User talk:Davidkevin/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello Davidkevin/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 17:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Citations re Tony Attwood controversy section

You wrote in the Tony Attwood article: "Dr. Attwood has also been publicly quoted as saying that most science fiction and Star Trek fans exhibit personality deficits indicating a likelihood of Asperger's. This rather sweeping generalization is regarded by some as an offensive stereotype, reflecting cultural bigotry on Dr. Attwood's part."

Could you provide some citations/references please? (The link you posted in the Asperger syndrome article does not quite support your claims) --  AvB ÷ talk 19:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm comparatively new here and haven't participated in any debate here before, so if this isn't formatted right, I'm sorry.

I am becoming severely irritated at what I have added about the science-fiction/Asperger thing being removed as supposedly anti-Aspie. I am not, having both ADHD and a lesser case of AS myself, and with a son similarly afflicted.

I am anti-cultural bigotry. There is a long, established history of science fiction being regarded as "that crazy Buck Rogers stuff", with a similar lack of regard for those who read it. This whole "that explains the science fiction weirdos -- they all have a personality defecit disorder" attitude is a slam which stains anyone who is a fan of the genre, and it is NOT "neutral point of view" to let a bigotry, even one held by a professional in the field, go unremarked-upon. Try substituting some other group for Star Trek fans in Attwood's remark, like Jews or blacks or Democrats, and see if it still sounds harmless. -- Davidkevin 23:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

See the compromise I proposed on the Asperger syndrome discussion page where you also posted the above. Please note, however, that you still need to quote your sources in order to keep the Attwood controversy section as it now stands. --  AvB ÷ talk 03:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I must say your reasoning as presented on the Asperger Syndrome discussion page is very different from the one you originally added to SF Fandom, Asperger syndrome and here. Are you sure about the legal/rights/etc. ramifications? If so, your current reading could be the basis of a better controversy section for the Attwood article. Some tweaking would be required, if only because being diagnosed with AS as a child should have no bearing on one's "psychiatric status" as an adult. ("The overwhelming majority of available information on Asperger syndrome relates to children; there is currently more conjecture than hard evidence on how it affects adults" -- Asperger syndrome). FWIW, I hadn't figured in the legal angle as I believe things are different in the Netherlands (where I live) and possibly in Australia (Attwood's home base). I'm now looking up more info on this. If I find something useful I'll report back. Oh, and before I forget, if you haven't done so already, please check out some of the resources mentioned in the standard welcome notice inserted above. Wikipedia has some not-so-intuitive rules one needs to know. --  AvB ÷ talk 14:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't find any confirmation of ramifications regarding someone's legal rights when diagnosed with Asperger syndrome. So unless someone comes up with external sources, this cannot be used in Wikipedia (see Neutral point of view). I also didn't find any reports on negative reponses to Attwoods Star Trek remark. How about you? --  AvB ÷ talk 14:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You have a lot of damned nerve telling me, posting from the Netherlands, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, that since you supposedly can't find a link to an account of employment discrimination that it can't be mentioned on Wikipedia when I have directly experienced it myself, here, in the United States, where I live and you do not.

Remember the adage, "Write about what you know"? Well, you *don't* know in this case, and it infuriates me that you presume that your supposition is superior to my direct experience. -- Davidkevin 09:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for someone neutral to mediate. AvB ÷ talk 13:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

I have closed the RfC on Tony Attwood - see the discussion page.

Please accept this invitation to start over and grow some mutual respect. Just say the word here or on my talk page - or feel free to ignore. Your call. -- AvB ÷ talk 00:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

False Invitation

What part of "quit stalking me and my edits" do you not understand?

Leave me and my work alone, or I will report you as a stalker. -- Davidkevin 22:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a wikiquette alert over this.

Also, please do not alter the text of my invitation. I have reverted your edit to the original version posted by me. -- AvB ÷ talk 01:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Inasmuch as it is my considered opinion that your "invitation" is not genuine, but merely an attempt to create the appearance of reasonableness to third parties who might read it, I believe the word "False" better conveys the true meaning of your invasion of my User Talk page.

Yet again, I request that you leave me and my work alone. -- Davidkevin 02:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not "your" work. See WP:OWN. -- Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

David, I suggest next time you have an "edit" open, you scroll to the bottom of your browser page and consider the note: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Anything you feel strongly enough to regard as "my work" should not be submitted to the Wikipedia. The moment you click the "Save page" button, you lose control. There is no "my work" here. There's just "our work." It's just the nature of this beast. -- Mark K. Bilbo 16:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. I have been and continue to be aware of the ongoing editorial process which makes up Wikipedia. My request was specifically for **her** to leave my work alone, and to cease stalking me, not that nobody could touch my sacred prose. -- Davidkevin 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

False Warnings

This article (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Dealing_with_vandalism) says that removing warnings from one's User Talk page is considered vandalism as Wikipedia defines it. I didn't know that, so I have reverted these bullshit charges.

