Misplaced Pages

User talk:Dave Dial: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:19, 25 May 2014 editDave Dial (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,119 edits Your Revert: NP← Previous edit Revision as of 16:36, 25 May 2014 edit undoLx 121 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,531 edits EDWARD FURLONG: new sectionNext edit →
Line 103: Line 103:
Thanks for reverting; I should have read the context. --] (]) 01:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks for reverting; I should have read the context. --] (]) 01:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
:No problem. I thought it was something like that. That word doesn't doesn't pop up often. ] (]) 01:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC) :No problem. I thought it was something like that. That word doesn't doesn't pop up often. ] (]) 01:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

== EDWARD FURLONG ==

hello;

as far as i can tell from the edit history, you have NEVER edited the ] biopage before.

''YET'' you pop up, ''20 minutes'' after my edit, to revert it ''WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EXPLANATION''.

got a reason for doing that? just wondering...

if you concern was an "edit war", i'd politely suggest that you should examine the page-history more carefully.

this dispute '''started''' with user:binksternet unilaterally removing the image, WITHOUT providing a '''valid''' reason.

the image was placed on the article over a week earlier by another user, & is not "controversial" or in factual dispute.

it is also one of only 2 images we have of the subject, & is debatably a better photo.

so, i would be fascinated to know your reasons for becoming involved here.

regards,

] (]) 16:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:36, 25 May 2014


Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
Archive 3 Archive 4
Archive 5 Archive 6- The Beginning

Copyvio?

First I wanted to thank you for the outstanding work you've done on Jews and Communism on Jimbo's talk page. Question: Does the article continue to duplicate that external website in a substantive way? Because if so, the page needs to be blanked per WP:COPYVIO. Coretheapple (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Coretheapple:First of all, you're welcome and it's no problem. I have had experience with such nastiness before. As for the articles being duplicates, it's hard to say right now, because of the edits by other users. Although some wording is almost exactly the same, and the intent is clear. For example, the Metawiki article states:

In June 1917, the number of Jewish Bolsheviks present at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets was a minimum of 31 percent, in addition 37 percent of Unified Social Democrats were Jews. In the 23 October 1917 Bolshevik Central Committee meeting that discussed and voted on a "armed insurrection", 6 of the 12 participants were Jews. Vladimir Lenin,✡ Leon Trotsky,✡ Grigory Zinoviev,✡ and Grigory Sokolnikov✡ consisted the four of the seven Politburo members responsible for directing the so-called "October Revolution."

While the current Jews and Communism article states:

In June 1917, the number of Jewish Bolsheviks present at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets was a minimum of 31 percent. In total, 1090 deputies were registered for the Congress, of which Bolsheviks had 105 seats.

In the November 1917 election, the only free election of this period, Russian Jews voted for Zionists or for democratic socialist parties, rather than for the Bolsheviks.

In the 23 October 1917 Bolshevik Central Committee meeting that discussed and voted on a "armed insurrection", 5 of the 12 participants were Jews. Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, and Grigory Sokolnikov were three of the seven members of the Politburo, an ad hoc organ for political supervision of the armed uprising. This Politburo should not be confused with the "core of the core" Bolshevik organ with the same name established in 1919.

Very similar, and sourced to the same sources. The words were prettied up for Misplaced Pages, but some parts are exactly the same. I don't have experience in copyright violations, so am unfamiliar with the policies. Dave Dial (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Let me add, the more I look at the articles, the more they are almost EXACTLY the same. Especially the article that was created first, before any other editors had edited it here. Really, almost exactly the same. Dave Dial (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd suggest that you raise the issue with Jehochman, the administrator who has gotten involved in this. There is a board, Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems, and I guess he may refer you there, but as an administrator he can also act on his own. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of raising it with Jehochman myself. This is very important stuff. Thanks again for your outstanding work in rooting this out. Coretheapple (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think there's an issue of plagiarism, possibly, but it needs further investigation. I think you might want to gather the evidence and post to ANI. The list of Stormfront threads is very important also. If we can't get this sorted simply, I am prepared to request arbitration. Jehochman 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh. I'm not familiar with arbitration, but I thought that was to resolve ongoing and unresolved user conduct issues. Here the user conduct issue seems to have been resolved, unless the blocks are lifted. That remains the issue of what to do with the content, such as it is. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Right now, I have to run some errands(shopping and such). I will do some more research though. I will say that either the Wiki 'article' creator plagiarized from Metapedia, or is the main author there. I will try to do what I can, if it's necessary. I would rather the article deleted and relevant portions added to other articles, with the people who created it blocked. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Well you know, I have a hunch that the plagiarism/copyvio aspect, if there is one, may well be at the, or at least a, deciding factor in determining if the article is deleted and if its creator(s) is/are blocked. I went online, blundered around, used some plagiarism checkers to no avail. Just no good at that. So if you can, it would be really helpful. Possibly crucial. Imagine the embarrassment to Misplaced Pages if it develops that an entire, rather large article on a sensitive subject was essentially created in tandem with a far-right website. I don't think the project can thank you enough for all your work on this. Coretheapple (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your outstanding work in unearthing the true origins of Jews and Communism Coretheapple (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Z147

I get what you are saying by the way, but...

