User talk:Dyrnych/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

June 2013

Your recent editing history at List of Internal Revenue Service political profiling controversies shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Federales (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have provided my reasons for reverting your tendentious edits. I think that is sufficient. Dyrnych (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chelsea Manning edit.

You appear to have deleted someone else's comment here. Was this an accident? bd2412 T 02:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It was. I was attempting to move my comment from the 22 August section to the 23 August section. I definitely did not intend to delete someone else's comment. Dyrnych (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm EvergreenFir. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:Chelsea Manning because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Do not edit others' comments. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A user's edit is their own. It is considered vandalism to change the content of their comment without their express permission. Talk pages are meant to be records of conversations regarding the article and editing another person's comments alters that conversation without their permission. I believe Bearcat still reverted your edit. Please do not edit other people's comments on talk pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Where have I changed the content of another user's edit? My intention was to leave the comment beginning "Libel requires falsity." I'm well aware of the purpose of a talk page, which was why I was puzzled that you reverted my edit and characterized it as non-constructive. Dyrnych (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe this issue is due to the number of edits on the talk page. Your edit changed the content of Bearcat's comment. I did not see that you had removed your own comment as well. My guess is that you only meant to edit your comment, but inadvertently edited Bearcat's as well. My apologies for "biting". EvergreenFir (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As long as everything worked out in the end I'm fine. I genuinely didn't realize until looking at Bearcat's comment on your talk page that my edit had altered theirs in any way. My apologies as well for taking such umbrage at your reversion, as it turns out that there was a perfectly legitimate reason for it. Dyrnych (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Rename the list

I believe if we tweak the name of the article it would be more valuable to readers and allow the inclusion of the Nixon material. I have started a discussion at talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Mo Brooks

Hi, I did the merge on Mo Brooks and the War on Whites, just fyi --Marjaliisa (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the merge has been undone. I'll start a merge proposal. Dyrnych (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Cite stuff

In your 'ref name="Vox0815"' and other cites here, a few issues. I think "cite news" worked while "cite web" didn't. You had only one "curly bracket" { at the beginning of the template. Maybe more. Hopefully I fixed them at least basically here. It's a fast-moving page so hard to proceed methodically. Thanks for your work. Swliv (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I copied and pasted from the first source that I cited, so whatever errors were present in that one were preserved in the others. Thanks for the heads up! Dyrnych (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Quotes

I am not sure how one "plagiarizes" direct quotes. Are you suggesting I should change or alter the quotes? I believe that the quotes are properly ref'd to the RS. The language of the Commentary author has not been plagiarized. A suggestion as to how to "fix" this would be appreciated. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

They're referenced, but the material surrounding the quotes is taken directly from the article. WP:PLAGIARISM describes it as "Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text." It's a copyright issue as well, which I think dominates over the plagiarism aspect. I'd just rewrite the material around the quotes; the quotes themselves are fine from a plagiarism/copyright standpoint, although I think that they're excessive. That's a different conversation, though, and one that I'm happy to have in a different context. Dyrnych (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If you read the material, you'll see that both source and publisher are named in each case. Funny though: first you wanted to remove these quotes as part of your "reorganization"; then you suggested, inexplicably, that they were "plagiarism"; now you're also saying, without explanation, that they're a copyright violation. Of course, this has nothing to do with your previously expressed personal view that this is a "fake scandal" and that our WP article shouldn't be reflecting too many conservative views because the scandal is, well, fake. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

They are both plagiarism and a copyright violation, both of which charges I've substantiated. I don't care if the quotes stay in, as you'd see if you read my reply. I do care that the direct quotes of surrounding material be attributed in text to Commentary Magazine and/or recorded. I find your constant questioning of my motives and unthinking reversion of my edits inappropriate in the extreme. I am trying to be civil towards you, but your behavior is making that difficult. Dyrnych (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

So rather than add the words "Commentary Magazine" to the article text yourself, you're engaging in a letter-writing campaign against the editor who noted the wrong publication, accusing him of plagiarism, and tagging every other quote in that section for copyvio without further investigation. And although you previously wanted the entire section deleted because you personally think the scandal is fake and we shouldn't be giving too much weight to public expressions of outrage in reliable sources, it's just a coincidence that you're now tilting at windmills to get the quotes removed on a technicality. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I am responding to this and other concerns on your talk page. You can read the article's talk page for an account of why you are wrong about literally everything you've just said. Dyrnych (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Quotes