I find it enormously annoying, however, for my own User Talk page to be misused in this way, which is what I suspect the reason is for them being put there by her in the first place.

To which person in authority do I request the removal of these libels? Does anybody higher up even give a damn, or can any wikistalker just Warn, Ban, or Block me on her whim without my having any recourse?

I have posted a Wikiquette Alert of my own with regard to AvB, for what it's worth, in the hope of getting the attention of somebody who can do something about this.

I could use some help here! -- Davidkevin 08:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

First warning

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

* diff

• diff -- AvB ÷ talk 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not an administrator. You have only been a Wikipedia user for less than three months. You have no authority to warn me in any way about anything.

Refrain from further threats, harrassment, wikistalking, manipulative postings, and abuse of Wikipedia process. Stay out of my Talk page. Don't write to me. Don't impose your agenda on my edits or articles. LEAVE ME ALONE. -- Davidkevin 01:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Second warning

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

* diff
* diff

• See also the response to the first warning above, and specifically the explicit "Don't impose your agenda on my edits or articles" - this after I have taken Davidkevin through a mediation process and an RfC with a clear outcome. -- AvB AvB ÷ talk 02:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Your false pretense to authority you do not possess will gain you nothing. Your actions -- this very posting on my User Talk page in violation of my express wish that you do not -- show that your intent with regard to Dr. Attwood is not truth but cover-up, not information but static, not truly neutral point of view but a desperate need to have your fan-subject not be criticized regardless of the legitimacy of that criticism, not proper Wikiquette but manipulation and abuse.

It's a sad thing to see.

I continue to request that you cease this behavior: stay out of my User Talk page entirely, stop stalking my edits, stop harrassing me, stop making false accusations aganst me. -- Davidkevin 04:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Information

Whoa! I suggest everybody just calm down. Take a deep breath. Relax.

Now, I don't have time now to dig through edits and figure out who is being harrassed here, who is being abusive, etc., so let me just inject some information, particularly answers to some of Davidkevin's questions here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings.

• Anyone can use the warning templates. Users are expected to use them responsibly and appropriately.

• Just because there's a warning placed on your page doesn't mean you will be blocked. The warnings attract attention from Administrators, who can block you. An Admin isn't going to block you without checking into the situation first, though. So, relax, don't panic. If the warning is false or unjustified ask someone else to remove it for you.

• Do not remove warning messages from your talk page yourself. If the warning was appropriately placed, any Administrator can immediately block you for doing so. Don't risk it. Ask for help.

Okay, if I put the false accusations back, who do I ask to remove them? It is my firmly held opinion that they were placed there strictly for the purposes of intimidation and harrassment, as part of an increasingly strident campaign of abuse. I fully expect her to ban or block me any time now, if she does in fact have the ability to committ such an abusive act. -- Davidkevin 07:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Personal attacks are not permitted. If someone is attacking someone else, the attacks are to be edited out, per WP:RPA. It's better, though, not to remove personal attacks against yourself. Stay calm and let someone else take care of it. -- Srleffler 07:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to echo that. Every editor has the right to use those warnings, and every editor can call on an admin to enforce them if there is a breach of policy. The way to handle controversy is to discuss it on the article's talk page, and remain calm and civil. Which is not always easy. I have had a stab at a compromise version of the text at Tony Attwood, please take a look. But also please be aware that personal attacks will result in blocks, and that when assessing whether or not to block the fact of your having been warned is what is imnportant, not who issues the warnings. We all live by the same rules here, there is no difference between admins and other editors apart from the additional buttons.

Note that I for one recognise the legitimacy of the warnings above. If you make any further personal attacks, I can and will block you. I see no evidence of malice on AvB's part, and plenty of evidence of strong opinions on your part. Consider the possibility that you may not be the best person to judge the neutrality of your own contributions. Beware of the tigers.

Also, Wikistalking is diifferent from what is happening here. You are not being "followed around" so much as being reverted when you add the same topic to more than one article. The text you are adding is contentious, and will be contentious wherever it goes. I see no evidence of AvB personalising this, but you do seem to be personalising it. You shouldn't. It's just a garden-variety edit war (or maybe edit skirmish in this case), we see them all the time when points of view clash. NPOV is usually somewhere between the two warring factions, but not always. -- Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the public shaming and the threat. Nice to know that NPOV doesn't apply to *me*.

I have to disagree about the stalking, as she is now messing with the science fiction fan article, a topic about which I believe she knows nothing as she isn't an sf fan. I honestly believe she can't stand to see criticism of Dr. Attwood, period, regarless of how justified it might be.

