User talk:Dualus

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Dualus, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Crisco 1492

Happy editing! Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Dualus, sorry we need a few more words on the university. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The words you added are in the form of bullets, which don't count for DYK. Can you convert the content to prose? --Orlady (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roseanne Barr[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your improvements on the Roseanne Barr article. :-) About this this edit, I think the "inexperienced" is supposed to convey her inexperience as an actress. (That was also written in the source) —Mike Allen 07:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dualus. You have new messages at MikeAllen's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Dualus. I am willing to review this article against the good article criteria. Sorry about the delay, but the backlog there is rather long. However I see you haven't edited here for a few months so would like to double check that you are around and willing to respond to any questions I might have. I tend to do quite in depth reviews and would rather my time resulted in a passed article. AIRcorn (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With a little help from Mike Allen I have passed this article. Congratulations. AIRcorn (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article promotion[edit]

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Roseanne Barr a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk)

Replaceable fair use File:Occupy-wall-st-vs-tea-party.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Occupy-wall-st-vs-tea-party.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please remove the tag.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images must have context[edit]

[After having my insertions deleted, I wrote this on User talk:Amadscientist:]

Thanks for your help with the Occupy Wall Street article. Why do you keep deleting the graph and references?[1]? Have you read WP:OI? You do understand that inline external links are allowed to cite sources, don't you? Dualus (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[At this point I, Dualus, reverted the deletions citing WP:OI in edit comments.]

All images used on Wikipedia articles must have a direct context to the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[At this point Amad. had already violated 3RR, so I, Dualus, reverted again.]

Please refrain from blanket reverts that are NOT substantiated by Wiki policy. Whether you are aware of them or not, I am not your teacher. Learn or refrain from editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:3RR. Dualus (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the 3RR. Do you?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; yes I do. Do you care to explain why you chose to delete all but the author's name and date from the last reference in the US constitutional convention paragraph you were editing? And why you think there is some kind of a policy against inline external links when they are used to cite the primary sources after news sources have already been cited? Dualus (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am not your teacher and this is not a debate. If you cannot figure these things out and take a more civil manner in editing WITH GOOD FAITH...you should seek a mentor.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying it's against policy, but you aren't willing to say which policy? Would you like it if the government treated you that way? Honestly, you sliced everything but the name and date from the reference, removing the url link, title and source. And then you say that images need context for a big image with plenty of context. Either cite the policy you claim to be upholding or I'm taking this to WP:3O. If you want to be treated in good faith, then don't pretend you're following the rules when you're vandalizing others' work. Dualus (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING! You are engaging in harassive behavior!

I have deleted that comment. Please refrain from further unwanted contact.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[This is regarding [2].] Dualus (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from further contact on my page. Take your bad faith accusations of "Vandalism" to the notice boards.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR report filed[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dualus_reported_by_User:The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous_.28Result:_.29

I attempted to self-revert, but the 4th revert listed was a null edit. Dualus (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity[edit]

Are you a Brit? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Dualus (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring at Occupy Wall Street[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Occupy Wall Street. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Please seek consensus for your edits rather than forcibly inserting material without consensus. The burden is on you to both justify inclusion based on WP policy, and to garner consensus for the edits. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I didn't violate 3RR unless there's another revert I'm missing. Does replacing the "/" in <ref name=missingref /> when replacing a deleted reference count as a revert? Dualus (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might pause and consider that many editors have considered you to be edit warring. The chances of all of them misunderstanding you are slim. TheArtistAKA 19:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective, I'm being ganged up on by a WP:TAGTEAM. Dualus (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't realize that you just accused other of engaging in meatpuppetry. The charge is serious, and can get editors banned for long spells of time, such as indefinitely. It would be best to file the ANI or retract the wreckless charge. TheArtistAKA 19:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion stands. If you are offended you should ask administrators to investigate. Dualus (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Do you have anything to justifiably accuse editors of coordinating attacks against you? That is what the charge requires. If you don't you're obligated to retract the charge. TheArtistAKA 20:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The article history and the comments of the editors on the talk page (and their political statements and userboxes on their user pages) make it quite clear what is going on. If anyone who isn't involved would like details, I would be happy to provide them. Dualus (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry is not to be confused with a coincidental consensus against your edits. The bar's a much higher than that for the attack. Again, do you have any proof of a coordinated - not imagined or perceived - campaign against your edits? If not, a retraction is in orderTheArtistAKA 20:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you had better inform the administrators that I am convinced and will not retract. Dualus (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate and can factor in a later ANI filing. Consider how many editor's support your edits. There are not many, if any. TheArtistAKA 20:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: this user who refuses to link to their user or talk pages in comments is User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (please see; talk) --Dualus (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate this accusation. Rest assured that I am not coordinating with any other editors at all, let alone for the purposes of evading WP policy. Have you considered the possibility that it's your own misunderstanding of WP policy, or perhaps a willingness to ignore it, and the, uh, energetic fashion in which you add whatever material you think is suitable (disregarding the opinions of others) that explains why so many other editors have objected to so many of your edits? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that anyone interested in this have a look at Centrify's user page, too. Dualus (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between ad-hominem attacks on editors and discussions of edits and sources. You've unfortunately have tended toward the former. TheArtistAKA 20:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you focus on articles, content, sources, and policy rather than accusing everyone who disagrees with you of having sinister motives and conspiring against you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN3[edit]

Hi, Dualus, I am writing after review of the report at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you for recognizing that every edit must be sourced and for trying to make good once the edit warring policy had been pointed out to you. As it says above, you can always manually remove the material when you realize that it needs more discussion before consensus is reached. A clear statement of intent to avoid an article (though usually not its talkpage) or topic for a few days is almost always enough to avoid a block, especially where a rapidly evolving article is involved. In this case, I do not see a clear consensus at Talk:Occupy Wall Street for the inclusion of the Lessig material. I am requesting that you do not add that material, in whole or in part, unless there is an unambiguous consensus at the talkpage to do so. Can you agree to that? I respect your offer at AN3 to avoid the article for two days, but I do not think that that will be necessary. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I wish I had enough good faith to believe that I am not being tag-teamed by a group of people who clearly profess to be on Wikipedia for the purpose of conservative activism on their user pages. I am finding several additional news sources supporting the inclusion, but I have no expectations that even 100 such stories will convince those who state on their user pages that they edit to reduce liberal bias. How can I expect any consensus under such conditions? Dualus (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it, thanks.

