User Talk: Dingsuntil

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{Top icon
| imagename = LLAVA Private First Class.jpg
| wikilink = User:Lord Laitinen
| description = This user is a Private First Class in Lord Laitinen's Anti-Vandalism Army (LLAVA).
| sortkey = 0
| width = 30
}}

BLP

Reddit doesn't have verified accounts so while I'm pretty sure that is her, it probably isn't appropriate to link to it on Wikipedia. We don't cover the topic of the link because there is no reliable source for it. — Strongjam (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

:Is the problem that the account isn't verified as her, or the lack of reliable sources? My understanding was that the topic wasn't discussed due to the BLP bias towards privacy. It's not clear to me how reliability of sources is an issue here. Dingsuntil (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
::Primary issue is that there are no reliable sources that report on the topic (Breitbart has, but they're not considered an RS here.) Once that happens, if that reddit account can be verified to be her's then her statement might be useful for deciding whether to cover it in her biography. However since we don't have any reliable secondary sourcing for the topic discussing her opinion on the matter is putting the cart before the horse. —Strongjam (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Has there been previous discussion on this? It seems like the community has decided it's not talk-page appropriate (fair enough), but if there's some more obscure forum where people have been over the arguments for & against, I'd like to see it, if only to understand wikipedia policy better. Dingsuntil (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::::WP:BLP ↗ is the policy. There hasn't really been an discussion about how to cover it because policy is that we don't even mention it unless there is a reliable secondary source for it. Once it's in a reliable source that's when the editorial discussion about how to cover it would happen. Biographies of living people are strict that way. If it were a company or a dead person then a discussion about something that is poorly sourced is fine for the talk pages, but for living people we have to take great care. — Strongjam (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:A Rape on Campus

Re your deletion ↗ of the auto-archiving code, someone must have disagreed with you since the code was added back in February ↗. The page was auto-archived once since then, with the stale threads (no replies within 30 days) being moved to the Archive. Most of the remaining threads left on the main talk page (after the last automatic archiving in February) had no posts until the past few days, when the Charlottesville Police Department's announced the results of their investigation. What's the harm in having threads with no posts within three weeks (or whatever timeframe) being archived? If someone posts a thread, there's a discussion, but then no activity within however many days, why should the threads remain on the main talk? If you'd like for threads to remain on the main page for 21 or 30 days or whatever, that's fine with me. Especially with articles such as this, that dip in and out of the public consciousness, IPs or new editors will come along, make a post and then disappear. Many editors don't even realize that there have been replies to their posts or they'll post a reply to some thread that's had no other replies for a couple of years. Would appreciate some discussion abourt the auto-archiving remaining in place. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The pseudonyms & those real names

Just wanted to mention that I will not be able to get to crafting a meaningful addition (sourced!) regarding the three friends until maybe later this weekend or possibly Monday. Didn't want you to think I was ignoring the editing, but Real Life interferes. Shearonink (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

:Unacceptable! If you don't complete the edit by midnight tonight, a member of the Audit Committee will kill you in your sleep. Consider yourself on notice. Dingsuntil (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
::Heh....at least then I won't be coughing. But then again, I won't "be"... oh no, the existential meaning of coughing! Shearonink (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Even though we may disagree on some topics, you have been one of the few here to show real respect and decency. It's very appreciated. I am beginning to think I came to wikipedia at a bad time - it seems like everyone is very much on-guard and defensive. Anyway, thank you. Cavalierman (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

:{{reply to|Cavalierman}} actually, you edited a contentious article without (iirc) editing other things. such articles always lead to trouble, but if you create an account just to edit an article that's popular for edit warring, people are going to think you're a sock puppet. anyway, the solution is to play it cool. guy thinks you're a sock puppet, just say "ok, dude, go ahead and checkuser me if you want." don't take it personally. Dingsuntil (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Annoying

Glad you said ↗ "annoying both side" in this context and not "rubbing people the wrong way":) DMacks (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|DMacks}} I suppose it's not too late... Dingsuntil (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teckyoung Kwon ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elizabeth Wright ↗. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

LL Awards You...