As for contentiousness, I remain seriously concerned about Dr. Attwood's comments, regardless of how minor you personally perceive them to be. As an internationally known expert, his statements can be introduced into legal procedings which can destroy lives. People can lose security clearances, employment, child custody, or control over their own finances on the basis of false association between Star Trek and science fiction fandoms and Asperger Syndrome. Even if they are simply the *examples* of fixations you purport them to be, his casual use of them is careless, and his repeated use of them over the course of several years does lead one to think he believes they are significantly related. Science fiction has been referred to as "that crazy Buck Rogers stuff" for many decades, and here is a mental health professional who is saying, in effect, yes, interest in that genre is evidence of mental illness. It is not a small matter. -- Davidkevin 17:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing NPOV with your POV. They are not the same. You have just reinserted "some have seent his as a form of inappropriate mass diagnosis" into two articles: you know that without a citation (Some? who? name them) this is unacceptable. I have read the original document, the supposed "mass diagnosis" looks to me very much like an illustration in readily understood terms -- a single throwaway remark in a very long document. He is not saying that all trekkies have Aspergers, just that there is a significant correlation (correlation does not imply causation). And to be honest I don't think he'd have said it if he didn't think there was at least a grain of truth behind it: there is after all a world of difference between someone who collects Star Trek DVDs and someone who learns Klingon. So, take it to the Talk pages. -- Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's nice, since I don't do either of those.

Look at the edit record again. In the edit for Trekkies of 05:01, 28 January 2006 YOU put in

Asperger's syndrome expert Dr. Tony Attwood has commented that obsessive fandom may also be a sign of Asperger's syndrome, suggesting as an illustration that conventions of Star Trek fans or railfans might be thought of as "reunions for people with Asperger's". Some have seen this as a form of "mass diagnosis".

All I added was the word "inappropriate", which I only did to make the point more clear. Do Administrator's privileges include the right to make false accusations?

Since I evidently will have to jump through hoops to keep the undisputed fact that he said what he said from continually being censored, what, for you, is an acceptable citation of people objecting to it? Who qualifies? How many people? Where?

Those last are honest questions, not sarcasm. I am crossposting this reply to your User Talk page only to make certain that you see it so I can get the answers, since it is not clear to me whether you are Watching this page or not. -- Davidkevin 11:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And you put the same paragraph in science fiction fandom in the edit of 05:07, 28 January 2006, not me. Again, please don't falsely accuse me.

I did edit your phrasing into the Asperger syndrome article, but only out of frustration after getting no reply to my request that you do something similar since you didn't like my attempts. -- Davidkevin 12:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In your edit of Tony Attwood of 04:22, 28 January 2006, self-described as attempting to make it NPOV, you wrote:

== Asperger's and certain interests ==

Attwood notes a strong association between certain types of interests and Asperger's syndrome. In a talk in 2000 he illustrated what he describes as the "courtship" phase of Asperger's by reference to Star Trek conventions, calling them "reunions for people with Asperger's" - a classification he also extended to train spotters in the UK similarly characterised [1]. These statements have been repeated since.

Although clearly intended as illustrative of a class of readily-identified behaviours, these statements give to some the impression of being a mass diagnosis of thousands of people of having a pervasive developmental disorder merely because they are fans of a particular television program. Attwood is clear that it is focus on the interest itself over and above the people who share that interest which he considers as a marker; nonetheless, these remarks have proven unpopular with some "trekkers".

Do you still see what you yourself wrote as acceptable? If so, then why not just place it into the articles on Trekkies, science fiction fandom, and Asperger syndrome? It states my objection and yet minimizes it in a way which seems to fit your view of what Dr. Attwood said, leaving the reader to make her/his own determination.

Would that be acceptable consensus?

Davidkevin 12:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Right back at ya --DragonWR12LB 08:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok we're done, I removed what was on YOUR talk page but I kept what was on MY talk page. I refuse to remove what was on mine however you are right in my error of reposting what was on your page. --DragonWR12LB 08:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Eldrad must live!

Hey, David. I recently put a {{fact}} tag on your mention that "Eldrad must live" was an in-joke among midwestern Doctor Who fans in the '80s. It's not that I necessarily doubt that it was, it's just that I'm not sure that it's either verifiable or Wikipedia:Notability|notable]]. It would help if you could cite a source mentioning the joke — perhaps an old issue of the DWFCA newsletter (what was it called?) or an old USENET post? If we can't cite an external source, we risk violating the no original research rule. Again, I hope you understand that this isn't an attack on your truthfulness — it's just that we need to be able to verify anything in a Wikipedia article. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't cite it, it was an oral joke, based on pronunciation, and as such never appeared in print, as the point of the joke would be lost in that medium.

I guess that means it gets chucked down the Memory Hole, even though it really happened.

