User talk:DanielRigal/2021

Criticism of the BBC - Sorry

I am most sorry for my inaccuracy - I thought "underserved" was a typo; that is my own ignorance and stupidity. EcheveriaJ (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverted change on political spectrum

Why? You gave no reason to do so. I assume personal bias, but am open to debate. Mateus Ramos Bon (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you not see the edit summary? We are not going to have a bold statement saying "However, there is such a thing as left wing fascism". The link is red. The grammar is bad. The statement is blatantly misleading and seeks to undermine the credibility of the (correct) statement before it. Three different people have reverted your change now. You do not get to accuse people of vandalism for removing obviously bad edits. If you want to propose a change to the article, please do so on the article's Talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

N1CKchooseanothername

I really did not enjoy the way I saw you interact with that editor. It was incredibly WP:BITE-y and uncalled for. I get that you don't agree with N1CKchooseanothername's recent edits to that redirect (neither do I), but Wikipedia still has a duty to be a welcoming and nurturing environment for new editors. Okay? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of people do bad things in mistaken good faith and I do try not to be bitey to them. What I saw here was rather different. It was likely a deliberate attempt to astroturf perception in the wider world via Wikipedia. The behaviour seemed cynical and manipulative and that got under my skin more than it should have done. I made the further mistake of letting it show. I was over-explaining the problems with their behaviour back to them, on the off-chance that they might not be fully aware of what they were doing, rather than just keeping cool and using the appropriate standard warning templates and generally giving them enough rope to demonstrate whether they can or can not contribute constructively. So I definitely take your point that I could have handled that better and I absolutely agree that we need to be welcoming to new editors, even when they make mistakes. I'd hate to accidentally bite anybody who was making genuine mistakes just because they accidentally gave off some bad vibes. I will certainly try to make more effort force myself to assume good faith in cases where a good faith interpretation is still possible even when there are reasons to be doubtful. I will also try to avoid unnecessary verbosity and use the standard templates instead. After all, if anybody is unsure why they got templated they can always ask. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeremy Rifkin page

Hello,

Thanks for your contribution to the Jeremy Rifkin page. Did you not see my comments on the 'talk' page? Please do not undo my revisions.

If you want a conversation, let's begin a conversation. GO.

Screed copied and pasted from multiple other places --DanielRigal (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Rifkin's work is controversial due to lack of scientific rigor in his claims as well as some of the tactics he has used to promote his views, such as claims that theory of evolution is a product of "19th century industrial capitalism" as well as frequent use of strawman fallacy.[51] --- If you follow the source, it is indeed critical of Mr. Rifkin's scientific rigor. However, there is no mention of strawman fallacy. Moreover, the wording of this particular sentence is very broad stroke. The author of the cited article is critical of Mr. Rifkin, but the way that this sentence is written implies that Mr. Rifkin's work is generally accepted as controversial. This should be looked at: I regard Algeny as a cleverly constructed tract of anti-intellectual propaganda masquerading as scholarship. Among books promoted as serious intellectual statements by important thinkers, I don't think I have ever read a shoddier work. Damned shame, too, because the deep issue is troubling and I do not disagree with Rifkin's basic pleas for respecting the integrity of evolutionary lineages. But devious means compromise good ends, and we shall have to save Rifkin's humane conclusion from his own lamentable tactics. — Stephen Jay Gould, "Integrity and Mr. Rifkin", Discover Magazine, January 1985; reprinted in Gould's essay collection An Urchin in the Storm, 1987, Penguin Books, p. 230 --- I do not disagree with including criticism in the criticism section. However, this seems really out of place for a Wikipedia entry. This is a prolonged and lengthy quote about an individual's personal feelings about Jeremy Rifkin's work. This is not reflective of Mr. Rifkin's wider body of work. If you want to include Gould's critique of Jeremy Rifkin, perhaps we should find a way to make this more in line with Wikipedia standards. If the moderators insist on keeping this prolonged quote, I would request that the following be added at the end of the Reception category on Wikipedia: Jeremy Rifkin has written a most remarkable book on the coming Biotech Century, full of information that, as far as I know, has for the first time been collected in such completeness. It deserves to be read by everybody, be he or she optimist or pessimist." - Erwin Chargaff In its review of the book, the journal Nature observed that "Rifkin does his best work in drawing attention to the growing inventory of real and potential dangers and the ethical conundrums raised by genetic technologies... At a time when scientific institutions are struggling with the public understanding of science, there is much they can learn from Rifkin's success as a public communicator of scientific and technological trends."[27]