I am not sure how one "plagiarizes" direct quotes. Are you suggesting I should change or alter the quotes? I believe that the quotes are properly ref'd to the RS. The language of the Commentary author has not been plagiarized. A suggestion as to how to "fix" this would be appreciated. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

They're referenced, but the material surrounding the quotes is taken directly from the article. WP:PLAGIARISM describes it as "Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text." It's a copyright issue as well, which I think dominates over the plagiarism aspect. I'd just rewrite the material around the quotes; the quotes themselves are fine from a plagiarism/copyright standpoint, although I think that they're excessive. That's a different conversation, though, and one that I'm happy to have in a different context. Dyrnych (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If you read the material, you'll see that both source and publisher are named in each case. Funny though: first you wanted to remove these quotes as part of your "reorganization"; then you suggested, inexplicably, that they were "plagiarism"; now you're also saying, without explanation, that they're a copyright violation. Of course, this has nothing to do with your previously expressed personal view that this is a "fake scandal" and that our WP article shouldn't be reflecting too many conservative views because the scandal is, well, fake. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

They are both plagiarism and a copyright violation, both of which charges I've substantiated. I don't care if the quotes stay in, as you'd see if you read my reply. I do care that the direct quotes of surrounding material be attributed in text to Commentary Magazine and/or recorded. I find your constant questioning of my motives and unthinking reversion of my edits inappropriate in the extreme. I am trying to be civil towards you, but your behavior is making that difficult. Dyrnych (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

So rather than add the words "Commentary Magazine" to the article text yourself, you're engaging in a letter-writing campaign against the editor who noted the wrong publication, accusing him of plagiarism, and tagging every other quote in that section for copyvio without further investigation. And although you previously wanted the entire section deleted because you personally think the scandal is fake and we shouldn't be giving too much weight to public expressions of outrage in reliable sources, it's just a coincidence that you're now tilting at windmills to get the quotes removed on a technicality. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I am responding to this and other concerns on your talk page. You can read the article's talk page for an account of why you are wrong about literally everything you've just said. Dyrnych (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Cite stuff

In your 'ref name="Vox0815"' and other cites here, a few issues. I think "cite news" worked while "cite web" didn't. You had only one "curly bracket" { at the beginning of the template. Maybe more. Hopefully I fixed them at least basically here. It's a fast-moving page so hard to proceed methodically. Thanks for your work. Swliv (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I copied and pasted from the first source that I cited, so whatever errors were present in that one were preserved in the others. Thanks for the heads up! Dyrnych (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for the detail, and cool head in editing a complex article. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael brown

I wanted to clarify my position on why I think the police report being classified as being exceptionally cleared is significant, and not clutter up the talk page there, but instead here on your talk page :) This is from the KCPD, which is based on the guidelines from the Mo. St. Hwy Patrol, and STLPD uses these guidelines as well. Before a case can be classified as exceptionally cleared, these listed conditions must be satisfied:

• The investigation must have clearly and definitely established the identity of at least one offender. (check)
• Sufficient probable cause must have been developed to support the arrest, charging and prosecution of the offender. (check)
• The exact location of the offender must be known so that an arrest could be made. (check)
• There must be a reason outside the control of law enforcement which prevents the arrest. (check, and this is the most important one because the only thing that prevented Michael Brown from being arrested for strong-arm robbery, was due to his death)

And it is my belief that as far as the FPD is concerned, this case is closed and solved - Michael Brown robbed that store and the only thing that prevented his prosecution and conviction was his death. They have a confession from Dorian Johnson who was there during the robbery and told them what happened. There is video surveillance of the crime being committed by Brown. There were patrons/employees in the store that witnessed Brown committing the crime. The suspects (Brown and Johnson) were identified as the robbers. Brown was in possession of the item(s) reported stolen. The business was willing to prosecute. Did I mention they had a confession and a video. Case Closed. But yet, there are some who still think that the robbery is still an allegation, as if the investigation was going full speed ahead to this day to determine who did it. The FPD knows who did it and that is why they classified the robbery as being exceptionally cleared. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely got a little off track on the article's talk page. I understand your point and it's certainly important that the police consider the case closed. It's especially important because many of the events of the robbery are not in dispute. But if you look at the legal standard involved there, it's "sufficient probable cause." That's a monumentally low standard and vastly different from the legal standard required to convict a person: "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." And there are all sorts of things that could affect whether a person would be convicted even with police certainty or near-certainty. So while I agree that the police stage of the investigation is done and I agree that the evidence suggests that you and I should probably believe that Brown committed a robbery, that doesn't necessarily translate into the legal conclusion that Brown would have been convicted of robbery. Dyrnych (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss

Hi, I read your comment about unfamiliarity with the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. I went back to refresh my understanding and found a much modified version of the old Excel flowchart that I designed years ago: [1] The intent was to clarify that exactly what I did last night serves a purpose. I've been on both sides of the issue, and I know how frustrating it can be to see hard work torn down. But I think that you all needed a fresh start. It seems that at least I got some action going and people thinking. I've been out of the loop for a while. There used to be processes to find objective writers who could help cleanup articles, but my experience is that they eventually got painted ugly and drawn into the scuffles. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

First shot

Saw your comment about "conclusions". Since I've gotten called out on WP:FORUM I'll respond here.

1. If it is a bullet casing, then we know for sure at least one shot happened near the car.
2. There is also a photograph of a hole in one of the nearby buildings. Residents have claimed that cops retrieved a bullet from that hole and removed the siding to get to it. https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/504355965601599489/photo/1
   1. If that is confirmed, a line from the car to that hole is perpendicular to the line from the car to Brown's body. That lends support to the accounts that say a shot happened during a (struggle?) near the car, before brown's later movement down the road.
   2. Also points out a missing shot in the audio either from trimming or being too quiet, since there would probably not be enough time from brown to get from the car to where he was in the time of the audio

In any case, all of this is of course unsuitable for the article at this time because it is not backed by RS, and certainly some of the assumptions mentioned could turn out to be something else. As I said in the article talk, I was just mentioning it because I thought it was relevant to comments we editors had made earlier about the first shot in various contexts.

Although sometimes things may be unsuitable for the article, it can help to raise peoples awareness to possible threads to follow as they are reading RS later. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Piaget Crenshaw, in one of her interviews, talks about the bullet retrieved from a building. I can try to find it if that will help. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess that my comment about conclusions was based on the assumption that there was no particular controversy about whether a shot was fired from in or near the car. It seems like all (or most) accounts include the shot. I guess the missing shot in the audio that you're describing is the only real evidence that I could see this impacting. I'm certainly not suggesting that it's irrelevant, but like so many other things in this case it's open to so many different interpretations that it's hard to say that it suggests anything. Especially because there's so much evidence that's being withheld or just missing at the moment.

I wasn't actually intending to suggest that you were violating WP:FORUM when I said that we were off topic; I was just noting that we were getting off the topic of the bullet casing and onto the topic of whether there's a double standard for you versus Michael-Ridgway. Sorry if it appeared that way. Dyrnych (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Dyrnych, There's a big problem with using that photo to draw conclusions. By the time that the yellow tape had been erected, Officer Wilson had long fled the scene in his vehicle. So a casing next to a vehicle is not a casing next to Wilson's vehicle. I almost made this mistake one time when I first saw the first video from Piaget Crenshaw. Was all excited thinking that I had finally learned what position Wilson's vehicle was in. I called the local television station that ran it and spoke to the web master who straightened me out, informing me that Piaget's apartment was positioned such that she couldn't get Wilson's vehicle in her viewfinder. So the vehicle I was seeing was one from another policeman who arrived there as backup. So when analyzing photos, basically any time you see yellow tape, it's pretty much useless. Sad but true.