Davidkevin 18:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The perfect martini

The edit summary about "not being notable in and of itself" wasn't referring to the martini, but to the "defabrication" note I removed. I removed the "too much vermouth" detail for different reasons: while there certainly is a lot of stuff about the perfect martini in Western culture (and considering my educational and cultural background, the suggestion that I'm culturally biased against that is a bit odd), it really doesn't relate to a plot summary in an episode of Doctor Who, and at best it's an unnecessary detail. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll accept that the "not...notable..." remark applied to something else, no problem, but just as Decker asked Kirk "How do you define 'unwarranted' ?" in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I ask you "How do you define 'unnecessary' ?" Possible personal bias on my own part notwithstanding, given the abundance of cultural lore, I think it adds a detail which would likely bring a smile to the average reader, just as the line of dialog itself presumably does for the viewer in the episode. I think it does add value in that way.

Davidkevin 09:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see how it's at all useful. To quote the Fourth Doctor in The Pirate Planet, "What's it for?" Is an encyclopedia supposed to bring a smile to a person's face or provide facual information? But enough rhetorical questions. That being said, I have no strong feelings about it either way, so I've restored it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Butterflies and kittens aren't useful, either, but they're nice to have around, he said with a smile. As for the either/or question you posit, why not both?

In any case, thank you both for your courtesy and for the re-revert.

Davidkevin 10:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My "Upsetting Intervention"…

Per the German userbox solution, {{User old and crusty}} was moved to {{User:shiny and new}}

I am busy fixing userboxes which have been moved according to The German Solution. If you check your user-page before the change, you will notice a couple of userboxes which look like the example here, which have been fixed after the change. The other stuff is an artefact of the tool I am using to effect the changes, which removes all unnecessary white-space and should actually have zero effect on the display. I have tried without success to distinguish any significant changes other than the updated userboxes, and other colleagues report the same. If you can point out to me exactly what I have "broken", that would be a kindness and I could avoid doing it to anybody else's page. TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 08:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

LJ PoV

I removed content that I asked for citation on. We do not include all criticism of a site, corporation, or otherwise unless it can be properly cited. If you noticed what I removed, you also noticed what I added which was a blog post by a verifiable employee of six apart in the breast feeding issue that occured. If people want to draw conclusions about how people reacted to that, they can do so from reading that blog. We don't draw conclusions, put for theories or use weasel words to place PoV in articles on Wikipedia. --Crossmr 05:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, it appears (with the exception I mentioned) that all the content you've removed is critical of LJ management. The blog post by an employee of Six Apart promotes the "company line".

The idea that only Six Apart employees can post content which may be cited is inherently biased. It appears to me that whether you realize it or not, you are engaging in a pattern of POV reverts and deletions, and again I respectfully request that you examine your pattern.

Davidkevin 05:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and see the other comments I left on the LJ talkpage. I'm well aware of my pattern. Wikipedia is not a platform for a group with an agenda to air its grievances. If those grievances ever draw enough attention to be sourced in a credible fashion they can be added to the article. Wikipedia has standards, and if what you want to include, or think should be included can not meet those standards, that's unfortunate. I've done this on all articles I edit, any unsourced opinion/comments/theories/conclusions/etc are given a reasonable amount of time for someone to provide a source on it, and its removed/cleaned up to meet wikipedia standards. We don't toss the policies out the window because we think someone's criticism of the company/website/theory/etc is valid. --Crossmr 06:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And you'd like to talk about pattern of behaviour. We're engaged in a debate regarding proper citation on the article talk page, and an unassociated 3rd party removed the text from the article citing reason. You re-added it without providing a valid source or addressing those points. I'll assume good faith, but many would interpret that as your attempt to ignore reaching any kind of concensus regarding the material and push it on the article regardless. --Crossmr 06:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

npa

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. You may also wish to read WP:CIVIL. The rejection of the material you want to include is nothing personal. As myself and Mdwh said if you can find a proper source it can be included. --Crossmr 14:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your claim

I find your accusation that I'm abusing the rules a bit of a personal attack. Just because you want to include material you can't source properly is no reason to start accusing me of abusing the rules. Perhaps you need to re-read WP:OR, WP:V and several of the other policies on including content in wikipedia again, but we don't relax the rules just because you think the content should be included, especially on policies that are the cornerstone of wikipedia. Schmucky was able to go out and find sources for the breastfeeding material, as such, it remains. Its not a complicated process. If you want to include a theory, put forth an original idea, define a term, introduce an argument (like a criticism), or several of the other things on this list WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F You need to bring a citation. If you cannot, its original research and cannot be kept in the article. The policy cannot be misinterpreted as it clearly states These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. So while you, or I, or a dozen of us may agree that some term means something, without a citation it fails the original research test and must be excluded. The complimentary policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth also has a very clear definition of what may be included. This is also a non-negotiable policy. The first paragraph very clearly defines the goal of this encyclopedia and what you wanted to include flew in the face of that. This spells it out very clearly The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth. These are not just good ideas, these are binding policies for inclusion of content.--Crossmr 00:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to believe you if these policies were enforced as stringently elsewhere as you enforce them in this one particular article, and if it didn't appear that your pattern of these deletions enforce a particular point of view.