Collusion is notoriously difficult to prove in an open system like Wikipedia, and there have been several fairly nasty incidents in the past where otherwise decent editors accuse each other of comprising an editing block. To my knowledge, none of them have ended well and the acrimony still lingers. You are unlikely to get far with mere accusations (and may be blocked for personal attacks, depending on the circumstances). The behaviors you describe would fall afoul of the Disruptive editing policy if you can demonstrate a clear and consistent bias that detracts from development of the encyclopedia. The Administrators' Noticeboard is open to all, but please do not make unevidenced accusations. If you wish to demonstrate bias, the first step is to step up the sourcing - the better the sources, the more difficult it is to justify ignoring them. Several in your diff above do not really pass muster. Good luck and happy editing, - 2/0 (cont.) 00:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being cautioned to stop it and being told no good can come of it unless proof is offered, alleging or suggesting meatpuppetry has persisted. Besides having nothing to do with the edits and discussions regarding them, it is extremely offensive and incivil. Playing the role of the victim does not lead to good articles. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to beg your pardon, but the only thing I have patience for the cessation of expressing feelings of persecution. Using weasel words and phrases like "seems" and "I felt like I was being tag-teamed" are doubly offensive because they allow the insinuation that others are attacking you in concert. This is harsh on my part, but your feelings are not facts and have no place when used against others. You could take a break for a day or two from WP, then join us in developing and respecting consensus, not fighting it and the editors fashioning it.04:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have been insufficiently clear above. If you add the disputed material to the article again, you will be blocked for edit warring. Please read the policy regarding consensus for the procedure for identifying when material is or is not disputed. One simple rule of thumb is to wait for someone else to make an edit based on discussion at the talkpage; there are several other discussions running concurrently - watch how those evolve over the next week or two. That the material be interesting and well-cited is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for inclusion. You have provided a number of citations, some of a decently high caliber, but you have not yet convinced your fellow editors that the section is relevant at to a respectable encyclopedia article about the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Short version: please read WP:CON and WP:EW - you are ignoring the one and engaging in the other. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not objecting to the relevance or the quality of the sources, they are making specious and contradictory arguments. For example, Centrify says that they refuse to read the sources and I have to pull an excerpt of each before they will consider agreeing to them. Does that rise to the level of tag-teaming evidence to which you referred? I would ask that you please reconsider your opinion as to whether I am edit warring or editing within reasonable parameters of good judgement under this condition. Dualus (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me interject, tag teaming is coordinated meat puppetry - period. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments in this talk section are a protestation against the consensus, not an argument that a contrary consensus has actually occurred. If you want to say consensus is wrong, OK, but it is still the consensus until others adopt you views. Until then please stop with edits other editors object to and none besides yourself support. At this point the article is bogged down in your edit warring, and improving it per consensus is near impossible when your are involved. I've seen other editor's just as belligerent, and they either get with the program - usually after a few blocks - and become active and welcome contributors, or they fade away. You can join us or fight us. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are still no specific objections to the disputed material which have not been fully addressed. Dualus (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus, and only consensus, is the judge of that, and it is against you. No admin will dispute that. Unless you convince other editors of your views, your edits will not stand. Again, you are persistent, as the admin noted in ignoring consensus. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:PNHP poster.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:PNHP poster.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have PNHP send something in the morning. Dualus (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for the award, This is an unusual one that needs a pending OTRS! I did not know that I answered your questions, and usually I don't get a chance as others have got in before me! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: National Medical Poster Certificate of Recognition[edit]

Hi. Many thanks for the mention and great award (may I please call it an award?), and as for the RefDesk contributions, you (and Wikipedia) are welcome! Now, what do you think could possibly explain the seeming near-absence of other regular contributors to the desks? Much of Wikipedia appears to be experiencing this problem. Thanks again. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 14:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Yes it's an award, or it will be as soon as I get PNHP to send in a permissions slip. When I leave the desks for a while and return, I usually find most of the questions more than a few hours old answered. Dualus (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the badge. Please understand that WP policies are built from the ground up to err on the side of caution in order to control the potential mischief that can result from millions of anonymous strangers editing freely on topics that may well lead to dispute. Or at least that is my view of why the policies are the way they are.

But regardless of the why, the result is generally that WP articles are very timid, cautious creatures that are very careful not to speak too much, or too loudly. If a WP article isn't sure how to say something properly, it keeps its mouth shut. It is very often frustrating that something you deeply feel should be in a WP article, cannot be.

At the same time, if these sometimes-frustrating policies were not in place, Wikipedia would not be the thing it is today, and no one would care about it. That, I think, would be a much greater loss.Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still edit-warring[edit]

I could have sworn you were going to stop doing this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit are you complaining about now? Dualus (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, maybe the wholesale re-insertion of the disputed paragraph that to date no other editor has thought was appropriate and which you were warned against inserting again without consensus? (And all this while other editors are faithfully engaging you in discussion of what would be appropriate.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your only objection to it was that it was a reaction, when you are arguing on WP:ORN that there was no relation, and the reliable sources from Slate say Lessig adds credibility and Lessig himself has been speaking at the protests. Why don't you ask the warning administrator if I correctly sought and obtained consensus? Dualus (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't contacted the admin because I'm fairly confident the admin would either warn you again in stronger words, or simply block. I'd rather see you take a step back and play fair without anyone having to call in the ref. Admins, too, really prefer it when people don't need them to get involved. Also, much as it might seem that way, "consensus" doesn't mean just talking at Talk until you've convinced yourself you're in the right. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to ask? You were saying both that there was not relation and that it was a reaction, when the sources say it is part of the movement. Dualus (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's really up to you if you want to re-establish contact; you needn't do so on my behalf. If you think that you're making well-founded arguments only to be met with baseless objections, perhaps an outside opinion is needed. (Also, as I just mentioned at article Talk, it should be clear that I never said that there is no relation between Lessig and OWS. Quite the contrary.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you very much! You are too kind. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR report filed again[edit]

Here's the link link

The reverts in that report are almost three days apart. Dualus (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the 3RR policy. There is no hard line of 24hrs. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TAGTEAMing[edit]

Either make your "formal accusation", or don't make it; but whatever you do, stop repeating the charge ad nauseam on the OWS talk page. It's extremely annoying—and each time you say it again, it becomes even more difficult to take you seriously. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reserve the right to continue to gather evidence for as long as I see fit. Dualus (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say anything about your right to "gather evidence"? No; knock yourself out.