Dc4110 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I regard the attempts to take ownership of this article and turn it into a hagiography as clearly abusive. I'm fed up with the steady stream of SPAs. I'm not going to waste my time responding in detail to copypasta. For me this is an issue of behaviour not content.

The conversation, which you started, is at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jeremy_Rifkin. GO THERE. DanielRigal (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Removing my rant on the kingdom of Judah

I literally proved without a doubt that the kingdom of Judah exist on the west coast of Africa and as late as 1895 they said they were Judaic and considered a remnant of the lost tribes of Israel. It was named that by the Portuguese who exiled all their Jews which they called the black Portuguese or Portuguese Jews if they would not convert to Christianity. West Africa was also already called Golfo de judeos on the first map created of Africa by colonizers because on both sides of the Niger River delta and the majority of west Africa was Hebrew people. And from Abassia to the Congo was called the land of the Hebrews by Leo Africanus in his 1550 book. You said it’s not constructive but it’s literally disproving the lie you guys had to criticize and disprove Hebrew Israelites. If it’s wrong you need to remove they section or else you’re clearly suppressing information. Even if you’re upset they are right you need to not be Biased for the sake of research. Drunkonthursday (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody can "prove" religious beliefs. It is a waste of time to try.

You can believe what you like about some Africans being of Jewish descent. Nobody has a problem with that. It could even be true, albeit to a rather limited extent and nobody can prove it. The problem is your pretending to be able to "prove" it and, more than that, attempting to invalidate European and Asian Jews.

So here is what you can do if you want to help on Wikipedia:

• Expand the article with content explaining (not advocating or promoting but explaining) the beliefs and practices of the BHIs. We need more coverage of their beliefs, their festivals and their observances.

And here is what you can do if you want to get yourself blocked from editing Wikipedia:

• Make antisemitic claims seeking to invalidate the legitimacy of mainstream Jewish populations.

I very much hope that you will do the former and not the latter. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok I didn’t see this. How do you feel about me including stuff like the original Torah they found in 10th century AD describing Shem as black and beautiful? Is that ok ? Or Leo Africanus stating Abassia to the Congo is the land of the Hebrews ? I’m trying to establish proof of what we say. I have no beef with Jewish people because my mother is Jewish ! I just want to prove that we descend from Hebrew people according to history. We observe everything that is laid out in the Torah and nothing more by the way. Most of us aren’t trying to be anti Semitic but providing facts that prove they converted is what you call anti Semitic and you can’t call the truth that. I get we don’t want to upset anybody but at a certain point the truth matters more than feelings correct ? Drunkonthursday (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Like, I just want to include facts. That is literally all I am trying to do here. We are not lying and have proof going from the Torah all the way up until 1895. If in the process we discover a group of people grafted in there is nothing wrong with that because they are observing the Torah. The problem lies wherein they call us liars and silence us instead of disproving us. All these EUROPEAN scholars are not lying. Josephus wouldn’t say the majority of them fled to Africa just to say it. We even have Titus himself saying they are black and he BATTLED THEM. We know idumea was converted and when Jerusalem finally fell they went to Eastern Europe and that’s where we get European Jews. Like I have no problem with them but we need to be honest that it wasn’t European people writing the Torah nor were they Arabic because that wasn’t even a thing at that point. There’s stone tablets showing negroid features on Israelites in Assyrian captivity , they even have BRAIDS AND DREADLOCKS. Like this stuff needs to be known. Drunkonthursday (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