Rather than make the mistake of claiming my perception is an objective fact, I have asked for an Administrator's review.

If you want to personalize this review request into a personal attack upon you I cannot stop you from doing so, but that is not my intent. My intent is that facts not be disincluded for capricious, arbitrary, or rules-abusive reasons. An unbiased administrative review will help in this regard, I believe.

I also request that you please cease making unverifiable accusations in my User Talk page.

Davidkevin 01:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I enforce these policies stringently in any article I visit. I can't visit them all. There are also well over a milion articles out there, I'm sure you haven't visited them all to see how stringently it is applied across the board. There are some articles where people get away without citing anything, but any article I've been to as traffic picks up on them, content starts being questioned. Also if it wasn't your intent to dig to me with an attack, you simply could have written "using" not "(ab)using". I also have no idea what you're talking about unverified accusations. --Crossmr 01:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a somewhat similar issue in your 08:20, 21 June 2006 addition to List_of_fictional_expletives. I wouldn't mention this if you hadn't tried to reprimand me in my Talk page, since my check-in comment sufficed, and I omitted any mention of your error in the article itself, and didn't mention you by name in the comment. But it does show that you need to learn the importance of proper sourcing: There's no way you could have made your claim in good faith if you'd examined the source before posting.

FlashSheridan 16:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

People like you strike me as why Wikipedia has a bad reputation in some quarters. I've read that book a dozen times, and wrote what I wrote in my entry entirely in good faith based on a reasonable reading in context and some idea of what Heinlein was intending. If you had just rewritten it, fine. But you were compelled to rewrite it further just ninety minutes later, and had to stick in a bad faith jab at me to boot. This kind of Obsessive-Compulsive action drives good writers out of Wikipedia as other editors like you, to paraphrase Heinlein speaking through Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land, "pee in it. then like the flavor."

Davidkevin 04:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in the original text (which I cited and you should have) to verify your claim. If you had checked the passage before posting, you could not possibly have made it in good faith. Even if you sincerely believed that your memory was correct and you had "some idea if [sic] what Heinlein was intending," your unverified conjectures have no place in an encyclopedia; a supposedly "good writer" who cannot understand the distinction between his ideas and verifiable facts should be "driven out" of the Wikipedia.

(If any bystander is concerned with this issue, e.g., for disciplinary reasons, let me know; if you don't have access to The Door into Summer, I'll email enough of the text in dispute to settle the matter conclusively, without violating fair use.)

This sort of completely unsupported but supposedly sincere reliance on vague recollections was discussed at the BayCon Wikipedia session, and I stand by my claim there that it poses more of a threat to Wikipedia's reliability than vandalism and violations of NPOV, which can be readily detected.

FlashSheridan 06:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A vague recollection of a conversation back in May at a rump session held at a convention 1500 miles from my home which I did not attend is adequate evedence of nothing.

Davidkevin 07:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please don't mark an edit where you remove a tag as minor. A minor edit is strictly an edit such as correcting a typo, etc. Mackan 02:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As the tag was inappropriate in the first place, removing it seemed minor to me...and still does. To each his own.

Davidkevin 04:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, "to each his own" is not a Wikipedia policy. Please read [2].Mackan 06:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please don't edit war. See the three revert rule. In general, in is preferable that there not be any external links in the body of the article, and cited information should not be removed. Thanks. Ekajati 22:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the three revert rule, and I respectfully suggest that you take care to not violate it yourself. Also please note WP:CIV, as it is incredibly rude to put an insult into an Edit summary field.

Davidkevin 22:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't put any comments intended as insults into the edit comment field. Perhaps you'd care to point it out? Ekajati 01:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Mattisse/Timmy12

Hello. Just letting you know that an RfC has been opened on Mattisse, here. As it provides strong circumstantial evidence that Timmy12 is a sockpuppet of Mattisse intentionally using two computers to evade checkuser, I thought you might want to comment. I don't really care what side you weigh in on, but I know you've been in a position to observe at least part of the situation and any view would be helpful. —Hanuman Das 11:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Please read my response to your post on the Donald Trump talk page -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 07:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

WP:3RR

Please be aware of the three revert rule. Any further reverts by you today on the Rush Limbaugh article will violate that rule, and may subject you to up to a 24-hour block. -- Crockspot 17:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm already well-aware of it, and I can both count and tell time. I'm not as stupid as your self-deceptive definition of "liberal" is, Mr. Self-Described "Wingnut Pajamahadeen", and unlike some people, I'm not going to break the Wikipedia rules to push a political POV which controvenes the truth two days before a close election. I leave that to those who lack a sense of right and wrong. -- Davidkevin 18:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Rosencomet's Starwood Edits