But do not persist in repeating this vacuous accusation in the public talk spaces. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Wall Street[edit]

Please ensure you state clearly in the POV section on the talk page when you think is not neutral in the article. You have followed policy and you need to remain calm. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show what is not neutral per consensus, that is the actual standard. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag[edit]

If you feel the article has a POV issue then by all means tag it, but you need to open a section on the talk page immediately afterwards and explain what you feel is POV. Failure to do this means other editors will revert you and say your objections have already been resolved. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are already two sections about the POV tag, and since it was immediately deleted the third time I inserted it, I'm going to follow the advice on WP:ANI and just not worry about it any more. Others should be able to see that a dispute exists. I'd rather spend time looking for better sources on the subject under dispute. Dualus (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STILL edit-warring[edit]

You continue to insert material that you know is disputed, and you continue to disengage from discussion when other editors point out problems with your edits and proposed edits.

At no time since the last time I made this complaint have you waited for consensus among other editors before making edits—in fact, you have grown increasingly hostile and uncooperative at talk—and now it seems you are intent on fashioning another entire "Demands and goals" subsection, this time without a single mainstream media reference. Worse, the section is poorly written and unencyclopedic, mentioning various "groups" without explaining who or what they are. And many or most of the footnotes are stacked in a spot that gives no indication of which statements they correspond to.

You continue to misrepresent sources, and make no effort to explain how a source supports a piece of article text when challenged—even after another editor has had to read an entire source to discover that utter lack of support, because you couldn't be bothered to offer any summary or explanation in the first place. You also appear to have zero understanding of what constitutes synthesis or other forms of original research, as was at least partly in evidence when you responded in disbelief to TFD's observation that it is not WP's role to correct the weight given to topics by the mainstream media.

Please realize that this behavior cannot continue. You need to abide by consensus, and that doesn't mean telling everybody else in the world that they're wrong and have no right to object to your unilateral demands about what the OWS article should say. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I tried to insert anything unsourced? Preposterous! Dualus (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I said you insert anything unsourced? It is increasingly frustrating that you respond to criticism and questions with terse non-sequiturs. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have complaints about my work, please make them specific or I will not be able to address them. I would hope you'd expect the same of my critiques. When you say "without a single mainstream media reference" but you don't refer to a specific passage or diff, then I have no way to respond. I'm sorry you're frustrated, and I hope you enjoy trying to improve the encyclopedia for accuracy and our readers as much as I do. Dualus (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Entire 'Demands and goals subsection'" was not specific enough for you? The section we were just talking about less than 12 hours ago in a Talk page discussion you started? The section you apparently added yourself, against the protest of two other editors, after I went to bed, in the face of a specific request that you for once wait for input from other editors? Ok, if you say so. I'm talking about this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning, "Focus," or "Demands Working Group"? Which specific statements do you believe are unsupported by reliable sources? Dualus (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See previous talk page comment that you ignored before simply inserting the material. The entire section lacks any substantiation by any mainstream sources. And since it's a fairly extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary sources; you haven't even met the bar of providing ordinary sources. This, too, was raised at article Talk, which you apparently pay little attention to. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're mistaken. It is obvious that you didn't read the Haack piece well enough to tell that it mentioned both demands and goals. I invite you to help us focus on the content. Why do you say the Guardian is not mainstream? Please take further comments to Talk:Occupy Wall Street#More deletion without discussion. Dualus (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the entire Haack article more than once and I assure you that my reading comprehension is excellent. That's great that it mentions the words demands and goals; I already saw that. It doesn't say anything about an "alternative document" that any working group may put out, so that text you inserted was not supported by that source. In any event, simply saying another user is reading a source wrong doesn't get you anywhere. If you can't show how a source supports an article claim, it doesn't go in.

And of course I would not say that The Guardian is not a mainstream news source; but a blog-space with over 600 contributors—including, as I noted, unemployed non-journalists such as Haack, who has published a single blog piece at that space—is not transformed into a mainstream news source just because it is hosted by The Guardian.

Since you ignore most everything that is discussed at the Talk page, it's necessary for me to post here in order to get your attention—I should note that you began that same discussion thread after ignoring the previous one, and ignoring the disputes raised, and edit-warringly inserting the disputed text. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haack in not a journalist and neither is Kingkade, both are self published. That means I could go to either place and start a blog, say I was at the protests, and then you would have to allow it simply because the host of my blog is the Huffpo or the Guardian. You really have to be careful with getting legit reporters to cite. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently have no idea of the Guardian's blogger editorial policy. Dualus (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your right and I need to make a correction. Haack is not a blogger, he has only one piece at the Guardian, and nowhere else, as far as I can tell. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Dualus. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 17:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

causa sui (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW[edit]

I think the NPOV tag is only supposed to stay while there is an active discussion regarding any purported neutrality problems. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the dispute is ongoing. I proposed the tag be removed since you were the only one arguing for it, and you seem to have walked away from the discussion and moved on. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romsey Town Rollerbillies[edit]