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:alt|alt|100px ↗|100px ↗}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For supporting me against the personal attacks by Sp176 and defending Wikipedia from the dangers that bias and improperly cited information pose. <span style="font-family: Brush Script MT"><span style="color:#983498">'''~LL~''' (talk) (requests)</span></span> 19:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
|}

left|50px ↗ I hereby welcome you into '''Lord Laitinen's Anti-Vandalism Army''' and grant you the rank of '''Private First Class'''. Your insignia is at the left, your topicons will be placed on your user page and user talk page, and this is your official welcome message. Over time, with hard work and dedication (and by request), you may be promoted to a higher rank. Congratulations! <span style="font-family: Brush Script MT"><span style="color:#983498">'''~LL~''' (talk) (requests)</span></span> 19:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Userboxes

I have removed and deleted two of your userboxes. Their content was unacceptable and they must not be restored. Frankly, if some administrators had seen these userboxes before I did, they might have blocked you indefinitely. Having checked your contributions, I think you probably were just messing around, but I caution you not to do anything like that again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|Newyorkbrad}} Maybe you could ask those administrators instead of taking the decision yourself. I'm willing to risk it. Did you notice that the Jimbo box had been patrolled by (IIRC) another administrator? Dingsuntil (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
::I don't notice that, if it's true, but it doesn't matter; it was still unacceptable. But frankly, that was the less problematic of the two. I seriously don't think you want this matter raised to a wider audience. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Newyorkbrad}} Thanks for the advice. Assuming I did want it before a wider audience, what would that entail? Something AfD-ish?

:::In any case, I think you were out of line to straight up delete my pages. You should have advised me that they were, in your opinion, unacceptable, and pointed me to the relevant guideline pages (which, IMO, they don't contravene). You could also have removed the include directives from my main page rather than deleting the pages themselves. You can always delete the pages later. This would have made it more obvious what you were objecting to (I didn't actually remember what "Part" referred to immediately, although "Jimbo" was pretty obvious), as presumably you're trying to guide me as well as clean up userspace (otherwise you could have just banned me). It would have also made it easier for me to edit them into acceptability. Maybe you didn't think that was possible in this case, but the point is that you don't actually have to go to the trouble of figuring it out if you take a less heavy-handed approach. I know that you're allowed to remove bad userspace content on sight, but that doesn't mean you have to or you should. It's an inherently hostile act that's going to fight the whole converge-to-consensus, lets-all-build-an-encyclopedia-together vibe I understood we were going for here. Dingsuntil (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
::::You can e-mail me if you've forgotten what the other userbox said. It would be grounds for an immediate indefblock and siteban if I didn't know better than to take it seriously in your case. Trolling on that particular subject is not tolerated here. Please don't dig yourself further into a hole. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Newyorkbrad}} I said I didn't remember immediately. That wasn't a troll, it was a joke. If joking about that subject is not permitted, fair enough, but the guideline page doesn't say so, so I'd ask you to point me to where this was hashed out, if anywhere. I don't know what you mean by asking me not to dig myself further into a hole. Dingsuntil (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Lord Laitinen Calls Upon You

Hello PFC Dingsuntil. I am currently being stalked, perhaps even harassed by User:ScrapIronIV. He reverts many of my edits (which were perfectly licit) and is trying to get my ''sandbox'' deleted. I ask that you come to my aid and support me in this difficult time. In return, you will be promoted to a higher rank in LLAVA and given one or more service awards. Thanks; I hope I can count on you, my child. <span style="font-family: Brush Script MT"><span style="color:#983498">'''~Lord Laitinen~''' (talk)</span></span> 13:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

:{{yo|Lord Laitinen}} As much as I'd like to help your grace, I'm afraid I see his point. WP:NOTWEBHOST ↗ and all. And not really knowing the subject, his own edits seemed reasonable enough as well. I understand if you want to have me Cashiered ↗. Dingsuntil (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

::Don't worry about me cashiering you. I realized that I was probably going to lose this battle. Take it from me, it had nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines at all. When you have strong opinions and speak the truth louder than the rest, you attract negative attention. A price I am willing to pay to spread the Word of God. Thank you for your honesty; your admirable behaviors will certainly earn you a promotion in the future. Vigilate mecum et ego vigilate vos. <span style="font-family: Brush Script MT"><span style="color:#983498">'''~Lord Laitinen~''' (talk)</span></span> 21:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016 ↗: Voting now open!

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Dingsuntil. Voting in the '''2016 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements ↗ and submit your choices on '''the voting page ↗'''. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Dingsuntil. Voting in the '''2017 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''voting page ↗'''. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Dingsuntil. Voting in the '''2018 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''voting page ↗'''. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2019 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2019|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2020 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2020|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2021 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2021|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
</td></tr>
</table>

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2022 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2022|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2023 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2023|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Graham Hancock

Please stop adding a pov notice there - you can go to WP:NPOVN ↗ if you want. <span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span> talk 09:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:Shouldn't you actually engage with the reasoning for calling it POV before removing the notice and directing me to the noticeboard? Dingsuntil (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Contentious topics alert for pseudoscience

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''pseudoscience ↗ and fringe science ↗''', a topic designated as '''''contentious ↗'''''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as ''contentious topics''. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee ↗. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators ↗ have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit <strong>carefully and constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia ↗;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines ↗;

follow editorial and behavioural best practices;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system ↗.