The Undue Weight issue is pretty much the heart of the current Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence arbitration. You might want to keep an eye on it for when the arbitrators decide what to do. You are not the first to try to politely point out the problem. -- Pigman^talk 22:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Cordially, Davidkevin 00:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you accept my replacement of the Starwood mention in Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart's article with a list of "Public Appearances". I did this in consultation with Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, and I think that satisfies the issue of Undue Weight. As far as I'm concerned, such a list would be a good addition to any professional lecturer's article, and Starwood and/or WinterStar need not be anything but one inclusion in that list (where appropriate), except when there's some special additional connection to mention (like, as you said, if the subject is an organizer of the event, or recorded a commercially-available CD of their appearance, etc.). I don't have the facilities to supply such a list for everyone, but I will try over time to contact speakers and get one, or find one on their own websites, if they have one. Rosencomet 19:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to confess that I still think you're trying to plug A.C.E. events in an area where it seems to me that there isn't all that much of an audience or potential audience for them which isn't already aware of them, but creating such personal appearance lists for articles on notable persons seems to be an appropriate way of meeting both your needs and Wikipedia's requirements (or so I perceive: Y.M.M.V. and all that).

I hope you'll include links to other venues and festivals in those lists with the same assiduousness that you do Starwood and Winterstar Festival.

Cordially, Davidkevin 00:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said above, I don't have the same access to the appearance histories of all these people that I do to a list of who has been at Starwood and WinterStar, but I'll do what I can over time. I can contact some of the individual speakers, like I did Patricia Monaghan and Oberon, and ask them to send me a list or steer me in the direction of an existing one, but that's a one-by-one task, and a few of these speakers are no longer with us. But I'll do what I can, and I certainly won't delete other people's efforts in that area or pepper them with {fact} tags. As far as links, I did put test brackets on all the venues on the Morning Glory list, but Pagan Spirit Gathering was the only blue one. Hopefully articles will appear for all sorts of events of note like Gathering of the Tribes, Free Spirit Festival, Rites of Spring, Wic-Can Fest, Pan-Pagan Festival, Caw-Con, Pantheacon, Sirius Rising, Ecumenicon, Elf Fest, Gnosticon, the Whole Life Expo and others both here and abroad. I am not qualified to write such articles right now, except for Sirius Rising, and I was unsuccessful months ago in keeping it from being deleted (and I am neither associated with it nor have ever attended it, BTW). But I'll link anyone I create a list for that's appeared at Heartland Pagan Festival, Winter Magic, X-Day, or Council of Magickal Arts.Rosencomet 01:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I can count, you're not going to get rid of me that way, not when you and your buddies obey the letter of the rule while violating the spirit of it by splitting your content-censorship WP:POV-violating edits among yourselves. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Having several people revert you to avoid running afoul of the 3-revert rule is not a violation of the spirit of it — it's exactly how it's supposed to work. That way, if there is a consensus of many users engaged in an edit dispute with a single editor, the consensus wins. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And if the consensus is that the world is flat? Or if the Sun rotates around the still Earth?

As a better man than I said, "It still moves!" -- Davidkevin (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil accusations of vandalism

It is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL to characterize good-faith edits as "vandalism", as you did in this edit. I would like an apology, here and on my own talk page, and a promise not to repeat this misbehavior, please. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to answer this at this time because I doubt you'd accept the answer -- not because it would be rude or otherwise uncivil but because you probably wouldn't like the intellectual content of what I would have to write in a specific response.

I propose an alternative: some of your telephone numbers are on the web. I have toll-free long-distance and a flexible schedule. I suggest you specify a convenient time and date, and presuming it's mutually so (more likely than not), I'll call you and we can see if there's some way we can work out an acceptable compromise (if such a thing is indeed possible) over the content issues about which we are disagreeing, short-cutting the back-and-forth of e-mail or public postings. No absolute demands, no assumptions of authority, no rancor, no name-calling, polite conversation -- honest negotiation of the underlying issues.

Better this attempt, I think, than continuing to fight. -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Civility should be a given, independent of content. We can continue to disagree about the content, but I insist that you treat my side of the content dispute as a valid one, not as an attempt to degrade Wikipedia, which is what you have labeled it by calling it vandalism. I repeat my call for an apology, visible publically here and not through private channels. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried. [ sigh ]

I'm not an errant boy, for you to spank or publicly shame.

The suggestion for a telephone conversation was not to apologize through private channels, but to try to solve a problem. What I am sorry about is that you don't appear to care to try to do that.

Given that the split List_of_sites_running_the_LiveJournal_engine is undergoing an AfD vote as we write, it does in fact strike me as unethical to reduce a contested part of it to almost nothing in mid-vote, leaving some voters seeing one version of it and other voters seeing a gutted version of it. And yes, I honestly see that to be vandalism, as an act in bad faith. If you were sincere in your change and the reason for it, and confident that you are correct in your interpretations of the Wikirules, why couldn't you have waited for the vote to finish before making it?

Given my honest opinion and belief, to apologize to you now would be a lie. I haven't lied at any time in this dispute and I'm not going to start now.

