User talk:DanielRigal

CONSIDERING RETIREMENT

DanielRigal is considering retirement, although nothing is set in stone...

Hello, welcome to my talk page! If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply clicking the plus sign (+), "New section", or "Add topic" at the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere. Thank you!

Considering retirement

I wasn't sure whether to upgrade my "User frustrated" template to "User contempt", "Discouraged" or "Considering retirement". "Discouraged" makes it sound like I need cheering up, which I don't, and "User contempt" makes it sound like it is a me problem and not a Wikipedia problem. And, yes, I am genuinely considering retiring from the project.

I'm still waiting to see if anything can be saved from the shameful handling of the arbitration case on Transgender healthcare and people. This much needed case has been bothsidesed and the guilty and the innocent are being punished pretty much equally. The editor who brought the case is being straight-up banned instead of thanked for her heroic efforts. Yeah, shooting the messenger along with a few of the worst troublemakers might quieten things down for a little bit, until the next batch of faux civil transphobes get their feet under the desk anyway, but the collateral damage is truly painful to behold. No good deed goes unpunished but this is taking it to a ludicrous degree.

I feel that Wikipedia has failed to defend women and LGBT editors and that it has actively participated in forcing some good editors out rather than support them. I have to ask myself whether I am OK with the fact that I'm not getting trouble on here largely because I am a cisgender man? That really eats away at me. It just doesn't feel moral for me to be participating on that basis.

What does this mean? For now, it means I can't be bothered to work on articles or drafts. I'm still going to be hammering the revert button, and dishing out warning templates, whenever I spot vandals, bigots and trolls, so please don't be thinking that you've "won" anything there! But if Wikipedia can't expend a little effort to support some of its best editors then why should I be expending more than very minimal effort for Wikipedia? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Additional note:

• Please do not post replies seeking to defend the indefensible. I don't want to hear it. I'm done with this. This applies to replies that might be made in good faith. Rather than try to convince me that what is going on is morally acceptable maybe take some time to ask yourself how on earth you convinced yourself that this was morally acceptable or compatible with Wikipedia's mission. There are dark times ahead. If you can't be a source of light then at least ask yourself whether you want to be remembered as a beacon of darkness.
• Please do not post replies trolling. That's not impressive. Furthermore, it would only serve to prove my point about what has gone wrong with Wikipedia. Bullies are being protected, and allowed to rule the roost, at least up to the point where they become so blatantly disruptive that they embarrass the project, while the innocent are punished for pointing that out or for failing to handle harassment with perfect grace. The least trolls can expect is to be kicked off this page. (Yes, I do have the right to do that. Yes, I can do that myself. Yes, arbitrarily. No, that is not hypocrisy. I'm only kicking trolls off this specific page because I don't want bullshit on this page which has my name at the top. It's not impeding their ability to be obnoxious in general, which is still subject to the usual rules, insofar as they are still enforced.) --DanielRigal (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk removal

Not arguing with trolls. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You incorrectly removed my talk edit points regarding the Sam Smith article. For what reason? ~2025-32184-73 (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Stop trolling. Stop pretending to be more stupid than you are. MOS:GENDERID is not up for debate on article talk pages. Continued disruption will lead to a block from editing, but you already know that, don't you. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Gender-critical feminism

Hi DanielRigal. I moved a page and it was quickly reverted. Can you give me a rough idea how many editors will be threatening me about this? You are the second. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Please do not characterise valid warnings as "threatening". You got off lightly here. If you keep digging then that will only make it worse. Please just drop the matter, don't do it again, and everything will soon be forgotten. DanielRigal (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

bhaha

was having a terrible day, this diff is fantastic. you're doing great! <3 pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 03:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Admin noticeboards

I have started a discussion about your misconduct on the Administrators' noticeboard. ~2025-36066-88 (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I did try to warn you that doing that would not be a good idea. Let's see how it pans out for you... DanielRigal (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

