User talk:Dave Dial - Wikipedia
2 people in discussion
My update for Yee's Voting on SCA-5 could be found on http://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SCA5/id/313934
please check for the info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tingtone (talk • contribs) 07:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
- I answered on your Talk page. Do not keep adding new sections to Talk pages. Thread your discussion by using (::)colons. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Following on from the discussion, CFredkin is now claiming that because the sources he provided on Mark Begich's page were not reliable, completely different sources on Michael Grimm's page are now also "not reliable", despite the source in question being a named journalist and political director. There is a discussion going on at the talk page and your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I was wrong about the revert policy and I did cross 3RR on Southern Poverty Law Center. Sorry. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
- You don't owe me any kind of apology whatsoever. I wasn't mad at you, I was just trying to let you know for next time, so there would be no need for a block. You're obviously a constructive editor, and disagreeing on certain aspects of articles is healthy. Good luck, and thanks! Dave Dial (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi DD2K: Your consensus for section blanking at the "Obama" page for Legacy section blanking is being stated there, could you glance at this. FelixRosch (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
- @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.[3] 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.[16] In total, 1090 deputies were registered for the Congress, of which Bolsheviks had 105 seats.[17]
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.[18]
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.[16] 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 Wikipedia, 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- Thanks. I'd suggest that you raise the issue with Jehochman, the administrator who has gotten involved in this. There is a board, Wikipedia: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)Reply
- 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)Reply
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 Talk 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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 Wikipedia 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)Reply