And thanks a bunch for the thanks today. I don't get those, I guess you know. Much appreciated. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Big Big Big APOLOGIES

Dyrnych. I am so embarrassed to have mistaken you for Ga... whatever his name is. Please forgive me. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology and retraction. I have no doubts that your posts are made in good faith, and I'd ask that you assume the same of others. Whether that be me, Gaijin42, or other editors until and unless they demonstrate otherwise (and that's a pretty high bar). Dyrnych (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

So you really think him telling me how to autosign my name was good faith and not a dig? This is the double standard of which I speak. If I had done that to would him I would have been mowed down in a hail of bullets. And I'm brand new. And you guys aren't. So you should be holding yourselves to a higher standard. I mean, as soon as I clicked save, I saw that I hadn't signed it. So I went back to add the tildes and clicked save. Wanna guess what happened. Edit conflict. Because before I could do it, he was already bitch slapping me. That's messed up. You can pretend it isn't and he can play all dumb about it, but that is freaking messed up. But as a meta observer whose thinking that a documentary about my experiences might be instructive, especially to black viewers, I think it's cool that you guys are giving me so much fodder with which to demonstrate the racially tinged malice that operates in so many Wikipedia veterans. Again: The post was so petty, it hardly needed a signature. But again, thank you for being thoughtful enough to send me a thank you. I had been wondering how long it would take for that to happen. I think you are the first since the article was put into protected mode, i.e., the first of the true veterans to do in all the two weeks plus that I've been doing this first time. That is out of proportion. In a true GOOD FAITH environment, there would be as many thanks as there are threats to ban. Not here. Not even close. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't telling YOU specifically to sign your posts, because at the time that he posted that the post was unsigned. So there was no way to know that that was you versus an extremely new editor who genuinely didn't know how to sign posts. I think you're perceiving an insult where none exists. Dyrnych (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown

Thanks for letting me know. Btw the New York Times issued a correction about the number of years Wilson served as a police officer. Tikihouse (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Tikihouse

Not a problem. I saw that you'd added that and would be happy if you reinstated that change. Thanks! Dyrnych (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Not sure if "happing" should also be fixed to "happening." Saw some inconsistent use of punctuation earlier with periods outside the quotes and also inside, along with a comma after an explanation point. Just FYI. If I see any others, I'll post here. Thank you. Tikihouse (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Tikihouse

Don't feel obligated to notify me. It looks like many of your changes were constructive and well within Wikipedia guidelines. It's just the embedded links that were problematic; as long as you cite using footnotes, everything should be fine. I definitely appreciate your edits to the page and am sorry that I had to revert so many of them. Dyrnych (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, after the judge issued a breakdown of the jurors' demographics, it seems a further breakdown of men:women ratio was made, as well as the number of black jurors and white.Tikihouse (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Tikihouse

Simply put <ref> </ref> around the links, and maybe move it to the appropriate place in the sentences. I reverted Dyrnych because otherwise there might be a lot more work reinstating the other parts that were collateral damage from Dyrnych's revert. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your goodwill. Tikihouse (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have added a ref link to Darren Wilson's birthdate for the article on Michael Brown. Mandruss has since ensured the correct format. Thank you. Your input is most appreciated. Tikihouse (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Tikihouse

Again, I very much appreciate your edits at the page. If the ref is already named, use <ref name=[The name of the reference] />. If the ref isn't yet named, WP:CITE has a pretty good guide as to what to do. Let me know if you have any questions Dyrnych (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Your revert

Did you think he removed "no criminal record"? If so, take another look. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed what it looked like to me, and you're correct that he didn't remove that language. I don't think that the language that he inserted was appropriate for the lead, but I was definitely wrong about the nature of his edit. Dyrnych (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Outside perspective humbly requested at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You posted a third-party comment on the NPOV Noticeboards and your outside perspective is humbly requested at WP:AN/I#POV editors on Anarcho-capitalism. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Please weigh it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_for_Cwobeel_for_BLP_violations - Cwobeel (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Dyrnych, no offense, but editorial discretion exists for a reason and its part of what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do. It is a part of WP:IRS: WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Remember, this is sort of a running issue with Cwobeel's insertions and reinsertions. Documents which exist are said not to exist, that is a simple and binary matter. Yet still it continues, despite it even being sourced and checked. Seriously. Cwobeel again is saying that something does not exist even when it is provided. Tell me, friend, but is not "ACLU Receives Ferguson Police Department's Incident Report on Fatal Michael Brown Shooting" containing the Ferguson Police Department's Incident Report evidence it exists? So why did Cwobeel reinsert - "NBC News reported that according to county prosecutors, Ferguson police did not file an incident report because the case was almost immediately turned over to the St. Louis County Police and reported a statement by McCulloch's office that the incident report did not exist." Clearly, both cannot be right. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am fine with editorial discretion. I am not fine with the entire enterprise of an editor's analysis of every source to determine whether it fits with that editor's notion of what really happened. The overall arc of your own editing seems to be geared towards that, and I do find it problematic. That's not to say that I think that you're editing with any sort of nefarious agenda, but that I think that you're editing in a way that frequently contravenes, ignores, and misreads policy.