No battleground mentality here

DanielRigal, the reported information by yourself is simply untrue and anyone can see the edits and I’m glad as they can make their own unbiased opinion. I have not presented any negative opinion here, I am in support of Polanski but have not made my edit positive either. Anyone can see the last edit I made was just a heading, which separates a summary of part of his career in “early life” as it is not part of his early life, but part of his career and I think this is very important to note. You are reverting to a less evolved article. I’m not sure what you have against my editing, suggesting you don’t like it because you saw it initially as I was negative, but when I worded it exactly how you approve of it, you still come up with another excuse to undo again and again and then have the nerve to report it here. Please take another look now you are more informed. PolitickingAnalysis (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Please do not waste my time with such obvious nonsense. The content you added was very clearly intended to be viewed negatively and to draw excessive attention to a matter which Polanski's enemies perceive as a scandal. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Is that why you are doing this? Because you are so pro-Polanski you are trying to protect him?

Your opinion on here is genuinely ridiculous and I’m glad this is public.

Please explain yourself further. PolitickingAnalysis (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

OK. It's back to the noticeboard then... (sigh...) --DanielRigal (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I am simply speaking with you here to try to understand further (sigh…) PolitickingAnalysis (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am unconvinced by that. Please stay off my User Talk page for the duration of the ANI thread and post anything you want to say there instead. That way everybody can see it and the administrators can decide what to do. --DanielRigal (talk)

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello DanielRigal, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Maduro

This is at ANI so we don't need it here as well. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There are reliable sources. Just give me time to include them. And these aren't my opinions; they're reliable facts. Dorian88A (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

You can't add that with any sources because we do not say "bloodthirsty dictator" in Wikivoice. Please don't do anything that is going to get you more warnings. If you think you have a valid change then please suggest it on the Talk page instead. DanielRigal (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

But why don't you read?

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/07/28/venezuela-political-persecution-a-year-after-elections

You don't do any research and when the official indictments are released then perhaps you will help expose this bloody regime. Dorian88A (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

You threaten me, you want to threaten me, are you sure you have accurate legal grounds? Dorian88A (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

If you want to wait for formal charges to refresh the page, then let's wait. Dorian88A (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. That's all I need. I'll notify you when the report is ready. DanielRigal (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: The above refers to my intention to file a case at ANI but somebody else got in first so I'm participating in that rather than filing my own. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Let's do this, since I don't have much time to follow the Maduro affair, because I have very complex pages to finish, you refresh the page. But do your research. Because I was astonished by all the crimes he committed. He committed all sorts of things. He made a lot of people disappear. Dorian88A (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Please update the article when the charges are released at the trial. That way, you'll have peace of mind. But what I wrote is accurate and full of references. Just do a search. Dorian88A (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Best regards Dorian88A (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Clairifing something

The part in the Scott Adams article where I edited was neutral because instead of saying that he said racist comments, which is subjective in itself, I stated that his comments were claimed to be racist by many people to add factual information. It's not like I was picking sides or anything. In fact, writing something about someone who says comments that are perceived by the general public to be positive or negative is neutral and factual info, regardless of what you think or believe. Know the difference. That's all. SilkDirksoak2ek3 17:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

If Reliable Sources say it is racist then we say it is racist. What you are doing, probably unintentionally, is engaging in False Balance. The important thing is to know when there is something that actually needs to be balanced (e.g. if we had a mix of Reliable Sources some of which said it was racist and others who explicitly said that it wasn't) and when there isn't anything on the other side of the scales and we are just looking for something to put there because we feel like there should be something. This is the second scenario. No Reliable Source is going to sign off on those comments as not being racist. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Not all reliable sources will say the same thing because not everything is black and white. Also, you're repeating the same points that are evidently invalid, dude. No need to do that. :b SilkDirksoak2ek3 21:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind explaining it once but I'm not going to explain it over and over. Please read the policies and stop wasting my time. DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Whatever. So be it. SilkDirksoak2ek3 21:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Law Enforcement Barnstar
		Thanks for stepping in on Femboy! I was genuinely very stressed about it all, and was actually debating quitting Wikipedia because I’d lost faith. Thanks! Regards, a most likely very cozy Cooldood5555 ✈️ (let's talk) 23:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Noahfinnce