Thanks for your message. I'm pleased to see that you've been working on the article and have added additional, referenced, information. I've not commented in the deletion review as it's probably now moot, and because I don't think it's likely to succeed - given the state of the discussion at the time of closing, I think the consensus was correctly interpreted. I'm all for restoring the article if there is a consensus that it now meets notability standards, although I think it will be hard work to persuade people that it does. Incidentally, I know that you say you have no interest in the sport, but I really would recommend going to watch a bout if you get a chance! Warofdreams talk 15:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. While we disagree about the validity of the deletion process, I can safely state that I would be happy if the DRV succeeds; that's part of the reason why I have refrained from commenting there. I don't personally see glorification of violence as a common feature of the sport, and would be unhappy if it were. It is true that there are certain sources which like to focus on the full-contact nature of the sport and describe it as if it were violence (and some competitors who make light of this in their choice of derby name). Finally, you are quite right about the GRADUATION process. As a significant contributor the article, I couldn't move it back to article space, but there are many other editors who could. All the best, Warofdreams talk 16:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting here rather than on Warofdreams's talk page: We (me? probably me) crafted WP:NSPORTS#Roller derby mostly in response to that particular deletion. Bit of a fear that one deletion of a derby article would lead to some one one nominating every article for deletion. I think the article is probably just over the line based on the consensus for the AfD, with the inclusion of having participated in a major national and international tournament. If that can be improved to include more references and more details regarding those events, it would go a long way towards helping the article and justifying the presence of WP:NSPORTS#Roller derby. Beyond that, while the sport appears violent, the sport reminds me a bit of netball because the modern version of roller derby is a traditionally female administered sport. (This compares to say softball where the sport is traditionally administered by men.) This provides women with a fantastic opportunity in terms of participation as sport administrators. The fact of it being a largely female played and participation sport probably explains some of the push back being seen and efforts to trivialise the sport as a form of entertainment. The violence associated with sport (and there are a number of rules restricting it. you can't make that many bad hits) is another aspect seen as empowering because it challenges traditional gender norms regarding what women can and cannot do. There does not appear to be the conflation of roller derby girls and lesbianism that other female related contact sports have (and that can be a challenge to marketing the sport, and having parents encourage their girls to participate in) which can be helpful in elevating the whole of female sport. --LauraHale (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't understand what you're getting with in regards to the porn industry comparison: It appears to be a completely unfair slagging of the sport. The porn industry is a male run industry, created with the idea of men's pleasure in mind, and profits going to men. Women are in some cases drawn to it as actors because they don't see many other choices. Modern roller derby on the other hand is female run, attracts large number of female spectators and is not created with the male gaze in mind, provides opportunities for women on all levels. Women are not drawn to it because they feel trapped and this is the only way they can be better their lives. (The startup costs for participating can be prohibitive.) The sport, in its modern form, is all about female empowerment… I'm not sure where you are coming from with the porn comparisons and issues related to domestic violence. --LauraHale (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your linking of roller derby to completely unrelated issues that are not supported by roller derby sources just feels goofy. I'm still not entirely certain how you made the connection between roller derby and pornography. :/ The sources I've looked at from academic texts (some one in Australia is doing their dissertation on the topic of roller derby and female empowerment) don't mention it. I don't really want to address the rest, because it feels a bit like derailing and doesn't really have much to do with what I consider the issue: Roller derby, it's notability as a SPORT and to a lesser extent Romsey Town Rollerbillies. It feels like POV pushing that makes me really uncomfortable, as I just don't have the roller derby sources to support it. When you're arguing anti-female bias and citing that, it is highly problematic for the rest of us who are trying to improve women's sport coverage.--LauraHale (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable. I wish the truth never caused discomfort. Dualus (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're making claims where there are zero links. You repeat those claims. There is no connection between female domestic violence and roller derbies. There are no connections between pornography and roller derby. You repeated them several times, with out any support for these claims. This isn't an issue of truth, because if it was an issue of truth, you would have provided the research that showed those connections. Your non-apology is not accepted. --LauraHale (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no research that supports the pornography claim. I'm sorry but repeating that claim does not make it so. (Roller derby is not for the male gaze as a sexual thing, nor does it serve the same purpose for the female gaze.) If you think the two are linked, you're not familiar with the sport and you're making stuff up to help your own agenda at the expense of the truth. --LauraHale (talk)

Please tell me what you think my agenda is. I cited [3] on your talk page which is both per reviewed and WP:SECONDARY. Dualus (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AIAssessment[edit]

Hi, I am somewhat worried about your change to Template:AIAssessment, if I understand it correctly it says to keep biographies of living people on hold indefinitely? Could you explain why you made that change? Yoenit (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a matter of civility. Do you think a year would be better? Dualus (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is not important here, wp:BLP is. I responded in more detail at Template talk:AIAssessment as you requested. Yoenit (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Edit-warring did not become an acceptable editorial practice in the past few days. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably pointless, but...[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Article. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been discussing each change. Dualus (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it doesn't make it so. Simply restoring disputed content and saying "I reviewed the discussion and I'm right" is not discussion. My patience for this is running out. I have overlooked several instances of edit-warring since your last warring that IMO would have gotten you blocked had they been reported, but I'm not inclined to keep doing so. You demonstrate no willingness or desire to play by the rules. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to discuss the issues instead of saying that I am not. Which specific replacements are the ones you think do not have consensus? Dualus (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you should be aware from the fact that every proposed inclusion was rejected by everyone else who discussed any of them, not a single one is supported by consensus. Why don't you make any effort whatsoever to demonstrate that any consensus supported any of the edits? Just one? Hell, I can't even think of a single editor that agreed with any of your inclusions or proposed inclusions. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your universal quantifiers are inaccurate. Please discuss further on the article talk page, not here. Dualus (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are, simply put, dishonest. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reasons to the contrary. Dualus (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inequality graph[edit]

I created a svg version and a higher resolution png of Lane Kenworthy's graph and emailed them to him, along with a suggestion that he upload them to wikipedia, as I don't have the time. If he's not interested, you might request the updated images from him and upload them. 166.183.15.176 (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can you use TinyPic? Dualus (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RM bot[edit]

Hi Dualus, I noticed you had a bit of a back and forth with RM bot the other day. Just out of interest, could you please let me know if you found any behaviour in RM bot that needs to be updated? The bot is a bit rigid and will overwrite the current discussions page with its regenerated version every time there is a new update, but luckily most issues can be resolved by checking the code in the original move request. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 03:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Dualus (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further progress -- see User talk:HardBoiledEggs#RM bot suggesting a null move, perhaps because of quotes. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 04:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Romsey Town Rollerbillies logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Romsey Town Rollerbillies logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced on the parent article, as this bot might do in the glorious AI future. Dualus (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:PNHP poster.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:PNHP poster.jpg, which you've sourced to http://www.pnhp.org/images/store/poster_large.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 02:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Romsey Town Rollerbillies logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Romsey Town Rollerbillies logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:99pd-logo.jpeg[edit]

Hi there. I have tagged this image for deletion under WP:CSD#F7 - Non-free images can be replaced by a free image . It seems that the 99 Percent Declaration website is just merely using the shield marker for Washington State Route 99. This free image can be found at File:WA-99.svg. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Apparently they took advantage of the fact that the marker shield for the state highways in Washington have a profile of George Washington. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you send me an email to deal with a private matter?[edit]