It's also my opinion and belief that I am being subjected to escalating attempts at cyber-bullying to get me to back down from my honest attempts to improve the article as I perceive it, particularly from Crossmr and you. For example, you wrote up in item 11 above:

Having several people revert you to avoid running afoul of the 3-revert rule is not a violation of the spirit of it -- it's exactly how it's supposed to work. That way, if there is a consensus of many users engaged in an edit dispute with a single editor, the consensus wins.

I'm sure in disagreements honest on both sides that could be correct, but in this case, it's clearly a means to attempt to marginalize and/or silence a dissenter by a clique.

I know bullying. I was physically bullied as a child, I've been paper-bullied in APAs, and cyber-bullied elsewhere, too, so I know it all too well when it's happening, and it's happening here. You demand, "I insist that you treat my side of the content dispute as a valid one, not as an attempt to degrade Wikipedia...." Well, frankly, I can insist that too, as neither you nor anyone else in your clique have ever given me that courtesy.

If anything, this demand of yours is uncivil, as was your demand here that I submit to your personal test before I should edit again, as offensive and uncivil a statement as I have ever seen anywhere in Wikipedia. I think you should apologize to me for that, although I don't ever expect to receive it.

There is one other thing I'm sorry for, and that's losing my temper when I first came back into this. Well over a year ago, when I first tried to improve the LiveJournal article and was censored by Crossmr, I got so angry I walked away as the various dispute resolution articles suggest, because of the manipulation of the rules I saw. Coming back, I had all that unresolved anger, which came out when I saw the same misuse and manipulation continuing to be used to censor the article, by the same person, in a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OWN, despite the amount of time which had passed. I'm sorry I gave way to that anger, which is now being focused on in order to attempt to divert attention from the ongoing manipulation and censorship. It's not about me, it's never been about me, but making it about me rather than about the article is a useful tool, and I'm sorry I enabled that.

Finally, I didn't know until today that you are an Admin.

If what I've written above is right, I'll now be blocked for "continuing to be uncivil", which is dirty work Crossmr tried to get other admins to do for him in AnI without success. If what I've written above is wrong, maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from and we can work together, accomplishing something productive about opening up the LiveJournal articles to reports of LJ management criticism while keeping the standards you say you want observed. If that happened, I'd admit to being wrong (as I've never had a problem doing when wrong) and make retractions, and even apologies, accordingly.

We'll just see, I guess. -- Davidkevin (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to block you myself for being uncivil — though I may think you deserve it, I'm too closely involved in this dispute to take that action. I had avoided mentioning escalated levels of dispute resolution so far (or my own admin status), deliberately, because I wanted to give you an honest chance to apologize without being under any kind of threat.

Hiding your status from me is not honest, it's deceptive, a lie by omission, and you're literate enough to know that.

I have seen escalating levels of threat for some time, starting with the failed attempt at AnI. I have had no reason even before today to assume that escalation would not continue -- and given your last sentence below, I'm sure it will, sad to say.

I said above why you deserve no apology from me, and won't get one, regardless of escalation. I am sorry that you don't seem to see that what you did in that edit was wrong.

My requests for an apology are a not, as you view them, demands that you comply with my will regarding the content of the articles we disagree on, but rather an attempt to attempt to get you to step back, recognize the importance of Wikipedia's policies (particularly, in this case, WP:CIVIL),

I remind you of your offensive and uncivil demand here, since you seem to have forgotten it already.

and avoid that sort of escalation. But the next steps, if you continue to refuse to assume good faith, would be to take your case to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, possibly followed by higher levels of dispute resolution (user-conduct RFC, or, as a last resort, WP:RFAR).

Why are you ignoring the sentences beginning with...

"There is one other thing...."

"I'm sorry I gave way...."

...and, most importantly...

"The suggestion for a telephone...."

"If what I've written above...."

...and...

"If that happened, I'd admit...."

If you wish me to take it to a higher level, so be it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's a threat.

Despite all the rudeness on your own part, despite the attempts at bullying, despite all the threats, both oblique and overt, I was willing to set it all aside and assume good faith: I offered an olive branch, an explicit offer of cooperation to build a better article. You don't appear to want to take it.

That makes it also a shame. -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What?

Am I supposed to know what 'dot_cattiness' is? I am lost. Lots42 (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Well now it's a little clearer. Despite what you seem to think of any shared history, speculation, especially fandom based speculation, is just plain not allowed. It's not abuse, it's not a vendetta, it's basic Wikipedia rules. I still don't know what dot_cattiness is. Lots42 (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith

This edit summary does not assume good faith on the part of User:Lots42. In fact, Lots42 is correct in this case, as all information in Wikipedia articles must by verifiable -- which means "fanon speculation" is not appropriate. Please review this content policy, and remain civil in your edit summaries. Thank you. -- Ginkgo100^talk 14:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Lots42 is a participant in a group cyber-bullying which has been ongoing since 2003. There is no assumption on my part involved -- I know with certainty that regardless of the text he is not acting in good faith, but is extending the bullying from LiveJournal to Wikipedia.