Just wanted to pass on my thanks – I hadn't seen the previous vandalism, so I appreciate your comment and upgrade of the warning level; given the repeated disruption, I've requested page protection anyway, as I have a pretty low tolerance of that sort of bs and (AGF-ing) can't find anything that suggests he has changed his pronouns since coming out in 2017... Nil🥝 02:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump

Hi,

mind keeping an eye on Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump? Dorian is sockpuppeting on a temp account trying to mass revert, and I'm at 3RR

Thanks aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks like other people already took care of it. I've put a note on the SPI. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Graham Hughes

I won't re-add the category, but have you seen his YouTube channel? He's extremely critical of JK Rowling and has expressed support for transgender rights on multiple occasions in his content. Thus, although I won't re-add it, adding the category was not done with random intent. ~2026-78989-4 (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Just an observation

Hi, I saw you recently reverted my edit on Miles Routledge, which is completely fine, I don't mind it at all.

But because of the mildly passive agressive comment I took a quick glance at your userpage. And I just want to say that my first impression of you is that you come across to me as extremely pretentious, as well as hostile to anyone that has slightly different worldviews to you.

Reverting vandalism and everything is great, and thank you for that, but I think you should always assume the best in people. I am very much left wing and progressive myself as well, and I did not make that edit trying to justify racism or anything, for example.

You may have become used to seeing these types of edits and are tired of "having to" revert them, but most people on here don't intentionally vandalise. And having this list of all things/people you hate with snide remarks is not particularly a great look. — TheThomanski | t | c | ^{please ping me if you want me to respond!} 01:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

What on earth are you complaining about? I simply reverted an obviously bad edit with an explanation of why it was bad. I didn't even give you a warning template. I was going to, but I quickly checked your other edits and they did not look concerning so I decided it wasn't necessary. What you have posted here violates WP:NPA. It is very much not "just an observation". That is concerning. I'm not going to take it further unless you push it further. I suggest that you drop the matter. DanielRigal (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand

I get it that my rather involved arguments trying to explain the unreliability of sports journalism are not entirely best practice; I am just getting tired of being scolded for not wanting Wikipedia to reflect such a explicitly misogynistic bias. We owe women athletes better. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Please note I am not saying you were doing any such thing. Thus feeling the need to explain myself to you. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

At the risk..

..of seeming to pursue you around (not my intent), I have responded to your comment on my user page. (The editing system wouldn't let me ping you after I'd written the comment.) ~2026-13129-73 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

Your warning at User talk:~2026-16558-26 is a blatant violation of Assume Good faith. I agree with your edits and the version you are pushing for is the correct one. But please dont just assume its a dogwhistle Pencilceaser123 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It is a dogwhistle >90% of the time. There is a small possibility that this editor stepped on a rake without realising it. I've replied to them acknowledging that. DanielRigal (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

While it did look like a dogwhistle. I have sometimes spelled it transwomen instead of trans women, and I'm agender! So it's a very possible mistake thinking it's spelled that way. Anyway thanks for Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Evidence. Evidence of misconduct by parties but outside of Maghreb-related articles is welcome. All private evidence must be directed to arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org. If you wish to add another party, please make a request on the case talk page within the first week of the case. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Sennecaster (Chat) 02:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you think it's weird

that the deletion rationale at the AfD is basically verbatim the move rationale on the talk-page? --JBL (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't think about that too hard before but, now that I do, I suspect the move rationale was copied from the AfD so, while I disagree with the AfD, I don't think that this necessarily puts TheVectoriser in the frame as the sockmaster. It is weird though. I think I'll update the SPI to ask for a checkuser. I doubt that it will implicate TheVectoriser but it might show up some other socks. After all, a person willing to make two accounts might be just as willing to create three. DanielRigal (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh I misunderstood the chronology; it's still weird but I agree that it's less suspicious in this order re: TV. Thanks for starting & updating the SPI. --JBL (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