Hi Dualus, I don't have email enabled via my account because ever since Wikipedia spammed me for the image-filtering survey a while back, they lost my trust completely. Could you drop an email to jowels_dont_lie <a> yahoo,com (a disposable email address, from which I will give you my real email address) and I too am quite different off-wiki than I am on-wiki. That way, neither of us have to engage in crafting our personas for the inevitable Best alternative to a negotiated agreement if we are unable to negotiate an agreement. If you're what I call "a natural" with regard to your power here at Wikipedia, then I could recommend a few books [4] published by Harvard Press which will only make you even stronger. What you lack is the ability to garner momentum from other editors and the type of social leadership where you bring consensus everywhere you go. That is why if someone equally capable were to attempt a unified mission antithetical to your efforts, not all your intelligence, argumentative abilities, or determination to achieving your goals at Wikipedia will be enough to overcome the crippling deficit of being a 1-man social maverick. I hope this brief bit of advice helps, and there's more to come if we can work out a compromise between you, and my good friends & fellow editors who have reached their wit's end with you. Now is time for you to put your best foot forward, because the next 2-3 days will be very transformative one way or another. 완젬스 (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind offer. How about Tinychat? Dualus (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we'll do tiny chat. Sorry I was so busy today, and my only 2 edits to Wikipedia today are these right here on your talk page. That's how busy I've been. How about tomorrow any time after 19:00 UTC? I'll make sure to modify my !vote before the deletion discussion is closed, I was much busier than planned, and since I do freelance work, I have to devote maximum focus for long stretches of time; and, when another person is unreliable, I have to still finish on time because my customers are not interested in excuses. Thanks in advance for understanding, 완젬스 (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, around 19:30 UTC then? Dualus (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dualus, please send me an email when you are on tiny chat, or come here. I got your earlier email, and I'm doing the signup process now. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'm there now if anyone wants to chat. Dualus (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Healthcare in the United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Chzz ► 20:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the warning administrator had not responded to the questions at Template talk:Healthcare in the United States before issuing this warning, and is involved in disputes regarding other articles I have been editing. Dualus (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator.

I have reported this problem on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, to get assistance in resolving this seemingly ongoing problem. Best, Chzz ► 20:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Income inequality graph[edit]

I see you were the uploader of File:Inequality-by-Kenworthy.png. I checked the source and I couldn't find a creative commons release on the image. Did I miss something?--Nowa (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the author to release the graph as CC-BY-SA-2.0 by email. Should you wish to verify this, please email lane (dot) kenworthy (at) gmail (dot) com. Dualus (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just checking.--Nowa (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Occupy Wall Street and Talk:Occupy Wall Street. :-) See WP:Tea 99.181.141.184 (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Dualus (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

You make egregious and baseless Tagteaming charges, refuse to retract them, and now want to have an off Wiki chat? This is what happens: you can stop filibustering, get what valid arguments people are making, respect - not gainsay - consensus, or sink further into leper status. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:99pd-logo.jpeg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:99pd-logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks[edit]

I think you're an untrustworthy ideologue who has little interest in learning or abiding by WP policy, and every intention of using WP space as a soapbox for pushing OR and views that are well out of the mainstream, so No, I'd rather not engage in off-wiki discussion with you. Better that everything be logged. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Romsey Town Rollerbillies logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Romsey Town Rollerbillies logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record[edit]

Practically every article-space edit you make is edit-warring. Just another warning that this has gone on for weeks and cannot continue forever. Most other editors would have been given a long (possibly permanent) block for this sort of behavior. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you use the words "practically every" in the sense of "most," but if you feel that way, please suggest some topics you think I should work on instead. Dualus (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No attack is intended, but you seem to have a very difficult time collaborating with anyone who doesn't agree with you. In situations like this, I recommend the "Swiss Family Robinson Option." I have seen it used, with success, by other editors in the past who find themselves unable to work on controversial articles. Trusilver 18:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dualus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"You blocked the wrong person. The other disruptive editor was User:Amadscientist as shown here and here. Furthermore, this block is unfairly preventing me from defending myself against the false claims here. Dualus (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM, I see 5 reverts in 2 days - just because you failed to do 4 reverts in 24h does not negate the edit warring - policy says Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Although you are currently blocked, there is currently an ongoing discussion in which you may wish to take part. You may participate by typing {{adminhelp}} "Please copy the following to (name of noticeboard:" followed by the text you want to have copied. An administrator will do so as soon as they are able.

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}} Please copy the following to just before "Why do you believe it is inappropriate?" in Template talk:Healthcare in the United States#Deletion of United States National Health Care Act and just before "I note that all the reform groups listed" in Template talk:Health care reform in the United States#Single payer per [5]: {{rfc|tech|pol|sci}} Thank you. Dualus (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O, you didn't hear it already. I see. Jesanj (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the adminhelp request--no. You are blocked. That means you cannot edit. The only time we ever copy the comments of a blocked editor to another page is when there is an ongoing discussion regarding that person somewhere like ANI. You can edit articles/talk pages once your block expires. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Domestic violence[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Domestic violence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so caught up with single payer? Why not all payer?[edit]

Many countries that have universal coverage use health care systems with all payer characteristics. Jesanj (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on it yet, but here's my beginning of a draft it has some links: User:Jesanj/All_payer Jesanj (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Medicare is projected to break the bank. Fee-for-service Medicare is no solution to our problems. It would require real reform like a move towards capitation or an all payer system or both. Jesanj (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And integrated care saves money too: Fee-for-service#Reform. Jesanj (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable secondary sources for those claims? There has not been an all-payer proposal in Congress since 2001. The template has always reflected the pending proposal(s). Dualus (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? Supposedly the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is supposed to look at all-payer possibilities (to what extent I don't know). Jesanj (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two I italicized above? Dualus (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Medicare see page 80 of the CBO's 2011 long term outlook: [6] The graph is not stratified (I can continue to look for that one) but just compare the explosion in federal medical spending with the flatline for Social Security for goodness sakes. And the far-right wants to call SS a Ponzi scheme... Jesanj (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And there are sourced statements in Fee-for-service#Reform. Jesanj (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Medicare beneficiaries get about 3X more in medical expenses than what they paid in.[7] And regions that have high-medical spending fare no better (or are worse off) than those with low medical spending.[8][9][10] Who's the real beneficiary? Medicare is effectively a massive subsidy for the medical industry that requires reform unless the U.S. wants go to bankrupt. Saying Medicare for all misses the point entirely. Keep fighting for "the 99%" though. ;-) Jesanj (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that contradicts all the CBO and PubMed secondary source scores. How do you explain Canada? Dualus (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? What refutes what? Single-payer systems like Canada can be considered a special subset of all-payer systems, whereby the national health service is the "all". (It is, after all, just a price-setting mechanism.) According to this there are three important differences between U.S. Medicare and Canada's health service: 1) they ration based upon medical necessity 2) they have a budget 3) the government actively sets prices (in the U.S. we have this). I think you're falling for the fallacy that the savior is single-payer. Medicare is not a fiscally responsible system. To say "Medicare for all" and think you're advocating for what they have in Canada is incredibly misleading. Furthermore, there are other models, such as in Japan (where they do #2 and #3, I don't know about #1 -- they get even more MRIs than we do) without a single-payer. What matters is that we reform the system to be fiscally responsible. It matters less what shape it takes. You act as if single-payer is the answer. You're wrong. There are multiple answers. I recommend this documentary:[11] Jesanj (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relative to [12] why do you believe that an all-payer solution is better for the US? All-payer has not been proposed in Congress since 2001. Dualus (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've barely started to look over your link, but I'll say this: I'm disappointed you didn't address much (any?) points I raised and I'll repeat (again, disappointed that I have to repeat myself) that the PPACA supposedly has some all-payer initiatives baked in. I am too ignorant to comment on the political feasibility of moving our system completely to one or the other, but I do know that single-payer was taken off the table under a Democratic administration willing to spend lots of political capital on reform. Jesanj (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read it yet? That link does address the specific points you raised, because it discusses the 20 richest countries. All-payer or single payer, they uniformly do better than the US. So again, why do you believe that an all-payer solution is superior? The single payer proposal has more congressional cosponsors than any other pending reform. Dualus (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring, tendentious editing, disruptive editing[edit]