So I’m sorry if I come off as anti Semitic but I am not. My mother is Jewish and my father is black. That makes me Jewish according to the way they run things. The Torah says go off the fathers bloodline but rabbis switched it to the mother so I can’t be racist against my self YALL lol. I am willing to not mention European Jews but what I will not do is not cite historically accurate books and the Torah and New Testament saying the Hebrew people are black. Drunkonthursday (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are still trying to "prove" things that can't really be proved. If you read WP:OR and WP:TRUTH you will see that this doesn't work like this on Wikipedia. Of course, there are plenty of other places where you can argue for these things but here you need to do it differently.

If you are advocating for your beliefs most other places you can just say what you believe to be true and say why and people can discuss it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a discussion forum. Our job is to explain the most notable view(s) on any given topic rather than argue for our own ideas.

On Wikipedia, the correct approach would be to leave you own beliefs out of it add something explaining what the BHIs believe in neutral terms. So, if the BHIs' beliefs about their descent are based on what Leo Africanus wrote, and there are sources to show that, then we can cover this. We can't say whether it is right (or wrong) but we can say that this is what they believe. This is the same as for any other religion. For example, we say that the Christians believe in the Trinity and we explain what that means, but we don't say that it is true or false as that is not for us to say. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Splash and Bubbles

I have sought semiprotection of the talk page, though I don't know how administrators are going to look at this. Usually, talk pages don't get protected for long. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit on Carlos Maza

Hi, thanks for the message on my talk page. The subheading out current doesn't seem to accurately describe what is subordinate to it, in my view. The text doesn't say Crowder definitively harassed Maza, though it does say "Maza said that Crowder's fans have doxxed and harassed him as a result of Crowder's videos." As such, the sources and hence Wikipedia are supposed to treat it as an allegation, not absolute truth. Furthermore, it wasn't allegation harassment by Crowder, but rather his fans. That's how I saw it and that was the basis for my edit. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Sorry. We don't do whitewash. Whitewash is not neutrality. Euphemisms are not neutrality. We have all seen the clips of the homophobic abuse that Crowder handed out. That is not "controversy". It was abuse and harassment and the Reliable Sources agree. I've explained in more detail on the updated message on your User Talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Ash Sarkar bio

I invite you to consider the arguments I have made at the page's AfD discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ash_Sarkar TomReagan90 (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You may find Sarkar's notability to be regrettable. There are many people who's notability I find regrettable but I don't try to pretend that they are not notable. It is impossible to argue that she is not notable. It is pointless to try. Notability has been demonstrated. Everybody has advised you against this. Despite this, you went ahead with it. I have to ask, why are you doing this? Is this some weird grudge against Sarkar? If not that then what? I am genuinely mystified by this. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Overlong ownership description of Scientific American?

To say, briefly, it it is owned through some subsidiary by a company controlled by the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group seems fairly tight.

I think you have to put the ownership up there on the marquee for a variety of reasons including credibility. We get in this article a lot of credentializing information, such as the fact that it's been in continuous operation for 5 generations or that Einstein published in it... but you know it's not like the editors from 1840 have anything to do with it today. Einstein is long dead. This sort of thing is relatively less important than who actually gets to hire and fire its editors, and control its content. I think people deserve to know right up front that they're getting scientific information from a megacorp really. These people buy these things on purpose to meddle in them, it's not like they're big $ things.

Anyway, just some thoughts. Maybe you can put it more clearly than I. But I really really think it belongs above the body as a salient piece of information. Happy Monday.