To your question: Both can certainly be true: it can be the case that county prosecutors stated that no incident report was filed and that an incident report was in fact filed. That supposes one of several events: that the prosecutor's office was lying, or mistaken, or that the reporter got it wrong. However, the source that Cwobeel cited is absolutely reliable for the statement that he inserted. So including the statement could lead a reader to conclude that the statement is (1) valueless in light of the fact that an incident report exists, (2) illustrative of the level of confusion surrounding the Brown shooting in its immediate aftermath, or (3) demonstrative of a prosecutor's office desire to obfuscate matters. I'm fine with letting the reader draw whatever conclusion that he or she wishes with respect to the statement, as that's really what the enterprise of Wikipedia is about. Dyrnych (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering all three of those are problems and breaking news reports are WP:PRIMARY - it stays out. This is policy and you should not be advocating the confusing or assertion of false claims like this. It is shameful. Good day. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no false claim and no, breaking news reports are not primary sources. Dyrnych (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• He seems to be working on it, I've commented at the talk page to spur the corrections. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thx

Brown's deceased body and crime scene photos drawing lines while revealing names and residences are a major BLP concern. Let's try and keep all that identifying non-public information off Wikipedia. Certain sites have absolutely no reason to be linked to and Redactions need not be announced. Since the specific materials have not been posted, yet, there is no concern, but let's keep it that way. Does that clarify? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that is all sensitive material and a BLP concern. I appreciate your attempt to clarify and wish that you'd done that initially, although it's unclear that the OP had any source in mind which actually does any of those things. As I said, my goal in invoking WP:OR and WP:NOTFORUM there were to remind the OP that the talk page isn't an appropriate place for advancing theories about what may or may not have happened. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you'd be less dramatic about things; I think that would have made all this a non-issue, as I was about to collapse the conversation anyway. Dyrnych (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a crowdsourced documentation project that gathered all the data and analyzed it, by mapping out all the witness details and unmasking protestors and posting non-public (and likely false for that reason) information. It contained the videos from the aftermath and used shots to mark the evidence and then reconstruct where each witness and camera was right down to where they live. Furthermore, another was worse and contains links to claimed executions by police officers, I got it in two clicks from Google. Not pleasant. And I didn't pick that GG link at random either - if you can follow the hint you have everything you need to find and confirm the location and details of which this data and idea originates from. It was also pre-grand jury document release that it got its start. Its no better than that Anonymous and Reddit campaign, Gamergate has also been similar for this type of thing. The difference is that once it gets entrenched the BLP nightmare begins and its hard to put that genie back in the bottle. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Afronig (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Memory

Hi Dyrnych, when I evaluate edit warring reports, I often look a little bit at both users and their histories. When I looked at you, I noticed that your first edit here was on June 26, 2009. However, when I looked at your user rights, there was no creation date for your account. You can see that here. By contrast, if you look at my user rights here, it shows that my account was created on August 2, 2008. It's rare for an account not to have a creation date, but it does happen with some very old accounts created before creation dates were automatically recorded (before 2005).

If you want to understand more about this rather complicated issue, you can look at this discussion at the Help Desk.

So that leads me to my question. Do you remember whether you created your account at roughly the same time as you first edited in 2009 or if for some reason you created the account years earlier but then never used it? Just as I said at the Help Desk, I do not suspect anything untoward about your behavior. You've just become a "test case" in a technical discussion. If you don't remember, that's fine, but please respond either way. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Bbb23:. Wow, that's pretty bizarre. I actually don't recall when I created my account; I suspect that it was after 2005 but before 2009. Does this have any substantive effect or is it just a purely technical thing? Thanks, and I hope that this helps. Dyrnych (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Other than at any time if you use your computer or other device to edit wikipedia, it may explode ... Just kidding. No, no substantive effect. I don't want to push you into remembering something you don't remember ("don't coach the witness"), but I don't suppose you can narrow it down any more than that? If not, the world will go on.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I believe it was when I was in law school, so sometime between fall 2006 to spring 2009. Based on what I recall doing, it would probably more in the summer 2007 to fall 2008 range because I was probably too busy with class readings my 1L year and too busy studying for the bar exam from the beginning of 2009 until July-ish, although I guess I made my first edit before the July bar exam. I definitely wouldn't swear to a particular date range. Dyrnych (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You studied during your first year in law school? The idea. Don't worry. I won't make you swear to anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh?