Dualus, some weeks ago you were warned that consensus was necessary for inclusion of material in articles on Wikipedia, and later warned again that you were ignoring consensus and edit-warring. The administrator who gave you those warnings requested that you "not add that material, in whole or in part, unless there is an unambiguous consensus at the talkpage to do so". Now, so far as I am aware, that is actually a stricter standard for gauging consensus than is ordinarily observed by most people at most articles, even controversial ones, but I believe the admin was encouraging you to gain some practice in collaboration and self-moderation by suggesting that you aim for that strict standard.

From that point on, you have made zero or near-zero effort to actually persuade others editor towards your views, or even stake out positions that could be made palatable to others, even when you are actively posting on the subject on a Talk page. You have also refused to wait for any consensus, let alone an "unambiguous" one, and re-include material, including this exact material, even when it is rejected by one or more other editors for failure to adhere to a core policy. By my informal count, you have added this specific material that you were warned about, contrary to consensus, in at least four separate articles and on more than 20 occasions. On some of these occasions you have openly stated that you rejected the views of multiple other editors, and would edit the material into the article regardless of those views. That's edit-warring and disruptive and tendentious editing in the extreme, and it reflects only one item from your logbook of activity.

Dualus, this is not a threat—it's a warning. If you keep this up, you will not last long on Wikipedia. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously asked Centrify to refrain from contacting me on my talk page. I believe Centrify and I have a legitimate dispute on which ordinary people would reasonably be expected to disagree. Dualus (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing[edit]

You appear to again be engaged in disruptive editing as you have with this[13] edit. You are not permitted to repeatedly add disputed content back into the article without gaining consensus, something you should know seeing as how you have already been blocked for it once. To do so is edit warring. I suggest you attempt other means of dispute resolution such as WP:MEDCAB or WP:RFC rather than continuing with your current methods. Please take a look at those two links and determine if they can perhaps help with the article in question. Trusilver 00:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have two RFCs open. Who do you propose as a mediator? Dualus (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe waiting for the RFCs to run their course would be a good idea. Jesanj (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually RFC wouldn't be my first choice. (And yes, Jesanj is correct, let the RFC play out. Wikipedia isn't a race, nobody is standing at the sidelines with a stopwatch grading you on when you finish an article.) I actually think that this is a good dispute for WP:MEDCAB. I would mediate myself except for the fact that I already know too much and have already developed my own opinions about the subject matter. If I had to handpick a mediator, I would say you can't go wrong with Steven Zhang or Alpha Quadrant. Trusilver 01:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaining, and then losing, trust[edit]

Hey Dualus, I still believe in you; and, I think you have great potential in improving the various OWS articles. Wikipedia's beginning was almost identical to the rebellious, power-decentralizing, and entrepreneurial spirit which mimics the early movers & shakers of OWS, yourself included. But with that bold & brazen contempt for the status quo, you'll realize that Wikipedia is itself set in its ways. You must listen to those editors who are inferior or "beneath you" even if you don't like it because if you act like lessor people are unimportant, then you're basically putting a bulls-eye target onto your back. There's no way you can create and sustainably maintain your overwhelming power & influence, unless you do it the right way. Try giving one of your "foes" a pat on the back for something you observe them doing constructively. Try to disagree without being so disagreeable. Learn to listen to others who try to direct you to relevant policies & links. We'll never block you because of who you are, because we know your intentions are good, and your heart is in the right place, but irreconcilably misguided. You need to, once and forever, change your ways and wholeheartedly adopt the "Wikipedia way" of doing things, because that's the only modus operandi which is likely to survive in a collaborative environment. There's no way you'll be allowed a future here unless you mimic the good habits of your fellow editors, who are at your front door, welcoming you to join in. Wikipedia once was, and has always been, a collectively empowered encyclopedia. And what this means, is that if you're not on the side of the majority, you'll be left outside the door. With that said, realize you're an editor who is no better, and certainly no worse, than any of the rest of us. You've breeched my trust because I defended your contribs without comparing your edits to the actual sources, and it has undone the ability I found to trust you. Please never make tendentious edits which seemed to me to be genuine and defendable. I want to be the face of maturity and help bridge the gap between you and the group of editors who don't believe in you. Please prove me right and prove them wrong. I want to hold onto hope that you can change, but you're the only one capable of changing how you interact on Wikipedia. In closing, I want to leave you something to think about from my esteemed mentor, Elie Wiesel. 완젬스 (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, the only power to which man should aspire is that which he exercises over himself.

