User talk:DanielRigal/2022

The article List of Championship Gaming Series teams has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NLIST.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 22:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that is "my" article even though I seem to have the first edit in its history. It looks like I was merging content into it from somewhere else back in 2008. Maybe somebody else speedily deleted it while I was editing and then I pressed Publish Changes and it got remade, minus its previous history? Or maybe this was me coalescing a load of articles in a walled garden into one article? I have no idea now. 2008 was a long time ago. Anyway, I am more than happy for it to be deleted. I think some of the teams on that list had articles in the past but only one is linked now, rendering the article completely worthless. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I came across you report on AIV for Wolf-so-and-so. The "Unrepentant" bit made me snigger. Kleuske (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

You are vandalizing Wiki. 197.87.143.179 (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Those are not "comments" they are the unacceptable abuse of other editors. It is not vandalism to remove them. You know this. Making spurious accusations of vandalism is also abusive. You are already on Final Warning and you remain so, even if you remove the warning from your Talk page. Any more of this nonsense and you will almost certainly get blocked. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it is "normal for the subject of the article to be in bold in the opening," I just had someone remove some bolding on an article and per MOS:BOLDLEAD it does make sense to have bolding on that title, after reading through the guidelines and WP:BOLDITIS --Historyday01 (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

~TNT (talk • she/her) 22:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

could you help me figuring out how to contribute useful stuff to a page without being advertisal? this kind of content wasnt meant to be posted directly into the article as it would break the readability. is there any website that is trusted by wikipedia to upload such additions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llarryyllarryy (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

You have a Tumblr Blog. You can post your stuff there. Please leave Wikipedia alone. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. The material you are posting on your blog is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Hosting it elsewhere would not help because the problem not just that it is on Tumblr. The problem is that the content is not of a type that is of any use to Wikipedia at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Daniel,

I noticed that your page says you revert misgendering. A user called Britmax misgendered me yesterday on Paul McCartney talk page. They were rude to me when I asked them not to. Would you mind resolving that? Many thanks. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I revert misgendering in articles and I warn people for deliberately misgendering other users. Britmax's behaviour doesn't look malicious or deliberate. Britmax apologised and tried to avoid incorrectly gendered language even though they didn't quite get it right. Bear in mind that you appear to us as an IP address. We don't know what pronouns to use unless told. We often default to using "they" in that situation. (In fact, that's what I am doing right now when referring to Britmax because it is not obvious to me what their correct pronouns are from their User page.) I think Britmax's annoyance is more to do with the overall pointlessness of that thread, which has clearly spiralled out of control, than anything else. It would have been better if they had just gone back and edited their comment for a second time to correct it fully but I don't see it as worth issuing a warning over. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What was the problem then?? 82.31.101.249 (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm not sure what you are referring to here? DanielRigal (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd just add that people should not be using offensive dogwhistle phrases … even on talk pages.

On the one hand, I agree that phrases like that are best avoided in civil discussion. On the other hand, it does expose the person using the phrase for where they stand on the issue. What flag they're flying, as it were, even if we haven't quite adopted a WP:NONAZIS-grade policy for gender issues. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I see you reversed my edits on the page and restored links as references that included the person's personal website, articles written by the person and other sourcing that does not match Wikipedia's standards. I would urge you to read before you restore in future and not judge people by their usernames. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumplives46 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't going to mention it but you really do want to change that username. You can do that without registering a new account. See WP:RENAME. DanielRigal (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Lmao what's original content to you¿ Neither of the biological And environmental theories are not verified 100% JanaMelitzana (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here but I'm not interested in arguing with somebody who is already on final warning. You need to stop with the blanking, with the insertion of your own synthesis and with the weird emojis in articles. DanielRigal (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You must be from those gamergate editors, exactly it's useless to argue with a person with fascist ideologies against political freedom and neutrality JanaMelitzana (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked Jana 1 week. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Please do not further sabotage and disruptively edit the violence against males pages. We need neutrality and your anti male bias makes that difficult, especially given that you are just deleting valid sources and links to make the page look weaker than it is and reformulating neutral lines to be more emotional and biased against males. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Violence against men, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.157.37 (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hardblocked the IP for a month and revoked talk page access. It is not, in fact, a public IP; he appears to be editing from his workplace. If you see more IP disruption or experience more personal attacks, let us know. I will protect that AFD page if I have to, but I'd rather not. Katie^talk 13:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. DanielRigal (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @DanielRigal! I recently proposed your article Mia Mulder for the Media-Wiki project Translation of the week. I would really appreciate it if you could vote for it here so that other Wikipedias are encouraged to translate it into their language, especially now that Mulder's been elected as a representative in the municipality. Of course, you can check out and assess other proposals if you feel like it. Thank you in advance and keep up the good work! --Brunnaiz (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be fun to see the Swedish language article expanded. Unfortunately I'm not up to that. I've been relying on Google Translate the whole way. DanielRigal (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a pretty one sided edit war with multiple editors reverting the bad edit. I was considering taking it to the noticeboard. I'll give the Talk page a try first but I don't know how much good it will do. DanielRigal (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the comments on my change. I based the change on the content of the following web page where the image of the front cover shows the “Pictorial” spelling. If the citation in the article must depend on the ISBN record and that has “Pictoral”, then that’s fine.

https://www.abebooks.com/9780850337747/GUILDFORD-Pictorial-History-Corke-Shirley-0850337747/plp Wprlh (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. You're right. I misread the image when I checked it. Sorry. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:DanielRigal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.