...It's pointless to do so here and it just wastes editors' time, especially when you didn't even bother to post the language from the article ...

As I pointed out in the opening post it is just a citation and has no use: "Sorkin's only use in the article is a "me too" dog pile citation. Please remove this source because it is not even accurate for the citation it is being linked to." I clarified it for you, but you didn't seem to recognize that I gave a reason for its removal and why it was not a reliable source for anything. Perhaps I need not have made the example, but I felt that I needed to give a reason given the last time this happened. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It's unnecessary and time-wasting because now we've all started talking about Sorkin and why you're attacking him rather than about the actual edit request that you're trying to get consensus for. When you adopt the breathless tone that you take, it makes me (and I'm sure other editors as well) look with even more suspicion on your edit request given your track record of claiming huge BLP violations that turn out to be nothing. In this case, we don't even need to look at BLP or IRS or anything other than the fact that it's an unnecessary citation that has been rendered inaccurate by the passage of time, and you could have stated that and referred us to the text it's being used to support. Had you done that, my response would have been "I support this change." Dyrnych (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

CTA

I do not know why you keep creating straw man arguments to respond to a simple argument, but I ask that you please stick to refuting the central point of the argument. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The central point of your argument is that opinion sources should be limited in their use. An underlying premise of that argument is that you think that they fall under WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:GRAPEVINE. You've stated all of those things. I'm sorry that your argument is weak. Dyrnych (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh... that's not my argument. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Silver vs. NYT argument has already been addressed. However, there's a larger problem with you constantly attacking opinion sources just because they're opinion sources. Every time you raise an objection to an opinion source, you include your faulty reasoning and misapplication of policy as reasons why we should adopt another source or excise the opinion. It's not a constructive exercise. Dyrnych (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You have not responded to the argument or refuted it. WP:IRS, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV all are in agreement that the source is poor and because it is poor it should not be used. Keep it simple and make changes that make improvements to the article, there is no need to circularly argue something as clear cut as this. It is beneficial and simple change. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I certainly have, and just because you apparently haven't bothered to read the discussion doesn't mean that I have to recap it for you. Dyrnych (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

My attempt to rectify the misunderstanding and the return to the productive area of discussion has failed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding, at least not on my part. I understand what you're saying, but what YOU don't seem to understand is that FCAYS and I have moved beyond discussing whether to replace the Silver source with the NYT source and on to agreeing that the Silver source should be replaced with the WaPo editorial source. The reasons for doing this are in the discussion, so you're not actually arguing anything relevant or productive; you're just going back to the original discussion, which is moot in light of the fact that no one's proposing that the Silver source remain anymore. See, now I've had to spell it out for you just because you didn't bother to take the time to go back and read the actual discussion. Why on earth would you ask me to defend the Silver piece versus the NYT piece if you had? And as to the propriety of the NYT piece, that's ALSO been discussed. You're not doing anything productive here, and I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge that fact and move on to the actual subject of discussion. Dyrnych (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dyrnych. You have new messages at Padenton's talk page.
Message added 20:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

― Padenton|✉   20:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Shooting of Michael Brown page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your tireless effort on Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theory, and your reverting of countless vandalistic and inappropriate edits. Keep up the good work! GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Charleston

Hi Dyrnych, could you please help me in this rather absurd discussion? --91.10.20.166 (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dyrnych, thank you very much for your kind help ;-) If you still have some time, could you correct my mistakes, please? --79.223.29.139 (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Anything specific? Dyrnych (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel has taken over ;-) ... panta rhei. Goodbye --91.10.53.74 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll confess: I have no idea what this section is about. Dyrnych (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I only wanted to say thank you for your kind help... and was deleted. Anyway. I am okay with the article now. Bye ;-) --91.10.55.27 (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thx again, Dyrnych. But I am even more appelled as I was yesterday. That user is promulgating his hate [2] and his writings in WP. I'm unsure if the en:WP does something in such a case. The more attention he gets, the worse.--91.10.18.100 (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

