or "ranting" for doing so. See WP:NOPA and WP:AGF. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Drop this stick. Drop it now. There is a limit to how much of this you can get away with and you are at that limit. This is obviously intentionally disruptive. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Willbb234 16:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC) I wasn't intending on filing a report at ANI about your conduct, but HandThatFeeds has reminded me of how I have been treated recently. Willbb234 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Crashbox Episodes

Can you add back the Episode infoboxes on the Crashbox Wikipedia page? They were accurate and had no reason to be removed. SB7252006 (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. First up, they were over-detailed trivia but more importantly they were completely unreferenced. I saw somebody was fiddling with the content in the tables and I had no way to check whether what they were changing was correct. The content was unverifiable and it had to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, you should've cross-referenced first, before removing content you didn't even check. All of the segments listed in the episode section are accurate; I'm currently in the process of adding more sources to avoid another situation like this SB7252006 (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

SEGM

Hello. I get why you disagreed with one of my recent edits, but I don't quite understand why you decided to remove the tag at the same time, without any argument, despite the fact that the Talk page discussion is just beginning. Colaheed777 (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ad hominem

Referring to me as a 'troll' instead of addressing the substance of my arguments on Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory is a clear ad hominem. As an experienced editor, you should be aware of the importance of engaging with the content of discussions. XMcan (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not your intention was to troll, your behaviour was indistinguishable from trolling. As such, it was a comment on your behaviour and not ad hominem. Threads like that are disruptive and, combined with the canvassing, I think you should count yourself lucky that this did not escalate to the noticeboards. Please learn from this. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

That damn IP

I say don't even bother reverting. It just gives more works for the admins. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess you can't yank Talk page access as you are involved? DanielRigal (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah. I see somebody already did it. Problem solved, I hope. DanielRigal (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

How do you normally report for TPA removal? is it just through normal ANI? (sorry I lurked through this whole debacle). WanderingMorpheme 00:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, at least I assume that is the best way. DanielRigal (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so it would be hard for me to revoke TPA. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. I thought you were. DanielRigal (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Qingen Xu has a much more substantial Wikipedia article in China

As you can see here, Chinese Wikipedia's article on Qingen Xu has much more content than my (admittedly poor) attempt on the English-language page. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as putting the article into Google Translate and changing a few words. I ask for you to check the Chinese article out and decide whether to give the article more time before deletion or assist in finding some translators. Thank you. GarethBaloney (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I had already seen that, albeit reading through Google Translate, and it seemed extensive (excessively so) but very poor quality. There is trivial stuff and things sourced to primary sources or sources that don't demonstrate notability. The fact that it uses Companies House just to prove that he registered a company that did pretty much nothing and was then dissolved is a good example of that. Above all, there is a lack of demonstration of notability. He seems to be a guy with a high opinion of himself and a few haters among people in China who he has annoyed with his antics and who seem to be the ones driving that Chinese article including lots of rumours and negative comments about his character. Ironically, this makes both sides in this spat sound petty and dislikeable. What the Chinese article does not say is that he is banned or exiled from China or wanted by police in China. It just says that he was banned from some social media sites which is not a marker of notability at all. It doesn't even mention any alleged political activism. That means that the English article is anything but supported by the Chinese one.

Anyway, I could be wrong about all of this. I don't read Chinese to be able to search for any more substance behind this so I am only going by what is already provided. If you disagree then any editor is free to remove the PROD tag. I won't be mad if you do that. If you think you can do anything with it then feel free to try. Please just make sure that there is enough notability here that you are not wasting your time on it. If you can find any Reliable sources demonstrating genuine and notable political activism, beyond his own say-so or people mocking him on-line, then that could make all the difference. Maybe also try putting some WikiProjects on the English article. That might bring in more people who can help.

Oh, and if the Chinese political dissident you mention being friends with on Discord on your User page is Qingen Xu or a close associate of his, then please be very careful to avoid any conflicts of interests. Let the Reliable Sources define the narrative, not the man himself, nor his friends or his enemies. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The only time I asked him for help was finding a Creative Commons image of him on the internet. He showed me a picture but due to the faff that is uploading an image that isn't yours or public domain I decided not to upload it. I also told him that his English-language article wa under threat of deletion to which he said, and I quote, "Yeah, There are lots of Chinese spies over there". So yeah. The man himself is not too helpful. GarethBaloney (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello DanielRigal, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)