<p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics ''procedures'', you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard ↗ or you may learn more about this contentious topic here ↗. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}} <span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span> talk 09:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Doug Weller

Doug'a talkpage isn't a forum in which to air old grievances or to offer medical advice, far less to argue philosophy in lengthy detail. However well-meant, your comments really aren't appropriate. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="color: gray;">Acroterion</span> <small><span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span></small></span>''' 00:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

:I apologize for the arguing of philosophy. Andy challenged me, and I (perhaps ill-advisedly) took the bait.
:I was also not in any sense attempting to air old grievances. To me, this is obvious, although I admit that if both you and Andy interpret it that way, the mistake may be on my end. Just to be clear, what I meant that was that helping a fellow community member with a serious problem overrides any petty concerns like someone having been rude to me in the past. I genuinely do find it funny to do so, and I guess I vaguely imagined that Doug would appreciate the sentiment. Maybe I'm wrong and he'll think my sense of humor is weird and disturbed, and admittedly this isn't an unreasonable position.
:Regarding my offer of medical advice: I actually regard this as somewhat important, and not necessarily inappropriate for the page. I made lengthy philosophical arguments as to why this was so, which you (perhaps appropriately) deleted. You don't have to reinstate my philosophical babble on Doug's talkpage, but you could still read it yourself. Having read it, you would be properly briefed to assess whether a less-stupid message would be appropriate to send in place of the original. Something along the lines of "We interacted before. I see you have cancer. I think you should ask your doctor about treatment X. Whether or not you use treatment X, I hope whatever treatment you select works for you." Dingsuntil (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

::Commenters on Doug's talkpage should confine themselves to wishing him well or to Wikipedia business, not unsought medical advice, and it's particularly inappropriate commentary coming from someone who was warned by Doug just above this comment about pseudoscience. I can assure you that Doug has sought appropriate advice and treatment over the past several years, and doesn't need the Internet for that. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="color: gray;">Acroterion</span> <small><span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span></small></span>''' 02:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
:::I think your comment about it being "particularly inappropriate" is incorrect, and that you would agree it was incorrect if you familiarized yourself with the facts related to the warning you refer to. However, actually familiarizing yourself with said facts would probably be a waste of your time, so I don't recommend doing so. I merely point out that you have made a wildly mistaken assumption here, and this might be something to consider in future: what kinds of misleading assumptions are you making specifically from context clues, as opposed to explicit statements? It's like how Chesterton's Father Brown points out that a dressing gown is the perfect disguise. I knock on the door, the burglar puts on the the homeowner's dressing gown and opens the door, and without a word I assume everything is fine.
:::In any case, while I am not The Internet, I'm not going to insist on sharing my medical opinions. You and Andy seem to think Doug does not need them, and I suspect you both know him better than I do, and I think that's good enough. Dingsuntil (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Not just Acroterion and Andy. You say above {{tq|if both you and Andy interpret it that way, the mistake may be on my end}}. Be very clear: the mistake ''is'' on your end. You have ''massively'' misjudged in that comment. Don't double down on it. Don't go to any more talk pages to make any more related comments, where you will pick up more watchers, drawing attention to your error. The law of holes applies, and I recommend you put down the shovel and stop digging. I do, however, understand that you may have misjudged in good faith. I don't know you, but I do know that the world is full of people with various neurotypes, and we don't all judge humour or understand empathy in quite the same way. Neither do we all express ourselves as we intend in writing. So I'm not judging you, but I am asking you to understand that yes, the mistake is your end, and your best course right now is silence. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::It was generous of you to clarify the non-judgmental nature of your statement, and to assume good faith. So whereas I might in other circumstances object to the tone of your statement, I'll just clarify out that when I said "I think that's good enough" I meant "good enough to not insist on trying to push my opinions further." If you're following along, that was the last of the 3 subjects mentioned, so I have no further need to post any more related comments on any talk pages. Dingsuntil (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Please remove the nonsense, Andy

@AndyTheGrump As you already understand, I would like you to remove the thread I created on your talk page (which you identified as "this nonsense"). This is because you asked me to do something (not post on your talk page anymore), I promised I would do it, and then you deleted my response making this promise. I think this makes me look bad and doesn't feel reasonable. When I attempted to delete the thread (since I didn't want the version without me promising to do what you asked to appear there), you reverted the deletion. This didn't seem reasonable to me either.

I was going to post a request for help with this on ANI, but apparently if I want to do this I am REQUIRED to post on your talk page. Since this seemed provocative, I thought I'd try this first.

Look, you don't seem to like me very much, and that's fine. I don't want to bother you any more than is necessary. Can we just solve this dispute the simple way and then steer clear of each other from now on? Dingsuntil (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

:Let the record show that Andy silently removed the nonsense. Dingsuntil (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)