POV-pushing

I'm 99% confident that you will not convince *that* POV-pusher of anything; most of them are brick walls: chuck logic and reason at them all you want, they're not falling down. Report to ANI or CT enforcement and move on with your day. Cheers, msk 22:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. I know. The pretending not to understand is a standard tactic and it's sometimes worth confronting them with their own diffs to show that we are not fools. It's already at AE. If they make one more bad edit to the article then it will be IAV. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually, you were right. ANI was the way to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Your user page

I just wanted to stop by and share some encouragement. I like your user page, and we seem to see eye to eye on many different things. As for the perennial question that you pose ("What's wrong with you?"), it's something I got to examine in some depth from 2016 to about 2023 in the US, when I finally gave up asking it. I came to some interesting conclusions in some respects if you ever want to discuss them. Anyway, just glad to see someone like you out there. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate it

Thank you for removing that personal attack against me on that user's talk page. I tried to assume good faith at first with the TA, but so much for that. Thank you, though! JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Notification of proposed decision

Hi DanielRigal, in the open Maghreb arbitration case, which you have commented on, a proposed decision has been posted. You can review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest reversion re: Charlie Craggs

I would have preferred further discussion on the matter. Instead it's perhaps best to ask a separate editor for review. Greenpark79 (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what are you talking about. Discussion is ongoing. You have yet to show anything justifying the tag. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

New message from Nahleghini

Hello, DanielRigal. You have new messages at Nahleghini's talk page.
Message added 15:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, I saw that you reverted edits on the Great Replacement conspiracy theory and left an edit war comment, I was wondering if you could help advise how a revision here could be integrated without causing a disturbance, if possible. nahle.ghini (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are playing at here but please stop with the POV and the edit warring. Please stop making edits that are clearly intended to lend a spurious appearance of credibility to stupid conspiracy theories. Yes, I saw that you did the same thing to both Great Replacement conspiracy theory and Eurabia conspiracy theory. This isn't going to fly.

As to the specifics, that table is unlikely ever to be acceptable. Did Pew advance that table as relevant to the topic of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory? If not, then it is irrelevant, or at least Wp:SYNTH to attempt to include it. Any discussion of demographics must always be directly linked to explaining the topic, which is the conspiracy theory, rather than sprinkled in to try to make the conspiracy theory look legitimate. DanielRigal (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I made no edits on the topic since you made an edit war notice.

My perspective (which I believe is well in line with the current article) is that the stupid conspiracy theory is different and more complex than clearer demograhpic ongoings, thus the latter does not inhenrently lend credence to the former, but does tend to contribute to, or "feed" it.

Yet this is exactly the reason why demographic study seems so relevant and is often mentionned when analyzing the topic , yes, often with Pew's 2011-2017 research, tough you are correct that this should have been included/elaborated on in the first place. I did not mean to "sprinkle in" anything and I think the "Demographic statistics" section seems empty without, demographic statistics in it. If you don't oppose, I'll integrate those sources (and ideally the wikitext chart) in a better way. nahle.ghini (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

openly on Paris Lees

isn't the logic there that there might be someone who is trans who isn't out and we still don't know isn't out? obviously that logic could be used to justify all sorts of sophistry but I'll note that the the BBC source explicitly uses the "openly" wording. Morwen (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, they do. I wish they wouldn't as it is rather anachronistic. It is a style that I think we should try to avoid except when the word "openly" is actually conveying something. WP:OPENLY doesn't give a definite steer on this but it does point towards avoiding it when possible. I'm not going to get upset if anybody puts "openly" back although I would ask that it only be used once. Twice was definitely over-egging it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess in its example it's limiting itself to talking about a particular person, whereas saying "first X blah" is actually a statement about all the previous people as well. I'm not going to put the word back, mind. Morwen (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually reading it back again i'd say its example "The phrase can be appropriate sometimes, such as when the subject is the first openly queer member of a political party, etc." more than fits this case. Morwen (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May#Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Eugenics

Actually, I was feeling grumpy, and I tend to dial my responses back a little when I'm feeling peevish. That and I was going to bed and didn't have the time. Apart from that, it's a sufficiently widely-watched article that I was confident that others would weigh in - I've long since learned not to get pulled into an argument with a revert warrior. Acroterion (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

May I ask for help on something?