완젬스 (talk)

"If you're not on the side of the majority, you'll be left outside the door"? Have you read WP:NPOV? "Please never make tendentious edits which seemed to me to be genuine and defendable." That is absurd. If the edits are defensible, then they are not tendentious. Dualus (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Sorry for my lack of clarity--I'm not talking article content here, I'm specifically referring to WP:CONSENSUS and I agree with you that article should be npov. I apologize for being unclear, and I hope you'll reread my message without my error in communication. I was referring to consensus only, sorry for that. 완젬스 (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, if there is a consensus against your defense, your edits become tendentious. Jesanj (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Header[edit]

Your recent edit adds a header to the article, 'Replaced POV tag', which has already been used up above. Please consider replacing the second header with something different, such as 'Replaced POV tag (second time)' to allow linking to that section from elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Its perfectly obvious that you refuse to edit collaboratively and your contributions are disruptive, preventing others from working and a net negative.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dualus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been tag-teamed, as I have been saying for weeks, including above. The editor who asked that I be blocked indefinitely, Amadscientist, has with others been complaining about me at great length, but has not responded to this discussion of their specific complaints which shows how deceptive they are trying to be, after more than three days and dozens of subsequent edits to the same page. I was following administrator instructions to participate in dispute resolution, and had two RFCs open, but one editor who was modifying my RFC statement has closed the RFCs after only one day instead of 30 days as specified in the RFC process, presumably to avoid the discussion of his editing. Moreover, I want to defend myself against false attacks; at least 8 of the 13 numbered points in this section are both false and defamatory. Am I not allowed to participate in dispute resolution as instructed and defend myself against such lies? I ask that I be unblocked so that I may appeal this block on Jimmy Wales' talk page and respond at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion#Health care affecting editor retention. Dualus (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Let's see. First of all, WP:NOTTHEM; unblock requests with attacks against other editors are not considered (and calling other editors liars is such an attack.) Next, you weren't "tag teamed" ; you were editing against consensus, which multiple editors informed you of. Next, this is where you request unblocking, not on another editor's talk page. Finally, though, you give no indication you are going to stop behaving in exactly the same way that got you blocked in the first place. You really need to learn how consensus operates here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If you get a chance, Dualus, could you reply to my comment above, to continue our discussion on health care policy? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied above as requested. Dualus (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dualus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is very difficult to assume good faith under these conditions, but I will try. I failed to assume good faith, edit warred with what I believed at the time to be a tag team because I thought it would benefit the quality of the encyclopedia to document their behaviors, and I was not able to use dispute resolution effectively. I will stop edit warring and try to improve 99 Percent Declaration by making further edits to adjust wording and add sources to the inclusions I have proposed at Talk:99 Percent Declaration until other editors do not object to them. I will simply make no edits to article pages until I have addressed all such objections raised, in accordance with WP:BRD. I am here to improve the encyclopedia in all aspects. I believe that WP:NPOV is particularly important for 99 Percent Declaration and Occupy Wall Street because those articles have apparently been scrubbed of the protesters' points of view. I will provide details on request. I will continue to participate in the RFC process as my preferred method of dispute resolution. Dualus (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Dualus, you have had probably more chances and patient explanations than pretty much any other editor I have seen around here, but you persisted in ignoring the consensus model of editing. This is disruptive and is disrespectful of the efforts of your fellow volunteers. I am of half a mind to leave this without any further action, but I admire your passion. The other editors at OWS and associated articles seem heartily sick of telling you to wait for consensus. Would you be willing to avoid those articles, their talkpages, and any associated discussions for a specified period of time? - 2/0 (cont.) 03:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just my two cents on the subject. I have talked to this user many times, attempting to give him advice on how not to get himself into the exact position he finds himself in now, and only after he's blocked does he agree to turn over a new leaf. I'm sorry, I'm all for giving multiple chances but this user's talk page and projectspace comments aren't really any better than his article contributions. They are rife with assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, disruption and pointy behavior. Editing Wikipedia is not a right, and I'm forced to ask what the benefit to the project is by keeping this user around. I see none. Trusilver 23:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For weeks, Dualus bitterly complained I was tag-teaming him, despite that he was told this is not the same thing as simply having one or more of your edits rejected by consensus. At 16:50 today, he again protested that he has "been tag-teamed . . . for weeks". At 21:00, he allowed that he had merely "believed at the time" that he was being tag-teamed. Even ignoring the thinly veiled accusation of bad faith and other comments seemingly indicating an intention to continue POV-pushing that accompanied this statement, I have to wonder what caused the dramatic change of heart during these intervening four hours, after weeks of patient criticism and advice from at least a dozen editors and administrators failed to win him over. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case Dualus is let back in the fold, a 1RR restriction could be an effective and fair condition of reinstatement. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not going to address the bludgeoning approach to discussion, walls of text or failure to give regard to others' opinions. Any unblock needs to go via ANI imho. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dualus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will accept 2/0's restriction on specific articles of his choosing for a delay of his choosing, if ANI agrees as Spartaz requests. In the mean time I would like to be unblocked to appeal the out of process RfC closure at Jimbo Wales' talk page. Thank you. Dualus (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined per notes re: block evasion below. The usual unblock process is thus: appeal on your talk page until/unless talk page access is revoked, appeal to unblock-en-l until they tell you to stop, and then email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC) at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. The BASC is considered the final, last-resort step in the unblock appeals process. As a subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo does have theoretical authority to override them at any time, it is worth noting that he has never done so nor has expressed any intention to do so. Thus emailing him would probably be a waste of time on both your parts. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In my opinion, it is not just the OWS/99% articles where you are disruptive and tendentious. Your edits to the Template:Healthcare in the United States and Template:Health care reform in the United States demonstrate problematic editing. You've been pushing a single payer option in those templates, and talking them up on the talk pages, which is also firmly linked to your 99% disruption. See this edit, after #6: [14] If you do get your block removed, Dualus, I think you would need to have a topic ban from 99% subjects broadly construed. Related block evasion: [15] I just don't think you can let things go. Jesanj (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment admins, c/f [16] [17] Chzz ► 16:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user is either willfully or unintentionally unable to grasp what they are doing wrong, the reason they are being blocked, or why block evasion just isn't a good idea. In a lot of cases, 1RR would be a good alternative here, but most of this user's disruptive behavior stems from his total refusal to learn from what others try to teach him. I don't see any benefit to allowing him to resume editing. Trusilver 19:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides which, this user has never stopped editing. Just not logged in. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

evidence?--Nowa (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser, Justified by the links Chzz provided above. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry to see it.--Nowa (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The links Chzz provided include the later of the two which I link to in my pending unblock request, so technically I provided it first. Isn't there always an absolute right to appeal to Jimmy Wales without regard to block status? Dualus (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Absolute right"? I have no idea what you mean by that.

I suppose you can email Jimbo, if you want; his addy is [email protected]

You can email whomever you wish. It's not an "absolute right", but, you can do it, I'd imagine. You can write a letter to your president or to the Pope, or whatever you like. If you want, write to me - [email protected]

Jimbo lacks super-powers; he may respond to you, he may not, but then again, so might anyone else.

As regards the block though, what you seem to continually fail to understand is... you're blocked. You cannot edit. Full stop.

You've been blocked to prevent disruption to our lovely Encyclopaedia - it's nothing personal.

You may request unblocking, if you can explain why unblocking you will make our Encyclopaedia better.

