User talk:Dave Dial: Difference between revisions

Archives

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

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Where's the beef?. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Victor Victoria (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Gamaliel (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DD2K, I haven't been working on this article much but the same editor insists on removing the LA Times reference that was revert, rereverted and rerereverted a few days ago. Could you take a look at this article? Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Liz: Yea it's stupid. The editor who makes the change(Hondo77) takes out a reference in that section that shouldn't be removed. Then as the reference isn't being used anymore, it leaves an error message on the page, so the editor Unbuttered Parsnip removes the reference entirely. But, as there is already an LA Times reference being used we should probably just leave it as it is now. Here are both references. 7 Dead in drive-by shooting and Isla Vista shooting suspect targeted sorority, neighbors, strangers. Both basically give the same information, if someone finds a need for the removed reference that the remaining references don't supply, I would add it back in. Otherwise, it's not worth the continuing circle of remove, remove, re-add. Thanks for the note and the watchful eye. Dave Dial (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanation. I didn't understand the removal but didn't want to revert again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, you were right that having the ref is better and no reason to remove it initially(by Hondo77). Unbuttered Parsnip must patrol some Ref-Error page that alerts editors of ref errors. Thanks! Dave Dial (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TBSchemer has begun a discussion concerning the discussion on the Democratic Party talk page at the Administrators' noticeboard (here). I'm pretty sure he's required to inform you of this. I'm not involved, but I still thought you'd like to know. AlexanderLevian (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, the editor informed me, but I removed the silliness from my page. I am sort of busy in RL right now, or I would put together some diffs for the thread. It seems to me that the accusations being thrown around can be seen as false and I shouldn't have to, and the editor should be boomerranged. Thanks for the note though. Dave Dial (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need or want your advice; yuu want to support someone who accuses me of condoning rape, that' your problem. Take me to any noticeboard you like. Dreadstar ☥ 01:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]