User talk:DaringDonna/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
| Archive 1 |
Your edits to Bruce Flatt and Talk:Bruce Flatt
Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. While there is nothing to prevent them (yet), there is a general consensus that users with less than 500 substantial manspace edits may not have had sufficient contact with our policies and guidelines to be implementing policies and guidelines regarding deletion. Your account status and actions would seem to concur with this notion. If you need any help understanding our policies, please don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
In the same cell
Hello DaringDonna -- I guess there's no harm talking now. The matchmaker already decided we belong together. There's nothing to find, unless Beria is on the committee. Jessica Kline must have done something horrendous to get blocked last year after fifteen or so edits. Perhaps JK was part of one of those big criminal rings. User page said JK identified as a monkey and feminist. I don't see the common element. Julie2016 was only around for a day, but made lots of trouble with some rather witty remarks, and typing on Wales' page. I can see why there was swift condemnation. I just don't know why we are involved, unless it's a matter of engineering an orderly society.
I have to say, no one seems to get the innocent until proven guilty treatment around here. They've taken their lead from the president.
“When you guys put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over, like, don't hit their head and they've just killed somebody. Don't hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, okay?”
After I was told to shut up and wait for the verdict, then I was pissed. I hope I get over it. Thanks for chiming in. Best wishes to you Rhadow (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Rhadow: the truth is, I was amused by the incredibly imbecilic "evidence" used against us/me. My favorite was accusing World's Lamest Critic for "feminist leanings" because he corrected the use of woman to female. But I did get pissed when I saw what time it was when I was finally finished defending myself, and realized that there was no way I was going to be able to watch a movie with my son on Netflix last night, being that it was almost 1am. I guess it was my fault for being so thoroughly obsessed with proving my "innocence." Its crazy how we can get sucked into something that, in the greater scheme of things, is so trivial. After all, when I close my computer, Wikipedia no longer exists. I actually don't think the misuse of power on Wikipedia is connected to "Trumpism." It is an ancient phenomenon, going back to the day the first human (emphasis on man) picked up a rock against his perceived enemy. Its all about power, and that is as old as society itself. Glad to be in this pickle with a smart person like you. DaringDonna (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Daring Donna -- It will be even more exciting. It appears there's a small but zealous anti-crime division here. It reminds of the line that is often attributed to (but never quoted) Lavrentiy Beria: "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."
As we sleep, they are chatting away.
"Excellent work. I rarely see such detail from an investigator. ... There is also one other common trait among some of them which you have missed but I prefer not to mention it here because it's only circumstantial at best, but odd nevertheless."
"Thanks ... I think you can appreciate how much work goes into building a case like this. Email me the details if you want — I have an eye on several other accounts that I am not yet comfortable including in the investigation."
Here is what Kudpung already wrote me, "COI and sockpuppet (SPI) CU investigations are not carried out in secret." Nevertheless, these folks are emailing outside the confines of WP. As far as I am concerned, that's secret. Until later. Rhadow (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rhadow: I think I may know what they are examining more closely. I hate to give it away in such an open forum as this one, but I'm sure it has not escaped the investigators that three of the letters in our user names are the same. Too incredible to be a mere coincidence. DaringDonna (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@DaringDonna: -- The latest is an accusation of wikilawyering, a pejorative term. In this article, I learned that the party with the shortest post, one with a pithy observation, wins. It's all very depressing. Explaining your position is assumed to be proof you are guilty. I guess we lose that battle. It's the same as the logical fallacy some people believe, "The perp lawyered up; he must be guilty." I am quite sure that this bunch, to a man, are convinced they are doing the right thing. We are unlikely to change anyone's mind.
One of the accusers presents a self-sealing argument. "This editor is very experienced and will cover his tracks."
After what I bet is a week, a CheckUser will find someone guilty, say the case is closed, and not mention anything to you or to me. Our names will remain in the archives of the sockpuppet investigations. There's an old joke about that:
This is a little story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.
There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.
Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.
Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job.
Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.
It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done
Have a nice day.Rhadow (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rhadow: I love that story about Everybody, etc... I wish I had all the time in the world to read entire unreadable discussions about obscure things like "Wikilawyering." "Frankly, my dear, I dont give a damn." I like editing, creating articles about people who should have articles but don't, especially women, and fixing up articles about people and things that interest me. As part of that philosophy, I hate to see even half decent articles that people work hard on and spend their precious time on, getting deleted for arbitrary reasons. I like a good argument, but I don't like being bullied. And that is the a to z of how I feel about all this. Now it is for us to wait and see what the verdict is. I hope I can still edit as Daring Donna, but if not, like I said before, when I close my computer, Wikipedia no longer exists. And I mean that literally. Now I'm going to go watch Wolfpack with my son in law and daughter. I heard it is "awesome." DaringDonna (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@DaringDonna:, @Katharine908: -- What happened to all those accusations? a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
- @Rhadow: Yea, I've been editing without a problem. I love your quotes. Have a great weekend. DaringDonna (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Arab-Israeli conflict topic area
Hello, the Arbitration Committee has placed all articles in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area under discretionary sanctions and has prohibited editors with less than 30 days tenure and 500 edits from editing those articles. Please edit articles in other areas of Wikipedia to gain an understanding of our content policies until you reach the requirements for editing those articles. You are free to comment on talk pages in the conflict area, but edits such as the one at Alon Shvut require you to have at least 500 edits. Thank you. nableezy - 22:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Deletion discussion about Phyllis Campbell Abbott
Hello, DaringDonna,
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Elmidae and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Phyllis Campbell Abbott should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Campbell Abbott .
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Elmidae}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:38, 30 June 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 |
Your thread has been archived
|
Hi DaringDonna! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Thanks for cleaning up the city/town names!
I came to work on it myself and found that you'd already done it. Eitan1989 (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@Eitan1989: Some of the names were really bizarre. It seems like someone took the Hebrew list of cities and did a Google translate of some of the names. I was happy to set that right. DaringDonna (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@DaringDonna: That's exactly what I did, then I ran out of time to clean it up before shabbat. Eitan1989 (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of 2019–2020 United States flu season for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019–2020 United States flu season is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–2020 United States flu season until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Natureium (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2020 (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 |
Isaac Bashevis Singer
So where do you think we stand on this? Looks like a deadlock, leaving the status quo as is. We seem to be 'talked out' but no change and no compromise. What options do we have? Is there some kind of arbitration, in the apparent absence of compromise, or do we just drop it, as seems to be what is happening now? 74.102.210.96 (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree with you 74.102.210.96. There is a very clear desire to add "Jewish" to the first line of the article. I am closing the RfC now and correcting the first line according the agreement of the vast majority of participants in the RfC. Please go read it over again and you will see everyone agrees.DaringDonna (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just saw your response now. Missed it before. (And forgot to sign)
Thanks UClaudius (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2021 (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 |
Recent edits to Way of the Patriarchs
Greetings DaringDonna!
Thank you for your recent edits to Way of the Patriarchs. As you can see, the articles is filled with [citation needed] tags. I created the article over ten years ago but was never very good at referencing my work. I greatly appreciate people like you who put in the time to improve my amateur efforts.
Kind regards, @Efrat
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently been editing the Arab–Israeli conflict, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Avi Schiffmann for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avi Schiffmann until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 02:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)