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 pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on 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!

Archives

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

bhaha

was having a terrible day, this diff is fantastic. you're doing great! <3 [1] pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 03:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Admin noticeboards

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]