96.59.126.42 (talk)

Just wondering

Hi, Daniel - I just read your comment here, and wanted to touch base with you as a potential collaborator <––(an early sample of my initial thoughts, subject to change). My goal is and always has been to get the article right, and to provide our readers with important events in world history from a NPOV, regardless of whether or not we like or agree with how or why certain things happened. Leave the biases at login. I've also come across a few articles that appear to be propagandyish, for lack of a better term, but are apparently spun to weigh more heavily in favor of a single POV, and I also wonder if the single source that was used in the lead is a RS for statements of fact. I'm concerned that we're not properly presenting all substantial views per NPOV, and that it was properly presented with historic context rather than from a more modern perspective, the latter of which would be rewriting history. We know that in the US, the left has moved further left, and while it's obvious there are differences between a British conservative vs an American conservative today, we also know that conservatives can be either left-wing or right-wing, and should not automatically assume right-wing. We also know there were liberal (left-wing) elements in the British Labour Party back in the early 1930s. I don't think we should be scrubbing that information from the encyclopedia, and it appears you may be of the same mind. It's ok to ping me when/if you choose to respond. Atsme 💬 📧 13:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove valid things that do not concern you

Unedifying interaction with troll IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You removed my warning on a different user's talk page in regards to that users continued efforts to vandalize multiple wiki pages. I'm not sure why you did this, but please refrain from doing so in the future. Also baselessly claiming 'harassment' is ironically, a form of harassment... So again, please refrain from doing so. At Wikipedia civility is paramount.107.10.140.224 (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Dude. I'm not here to play games with disruptive trolls. You know what you did, and what you are continuing to do. Civility is not paramount. The integrity of Wikipedia is. These things do concern me, as they concern any other Wikipedia editor, and you have no right to try to warn me off like this. Civility does not get you off the hook here. You need to stop this nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

AfC for Vaush

I recently created a draft for an article on Vaush. However, upon seeing that an article on him was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaush, I decided to put the article through the AfC process instead of moving it straight to mainspace. If you have any comments feel free to discuss the draft page at its talk page Draft talk:Vaush. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Project Internet Culture

I replied to your comment here [1] if you could reply on that page.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverting my changes

Hey, thank you for the message on my wall. I left an explanation on the Talk Page of the article. --OcEdit (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Bisexuality

Hello, you said you removed my edit of the definition of bisexuality, but I want to point out that the current definition of bisexuality is wrong and biphobic, and contributes to disinformation about bisexuality. You should really change it to "attraction to both sexes and all genders" or to "attraction regardless of gender", because saying that bisexuality is the attraction to "more than one gender" is simply wrong and honestly insulting. It's not a "neutral" definition. Alaskayoung1 (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What you need to do is find reliable sources that support your definition and then suggest them on the article's talk page. You can't just change referenced content as you see fit. Clearly there are multiple definitions of bisexuality and we can include all the notable ones. There are both broad and narrow definitions. The broader definitions include pansexuality and some of the narrower ones do not. We can cover this in the article. What we are not going to do is turn the the article into a snide hit piece against pansexuals so please do not ever even think of writing anything like "Modern manifestations of biphobia also include creating new sexual orientations" again. That is clearly an attack and utterly unacceptable. It legitimises the contemporary homophobic narratives that certain sexualities are not genuine and just "made up". That is a game that we all lose! People do not "create new sexual orientations" just by giving names to their perfectly real and valid sexualities. To call that biphobia is divisive and, frankly, very silly. People have a right to choose their own labels and we should not sneer at people who, in perfect good faith and sincerity, choose different labels than we ourselves would. If fractious fools want to stage a fight between bi and pan people then they can do it somewhere else. It does not belong on Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Dear user, i am happy to reach you. you have corrected several of my edits in time past, which i learnt so much from. please i will like to talk with you, i am still interested in the wiki community Magnavisions@gmail.com Magnavisions (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Anti-gender movement

Please read carefully the linked source and compare the ideas. For example, how likely is it that the common claim with specific wording, “‘gender ideology’ is an empty signifier,” came about by chance? The citing of the same academics and the focus on catholicism is odd. And the overall thesis of the article and the wikipedia entry are the same, to argue that there is a coherent bad entity called the “anti-gender movement” and that its supposed opponent, “gender ideology”, does not really exist.