I saw that the page "Empty" is a disambiguation page even though there is an article about "Emptiness" where it should clearly redirect instead, so I tried moving Empty to Empty (disambiguation) but I goofed up and now Empty (disambiguation) redirects to an intentionally mispelled redirect, and I cannot replace Empty (disambiguation) with any other title. Do you know how I can revert this move? Thanks in advance. DaniPine3 (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you might have already sorted it out. If so, the only thing still remaining is the redirect with the incorrect/temporary name. You can nominate that for speedy deletion but that's not an urgent matter.

I think the redirection needs discussion. It might be that Empty should remain a disambiguation but with a more prominent link to emptiness at the top. I'm not sure. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Door stop technique

Timewasting The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You removed my sentence in the lead to Roger Cook but haven't said who was the first? If he wasn't he popularised it hence being mentioned in his obituary. Greenpark79 (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I removed a very obviously incorrect statement. If you want to add a correct statement, with a source to support it, then I won't revert that. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

If it's incorrect why haven't the BBC removed it. Furthermore, who was the first? If you're going to disagree with the reporting of a man's obituary and wish to contest it, you do actually have to provide evidence to support your claim. Greenpark79 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

You added it without a source. You added it to the lead without it being in the body. If you want me to look at a source then say which one and I'll look at it. It's not my job to try to work out what you are talking about by guesswork and vibes. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The source was already provided in the references. The lead doesn't require it. Greenpark79 (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

You made a claim that I am still waiting for evidence for. Greenpark79 (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

No it wasn't. This is the diff of your edit. Notice how "doorstep", "doorstop", "door stop" and "door step" only appear in the body in reference to a parody of unclear reference to Cook. You are wasting my time here by talking nonsense. Please stop. I have already told you what to do if you want to add a mention of doorstep/doorstop journalism to the article. Just add it to the body with a source (which can be one of the existing sources). I'm not going to stop you from doing that. I'm not even completely against it going in the lead so long as it is in the body too. If you want to do that then go ahead but if you just want to kvetch here then please stop. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that arguing about it hasn't been conducive. It was a typo from when I was reading the obituary. I had intended to type doorstop rather than step. A slip up on my part. Greenpark79 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

However, I will add in the time it's taken you to reply, you could have simply improved the article and made the changes yourself, which would have been helpful. Greenpark79 (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Stop reverting talk page questions

You appear to have a battlefield mentality and previous problems interacting with other users. Please respond to my question about citation quality on the Popehat article rather than attempting to delete all mention of his ban from Bluesky. You should be careful to not appear to be engaging in partisan edit-warring given your history and userpage. I will repost my comment once more, and if you revert we can escalate ~2026-36831-26 (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't play games. You were trolling. You know that you were trolling. Continued trolling is likely to lead to a block. You are free to remove the warning from your User Talk page, in fact it is a good way to prove that you have seen the warning, but the warning still stands. DanielRigal (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

"first openly trans"

Hi Daniel! Not sure if you get revert notifications, but I wanted to expound on this edit I made of an edit of yours I stumbled upon while dealing with a vandal—not because I think it's a terribly important thing to debate or anything, but because it poses an interesting style question, and I'd be curious to know your impression on my take, because if we don't agree it might be worth asking at WT:LGBTQ or somewhere. To save you a click, the question is, when do we need to say "openly" in "first openly trans X"?

The way I see it, "first"s regarding identity-based labels are always a challenge, because for many people you can't know whether a label applies to them. Even something like "first Jewish X" is trickier than it seems, but at least there there's an expectation that, however one wants to define "Jewish", most demographically useful definitions of the term would exclude most people who don't overtly describe themselves as Jewish. "First transgender X" is a lot more complicated, though. If one means first transgender X who has transitioned, that might be a verifiable claim, if reliable sources exist attesting the gender at birth of every other X—which may well be the case for a relatively small set like mayors of a city. However, the prevailing definition of "transgender" includes anyone who identifies with something other than their gender assigned at birth, even if they've taken no public steps, and that's simply impossible to know for even a single person. In theory it's possible that every single person ever to have Paris Lees' jobs before her was secretly trans under that definition. Probably not! But possibly. Of course if someone says they're cis then then we can treat that as a fact, but very few people actually ever say "I'm cis".