What is 140pxshal

Re this, what is 140pxshal? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

An error. Looks like I tried to Ctrl+F "shalom" and accidentally managed to insert some of the letters into the page. Dyrnych (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Brown revert

Re this, are you sure about that? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sure of the opposite. That was a mis-click on my part. Dyrnych (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

‎Requesting guidance

Greeetings

It seems you have been working on culture related some articles too. I am requesting your kind guidance for change of name of one article. When I started working on a new article recently, presently named Poles in mythology actual article name was some thing different, actually due to some misunderstandings some one changed name of the article to Poles in mythology. Matter of the fact is I wanted to cover cultural aspects and festive celebrations as an umbrella article and wanted to have historical mythological, worships wherever concerned as a small part of the main article.

Poles in mythology is altogether a different subject when I am doing research and writing cultural aspects of festive celebrations are also coming up simultaneously and I am coming to a conclusion that for covering cultural aspects of festive celebrations of 'pole' we need to have a separate umbrella article altogether so we will not have more confusions and misunderstandings. Ither we need to change present article name or split and create a new cultural aspect related article.

Please let me know your openion and if you are positive to my suggessions what should be the new articles name ? In fact you can join in discussion at Talk:Poles_in_mythology#Change_of_article_name

Looking forward to your kind guidance

Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation

We should talk. I'm very interested in writing a neutral, well-sourced article. Some of the more prominent talk-page commenters are ultimately a distraction— however well-meaning they may be.

• What should the structure of the article look like? I struggle with this. Cultural appropriation is under-theorized in the literature, but it has been done. My problem: whose approach? There are many different conceptualizations in the research. And in popular culture (in activist circles most prominently) —Fluous (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't had much time to think about this in depth. Off hand, I think we can present both academic and pop culture views of the subject as long as we're careful to attribute those views. That's the major problem I've had with the page so far; there's been a tendency to rely on pop culture bloggers for claims of fact and (worse) to use those types of sources for moralizing statements. The page has occasionally directly stated in Wiki voice that types of conduct are bad/offensive/objectionable. One other thing that I'd note is that some pages that link to the cultural appropriation page (I'm thinking specifically of Appropriation (music)) present benign/non-power-centered examples of cultural appropriation (e.g., appropriation of folk dance into popular music). It would seem odd if we used a definition that implies that cultural appropriation is a moral wrong while maintaining those links. Dyrnych (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes! I feel the same. If you get a chance, would you give this journal article a read? I promise it's worth your time. It sort of a survey article about cultural appropriation. Very well written; very clear. I'd like to rewrite the wikipedia article somewhat based on/ inspired by the structure of the journal article. —Fluous (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, while I hijack this discussion, as it is related to the same article. I have a (minor) issue with the picture caption. I agree that the guy does look very white, and there is a very good chance it's showing exactly what the article is based on. However, on that specific article we should be very sensitive and accurate about race, so perhaps some image of a cheap and nasty fancy dress costume would be better? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no real preference about the picture. It predates my time editing the article. Dyrnych (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your revert

Hello Dyrnych, check the article talk, the edit you reverted is sourced per a new reference, not opposed. Respond over there and explain your action, or re-add the new content. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your discussion has been active for a single day. That doesn't establish consensus. And in any event, you've removed quite a lot of material to insert your new material, over the opposition of several editors. That's not how WP:BRD works. Dyrnych (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you do not reply yet over at the article talk. Just to make this clear, i've removed 1 sentence, and moved a paragraph. Maybe you didn't noticed that. So far i see 2 editors who support the inclusion, and no other editor opposing it. I will no longer comment here. prokaryotes (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dyrnych. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You are revert-warring