Please stop. This is disruptive. We have the sources and you, so far, have shown nothing. You are simply casting aspersions with nothing to back them up. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of content about Vnexpress and misjudgement

Hi, I have a few questions regarding your randomness of judgment: 1. What is your knowledge about Vnexpress and its chivalrous media engagement number? 2. Have you ever read any of those comments that Vnexpress publicises under its articles? 3. If you think I was “wrong” or “biased”, please tell me how a comment that tells female MC to lose weight and go on diet is acceptable? Also another one that said “10 lives of those from developing countries can trade for 1 life from developed ones” is ok? 4. Who gives you the right to edit and delete people’s contributions without providing facts and knowledge before doing so? Harley Q B (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Your comment above includes a number of matters that do not seem to be relevant at all. Most of these are too incoherent for me to be able to understand or respond to. I have no idea what a "chivalrous media engagement number" is.

I will answer your fourth point. Any Wikipedia editor can, and should, remove unverifiable content. That is what I did. Your additions were completely unreferenced and clearly not neutral. The onus is on you to reference any content that you add, not on me to research it for you. If you have reliable reference material to support coverage of these matters then you can suggest it on the article's Talk page and maybe it can be added to the article in a much more neutral manner. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Far-right politics that I so rudely edited

Unsuccessful attempts to kvetch and needle. (it seems that you can lead a troll to the FAQ but you can't make them read.)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear DanielRigal, Please explain how it was "disruptive editing" when I pointed out that the Nazis were, in fact, socialist. After all, the full German name of the Nazi party "Nationalsozialismus", which is "National Socialism", socialism being a left-winged ideology making it not far-right which, by association, makes the Nazi party not far-right either. Sincerely, BrendanDHarris (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Please read the FAQ at Talk:Far-right politics. This trite question has been asked and answered far too many times for far too many years and it is not productive to waste any more time on it. Please just read the FAQ. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Ooh, I've hit the nerve of a quasi-intellectual leftist that's been brainwashed by the academic-media complex. You are as condescending as you are ignorant. Read ‘The Road to Serfdom’ by FA Hayek, and then maybe throw out your copy of "Das Kapital" for being "trite" rubbish. BrendanDHarris (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey you're edit-warring

You should know the rules and not pull this stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Which rule do you think that violates? It's not edit warring. I gave a valid reason to remove the image. I'm happy to take it to the administrators' noticeboards if you like. When they see what you are doing with these images they are unlikely to be impressed. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your service

Hello, my STUPID friend just tried to change the name of Charles Entertainment Cheese in order to prove me wrong in an argument. While of course he was unsuccessful, he recklessly tarnished the pure landscape of knowledge that we rely on as a society. I told him that his crime would be found and removed quickly, and you proved me correct. Please keep up the good work, and don't let too many liberals use William Randolph Hearst as a source on the pages for the Soviet Union. Thank you sir. 71.175.87.23 (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You win this round

Daniel,

You win this round. I am the STUPID friend whose "entertainment" was trampled on by your hawk-like ability to spot incorrectly edited entries. There is a room full of people annoyed that you couldn't let this stand for one day. Just know that it will always be Charles Edward Cheese, and we'll make this happen one day. My edited entry has also been immortalized and is displayed beautifully on the wall behind my desk. So it will live forever one way or another. On a serious note, keep up the good work! Being able to spot the BS and correct entries is valuable to the Wiki community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.87.23 (talk) 19:22, 2 November 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nizkor Project

Hallo DanielRigal, noticing your comments, I was wondering if a removal of the Possible malware infected site you added at the time, would be appropriate now. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I tagged it as bad quite a long time ago and since then the tagging has been removed. I can't see anything wrong with the site now. Google says it is OK. I think that means that everything is as it should be. I'm going to roll up the discussion. I'm not aware of any other action needed. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. I see it is still commented out in the article in some places and not others. I'll remove that. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks DanielRigal :-) Lotje (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration request

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Very_brief_and_neutral_name_describing_the_topic_of_the_dispute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platyna (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, that was unedifying, except as an object lesson in how to volunteer for the boomerang. (diff). --DanielRigal (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)