Thinking beyond that for a moment, LGB labels are tougher questions because I think they're understood to be a bit more identity-based than objective-criterion-based: Not every man exclusively attracted to men considers himself gay, and not every man who considers himself gay is exclusively attracted to men; a similar thing is true regarding trans-ness but people are less inclined to apply "gay" to someone who doesn't self-label that way than to apply "transgender". So I can see some argument for not needing an "openly" for "first gay X" or "first lesbian X" if it's certain that none of the other Xs outwardly identified that way. For "first transgender X", though, I do think there's no way of getting around including an "openly", except in the extremely rare case where every other X has said unambiguously "I am cisgender". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

There is already a thread at Wikipedia_talk:LGBTQ#Terminology_for_out_vs_openly but that focuses on the phrase "openly gay" and it doesn't seem to be heading towards a consensus anyway. I hadn't thought that there was any real difference between "openly" for trans people and for GLB people but I can see the sense in what you say. (It might be worth adding it to the thread.)

As you can see from my view there, I dislike "openly" when it is used reflexively as part of a clichéd stock phrase but not when it is actually saying something. I think we are on more or less the same page over that except that you identified it as saying something in Paris Lees' case and I didn't. After reading your explanation I now see how it might aid understanding for some readers so I have no objection to being reinserted. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding articles about Kyoto

Timewasting The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The content I added is based on information found in Japan's state-authorized textbooks, and I have cited my sources. Why is this edit considered vandalism?

Is there any reason why I should not include factual information that is supported by cited sources? ~2026-40626-81 (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

We are not stupid. Please stop wasting our time. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying that the content of Japan's state-approved history textbooks is foolish? Do you consider it foolish simply because the way the facts are presented doesn't align with your own common sense? If that is truly your opinion, please read the book before making such a claim—after all, I have cited it as a source. ~2026-40626-81 (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Stop trying to waste my time. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Does this article contain Promotion?

Hello DanielRigal. Since 3 July, this article has been greatly expanded upon by an account that was created a month ago. I think promotional content has been added but I'm not entirely certain, so I wanted to ask your view on it. Kwesi Yema (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know. I am am not familiar with the subject so it is hard for me to tell. I don't see anything obviously promotional but the account is a WP:SPA, which can be suspicious, although not always. An article about a government agency is less likely to be edited for promotion than an article about a company or product but it is still possible. I think the most likely explanation is that the editor is trying to improve the article and is just a little inexperienced and maybe hasn't quite got the Wikipedia style right yet. If you think the style is off then you can tweak it. (Maybe the bulleted list should be changed? I'm not sure about "Achievements" as a heading either.) If you think there is promotional content or some bad sources then you can raise that on the Talk page. You can keep an eye on the editor to see if any evidence of a WP:COI emerges but my initial guess is that it won't. --DanielRigal (talk) DanielRigal (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. I was hesitant since the article had sources. But I was suspicious of the editor exhibiting WP:SPA as well. I will modify the page and try to make it more encyclopedic. Kwesi Yema (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

ZoomInfo

Sealioning edit request sent en masse collapsed by 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 09:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for all you do. I noticed you recently reviewed and supported a citation removal for the ZoomInfo page on Wikipedia. I noticed that other requests have recently been submitted for this page and the editor who is managing the page is non-responsive and also admitted to having a bias against the company in which the page is about (see comment from editor on July 13, 2026 in Talk section where editor states they have a “heavy bias against the subject of the article”). Could you please step in and assist with the page revision requests submitted via the Talk page? There will be more but it appears that the current editor’s neutrality is (admittedly) compromised. Thank you in advance. ~2026-42346-67 (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Talkback notice - Matt Walsh

Hello, DanielRigal. You have new messages at Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator).
Message added 13:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)