I suggest you revert yourself. I put the page back to a version before my edits and asked that it stay there until more people get involved in this. You instead have once again, for the third time, pushed for your preferred version. I suggest you stop. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I dispute I have reverted "for the third time." That said, you have offered no policy-based reason why my revisions are inappropriate. If you think the external links should remain, feel free to articulate some—any—reason why. It is unreasonable for you to insist your preferred version of the page takes precedence simply because you feel it should. And your accusations of bias are absurd and offensive. Dyrnych (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, Dyrnych, you have the burden to justify your changes, not the other way around. And others’ choice to not engage with your lengthy and tendentious talkpage arguments does not mean you have consensus to make your changes and then edit war over them. Montanabw^(talk) 07:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You are confusing the burden to demonstrate verifiability with the burden to justify changes. Those are not the same thing, and to the extent I have any burden I have more than met it. I don't know what suddenly drew you to the page to defend CorbieVreccan's nonsense, but I find it a bit suspect. Dyrnych (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Citizens United

This is CitizensUnitedExecutiveVP responding to Dyrnych. I am the organization's Executive Vice President and General Counsel. I have no desire to engage in an edit war, but it was recently brought to my attention that the article on Citizens United is extremely outdated and replete with factual errors.

let's start at the top, under History. That section begins "The Political Action Committee (PAC) Citizens United was founded in 1988. . ." Yes, Citizens United was founded in 1988, but the organization is not a political action committee. It is an IRC Section 501(c)(4) organization, as stated at the beginning of the article. Perhaps the author does not understand the difference between a social welfare organization (i.e. 501(c)(4) and a PAC, but that's no excuse for undoing the correction. Also, Citizens United does have three affiliated political committees: Citizens United Political Victory Fund, which was established in 1994, The Presidential Coalition, LLC, which was started 2005; and Citizens United Super PAC, LLC, which was formed in 2011. Another error in the history section is the patently false statement that Citizens United was founded "with major funding from the Koch family." The Kochs' are not major donors to Citizens United. I doubt they ever given even a small donation. Also, Citizens United does not promote "corporate interest." That's just a cheap shot by someone with a political ax to grind.

The information posted in "Positions and advocacy" section is far outdated. The post begins with information from 2006, which is more then 10 year old. There is also little in the way of current information. How about someting about Citizens United's numerous Freedom of Information Act lawsuits or the Freedom Summits the organization sponsored in recent years -- Nothing about those major projects. Further, where the article addresses the lawsuit against the NY Attorney General the information is incomplete. It utterly fails to mention that the case is on appeal before the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. In other words, that portion of the article is written to create the false impression that the case is over, which is far from accurate. The discussion regarding Michael Moore, his 2004 film Fahrenheit 9/11 and Citizens United's film Celsius 41.11 is anything but unbiased. It's onesided propaganda.

The discussion under Citizens United Productions is missing one film--Devine Mercy.

The Discussion of Citizens United v. FEC focuses almost exclusively on the losing side and the dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens. There is not a single quote from the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy. That's far from unbiased reporting.

In short, the entire article about Citizens United requires a major overhaul. I've spent several hours today to make a few of the necessary revisions, only to have the updates and corrections reverted back. That's extremely disappointing and frustrating. CitizensUnitedExecutiveVP (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Another glaring error is the claim: In the 1988 US presidential election, Citizens United ran a ad that used Willie Horton to attack Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis." That claim is utterly false. Citizens United ran no such ad. CitizensUnitedExecutiveVP (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You may believe with the passion of a thousand suns that the article is wrong and/or problematic, but you have a clear conflict of interest in editing it. That policy controls, not your desire to have your organization portrayed in a positive (or nonnegative) light. Dyrnych (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump–Russia dossier

Your revert restored an edit I challenged, without obtaining talk page consensus, hence violating page restrictions. You also reinstated BLP violations by restoring poorly sourced material (opinion column and Trump tweet). Please self-revert. Politrukki (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Five-Percent Nation

I did, in fact, use the talk page to discuss the issue. You reverted the edit without reading or contributing to the talk page. How can you justify this? You, also, should have taken your concerns to the talk page rather than blindly reverting the edit.OjogbonIjinle (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've brought this to my talk page, but I'm preserving the status quo, as evidenced by the clear consensus on the article's talk page. If you think the consensus is wrong, the burden is on you to change it.

Also, I don't appreciate the ad hominem attack. I suggest you focus on content, not whatever you think my motives are. Dyrnych (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Dyrnych/Archive 2,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Dyrnych/Archive 2,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Dyrnych/Archive 2,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (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) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)