If you think I have an issue apologizing, that much is simply not correct. But I actually understand a great deal of what you say (if heated and not exactly AGF), so for that..thank you.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not heated, and am sorry if I came off that way. Honest to God dude, I am not mad. I hope my pointed and linked post doesn't make you think I am too much of an asshole, but I did know it would get your attention. But I am definitely not mad and hope everything goes well for you. Take it easy, and thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

List

Hi DD2K. Another recently registered account tried to repeat the same edit on the list page despite the move review. Could you please keep an eye on the page? Best, Middayexpress (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Collaborative

Dave, I respect the work you've already done and your position; you could well be right. But I would prefer to be described as struggling to be co-operative or trying to develop consensus (though not the unanimous kind) or well, pretty much anything rather than "collaborative" - especially when I've just been reading Chetniks. NebY (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Sorry, Hoss. I didn't even think about the Double entendre. Believe me when I say it was not intended, not at all. I have a lot of frustration for people trying to 'fix' the unfixable, but would never make a suggestion along those lines. Take care. Dave Dial (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

American politics arbitration evidence

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 14:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

== delete this too ==

Collapse rant from condescending asshat on a power trip
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


You don't have the slightest clue what my opinion is about anything. If I see you writing insults at someone else like that, I will block you. Bet on it. Zero 06:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I support this.
DD2K, you cannot attack other contributors and state that they would be "friends" of unfamed people such as those of metapedia. That is in total opposition to our 4th pilar, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. You should delete the comments tht you wrote on the AfD.
Pluto2012 (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
You go ahead and try to block me, big boss guy. Do you think trying to throw your admin status around is going to intimidate me? I'm not impressed in the slightest. As for the comment I made, you were the one who suggested inviting those antisemites over, so I figured they must be your friends. If you don't like the assumptions, quit making false equivalencies and trying to make one snide comment after the other to me. Otherwise, expect the same in return. And if you don't like that, you can shove it right up the ole shooter. As for Pluto2012, no, I'm not retracting Jack shit. I asked him to retract the false accusations he made, and he just wrote another snide comment to me. So if you want to jump in and have seen everything, then don't post here either. Dave Dial (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert

Hey is there some legit justification for reverting my comment on the Admin Notice board?--Atlantictire (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Just what I asked in my Undo, that it was inappropriate and adds a lot more fire to the discussion than anything else. I won't edit war over it, I just thought you should perhaps rethink about posting that particular image. Dave Dial (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
That's cool. I probably don't have to explain to you how this show of civility and willingness to take at face value Director's claim to have been ignorant of the article's antisemitic origins will result in his continued ability to edit articles on Jews. It's not like he has a history of taunting people about these kind of victories or anything. Yay?--Atlantictire (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea about how most of the editors(except perhaps TFD) involved in this issue react one way or the other. I don't venture into these topic areas much at all. I came to Misplaced Pages because it wasn't like the BBS, Usenet, IRC, political message boards. Of course, except for in some parts of the project. Which I try to avoid. Dave Dial (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Right. No offense, but this is the problem when people weigh in on things without really knowing who they're dealing with. They assume their generosity will be appreciated and reciprocated as it would with any normal person. I've certainly made that mistake with Director. I encourage you to spend some time in the magical world that is the Jews and Communism talk page if you'd like to find out more about Director's capacity for acting in good faith and being reasonable.--Atlantictire (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
You reopened a close that restored people's faith in administrators. Thank you for your effort to stem systemic bias on Misplaced Pages. USchick (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Your Revert

Thanks for reverting; I should have read the context. --JustBerry (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I thought it was something like that. That word doesn't doesn't pop up often. Dave Dial (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

EDWARD FURLONG

hello;

as far as i can tell from the edit history, you have NEVER edited the EdwardFurlong biopage before.

YET you pop up, 20 minutes after my edit, to revert it WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EXPLANATION.

got a reason for doing that? just wondering...

if you concern was an "edit war", i'd politely suggest that you should examine the page-history more carefully.

this dispute started with user:binksternet unilaterally removing the image, WITHOUT providing a valid reason.

the image was placed on the article over a week earlier by another user, & is not "controversial" or in factual dispute.

it is also one of only 2 images we have of the subject, & is debatably a better photo.

so, i would be fascinated to know your reasons for becoming involved here.

regards,

Lx 121 (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Dave Dial: Difference between revisions Add topic