You cannot participate in ongoing discussions. You cannot suggest that an RfC should be re-opened. You cannot make suggestions regarding articles. You are blocked from editing.

IF/WHEN there is an ongoing discussion about your case on one of our notice-boards, then you might make comments here on your talk, and we would do you the courtesy of posting them into the discussion.

To be honest, following your behaviour, I doubt that you will be able to participate in our project; I hope I am wrong, and that you'll start to understand how the whole thing works - because, it really is very "power to the people" which is something I gather (from your comments) that you approve of.

Best wishes, Chzz ► 00:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch[edit]

Tough break, brah. Looks like they gave you the Heisman, but at least now you can get back to real life, you know? Maybe think about leaving the apartment for a spell. Getting up out of the 'ol chair for bit. Maybe, I don't know, eating some food, or sleeping. Walking outdoors and engaging another living human in face-to-face, verbal conversation. Stuff like that. You made a strong stand against the man, and you were relentless. They gave you fair warning, and slammed you for it. What we in the Casino business call an "Irvin Kershner Special." Admiral Bimbo (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate[edit]

Greetings, as someone who has signed up to be a member of the United States Wikipedians' collaboration of the Month, I wanted to let you know that several articles have been nominated to be a future Collaboration of the Month article. All editors interested in voting for or improving these article are encouraged to participate. You can cast your vote here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

I saw some of the fracas on Lawrence Lessig and wanted to offer suggestions if I may? About a researching method? It seems like some of the issues confronting you were problems that I had myself, earlier, at Wikipedia. And maybe you might find this helpful -- I don't know -- but here goes. I have an offline text file in which I have lists of newspapers and media sources. And if I want to research Lawrence Lessig, say, I put Lessig's full name in quotes -- into the google browser bar -- and then add the list of newspapers, which is this: (site:wsj.com OR site:nytimes.com OR site:boston.com OR site:miamiherald.com OR site:post-gazette.com OR site:chicagotribune.com OR site:suntimes.com OR site:latimes.com OR site:sfexaminer.com OR site:oregonian.com OR site:usatoday.com OR site:time.com OR site:washingtonpost.com OR site:nysun.com OR site:cbsnews.com OR site:npr.org OR site:guardian.co.uk OR site:nj.com OR site:nhpr.com OR site:huffingtonpost.com OR site:thestar.com OR site:usnews.com OR site:slate.com OR site:newsweek.com OR site:cnn.com). So, ALL that gets pasted (you know copy & paste, right?) into the browser, and then I hit return. Usually (not always) whatever comes up is acceptable as a source. Some things still don't count, such as reader responses to an article, and you still need to use judgment; for example, think twice whether to include an editorial opinion in an article (but possibly do so, stating that it's such-and-suchs opinion). And Huffington Post stuff is sometimes not as respected as mainstream news sources (since there are many editorials). If interested, I have many more lists of media sources, even from around the world, and on all different kinds of topics, which I can give you. Let me know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects[edit]

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

99% Declaration nominated for deletion[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/99 Percent Declaration (2nd nomination).--Amadscientist (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the author I needed to inform you that the article was nominated again. I figured even if you can't post you might be interested at any way.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:PNHP poster.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:PNHP poster.jpg, which you've sourced to (OTRS not received). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement moves forward[edit]

Hello Dualus. I assume you keep an eye on your user page during your block and like to keep you informed about discussions and articles related to you in the event you are ever unblocked and incase even during your block you would like to stay up todate on events. As you expressed some interest and concrens about a proposed project I wanted to let you know a formal proposal has been made. I also want to let you know that I am not an administrator and no one single editor runs projects while some may do more coordinating than others. Also the projects have no jurisdiction on the forms of dispute resolution used as you expressed concern over. That is still a personal choice of the individual editor. Should you be unblocked I encourage you to participate. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:99pd-logo.jpeg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:99pd-logo.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OCCUPY[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject OWS--Amadscientist (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Inequality-by-Kenworthy.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Inequality-by-Kenworthy.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC[edit]

You are invited to comment on the following Mathematics-related RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:PNHP poster.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PNHP poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Dualus! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PNoraU-logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PNoraU-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey about How Historical Knowledge is Produced on Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Dualus,

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, [email protected]

Welcome[edit]

Roseanne Barr[edit]

Good Article promotion[edit]

Replaceable fair use File:Occupy-wall-st-vs-tea-party.png[edit]

Images must have context[edit]

3RR report filed[edit]

Suggested solution[edit]

Out of curiosity[edit]

Edit-warring at Occupy Wall Street[edit]

AN3[edit]

File permission problem with File:PNHP poster.jpg[edit]

Re: National Medical Poster Certificate of Recognition[edit]

Thanks[edit]

Still edit-warring[edit]

Thanks[edit]

3RR report filed again[edit]

TAGTEAMing[edit]

Occupy Wall Street[edit]

POV tag[edit]

STILL edit-warring[edit]

Talkback[edit]

FWIW[edit]

Romsey Town Rollerbillies[edit]

Template:AIAssessment[edit]

FYI[edit]

Probably pointless, but...[edit]

Inequality graph[edit]

RM bot[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:Romsey Town Rollerbillies logo.jpg[edit]

File permission problem with File:PNHP poster.jpg[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:Romsey Town Rollerbillies logo.jpg[edit]

File:99pd-logo.jpeg[edit]

Could you send me an email to deal with a private matter?[edit]

November 2011[edit]

Income inequality graph[edit]

Thank you[edit]

Reply[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:99pd-logo.jpeg[edit]

No thanks[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:Romsey Town Rollerbillies logo.jpg[edit]

Just for the record[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Domestic violence[edit]

Why are you so caught up with single payer? Why not all payer?[edit]

Edit-warring, tendentious editing, disruptive editing[edit]

Disruptive Editing[edit]

Gaining, and then losing, trust[edit]

Header[edit]

Blocked[edit]

Ouch[edit]

Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate[edit]

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

Sourcing[edit]

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects[edit]

99% Declaration nominated for deletion[edit]

File permission problem with File:PNHP poster.jpg[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement moves forward[edit]

File:99pd-logo.jpeg listed for deletion[edit]

WP:OCCUPY[edit]

File permission problem with File:Inequality-by-Kenworthy.png[edit]

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC[edit]

Possibly unfree File:PNHP poster.jpg[edit]

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:PNoraU-logo.jpg[edit]

Survey about How Historical Knowledge is Produced on Wikipedia[edit]