I agree that the assumption of good faith in an edit is the normal response to be expected, but this case is different -- this is stalking on his part. -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What? I have no idea what you are saying, I am part of no such campaign. Lots42 (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Either you have the memory of an Alzheimer's patient, or you're lying. Either way, the next time you think an edit of mine needs correction, leave it alone. If anything I write truly needs further editing, I have no doubt someone else will note it without bias and make the appropriate adjustment. You stay out of my work and my life. -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

USS Princeton

Who, what, when, where," and.... if you know: "why" and "how"...and REFERENCES. Thanks WikiDon (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your intentions are, but this reads (to me) as patronizing and rude. I put in the information I had available to me, counting on other editors to elaborate with what information they might have beyond what I knew, as you in fact did. However, you could have done so without appearing to be a jerk about it. -- Davidkevin (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Harriet Jones

Ah, well in my own opinion I do think we've (unfortunately) seen the last of Jones. Her character arc was finished - she redeemed herself to the Doctor, died a noble death, and perhaps most importantly justified her pivotal decision from The Christmas Invasion as the scenario she had prophesised of the Earth being in danger and the Doctor being unable to help came true. It would cheapen her sacrifice if she somehow had survived. I understand how some thought she might return in Journey's End (there was all those rumours that she'd be inside the red Dalek) but she didn't. With her included in the montage of those who gave up their lives for the Doctor, and Ten now informed of her sacrifice, I feel her story has come to an end. Of course, this is sci-fi and even Rose got to reappear, but on a personal level for me I really believe that she is dead (despite my love for the character) because anything else would ruin the redemption she truly earned.

And, on a visual level, she was seen facing down three Daleks fully expecting death. That we did not see her dying was I believe for dramatic effect rather than sneaky plot device. The viewer is left to imagine her death rather than see it, which can be far more frightening. I would also bring up how many others we know have died but have not seen it physically (the attendant from Midnight for example, or several others from that montage).

Finally, Wikipedia articles shouldn't be about hedging bets, they should be about facts that we know and I have to question what real indication you say you have that she may reappear. I do not wish to edit war, but I really do feel strongly about this.

Regardless, thank you for taking the time to discuss it with me. -- Tphi (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Schadenfreude

If you want to discuss the article schadenfreude the place to do that is on the article's talk page, not on my user page. Your comment was "Yes, the Hitler example is important. It helps show just how damned evil the concept is. -- Davidkevin (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)". WP:NPOV is a bad fit with adding and re-adding examples meant to show evil (an article topic) is. But take it to the article talk page if you want to argue for putting Hitler back in again; others besides me removed it previously.15:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the unsigned comment -- I had to look at the history of my own user talk page to see who this was from, betsythedevine.

I politely wrote to you as a courtesy. I didn't expect a rude, anonymous rant in reply. Silly me. -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for forgetting to sign my comment with four tildes. I was not trying to be anonymous and I did not intend my remarks to be rude. 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC) betsythedevine (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology and intention accepted. I apologize in turn for misunderstanding you. -- Davidkevin (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary here, reverting my addition of the {{toomuchtrivia}} template, was not civil. I appreciate that this particular article is one that you feel passionately about, but that sort of dialogue is not productive. --Stlemur (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and I apologize...but I get irritated by people equating the two phrases and using it as an excuse to make articles less encyclopedic, particularly articles that I've put some sweat into. "In popular culture" and "Trivia" really don't mean the same thing. However, I'll make a better effort to be emphatic without being sarcastic from frustration. -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Reprinted here because the butthead has Last-Word-itis and cut off my final post.

################################

I didn't know you were an admin. Okay, now that you've declared your ownership through admin power, no facts will be allowed to be in the article which contradict your solipsistic disbelief that they occurred, even though literally hundreds of people were there, and you may call another editor a liar at your whim.

Abuse of those with less "authority" than you: Words to live by. -- Davidkevin (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you feel I'm abusing my powers (although I haven't used my admin abilities at all), take it to WP:ANI. I am reverting material because it falls afould of WP:V and WP:RS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You called me a liar, so, yeah, you were abusive. -- Davidkevin (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Then go ahead. I really don't care. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and what? Put the info back in, or go and ahead and make a complaint about your violation of WP:AGF by calling me a liar ("Your word doesn't cut it.")? -- Davidkevin (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Make a complaint. My edits were in line with policy and guideline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I've already lost this fight. You have other admin buddies, I don't. Cronyism rules. You get your "win" from name-calling and proving you're a big shot. The rest of the public loses because information which illuminates how an actor approached her role is kept out of the article. -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of editors like you griping about jack and then refusing to do anything about it. If you think us evil admins rule the show, then why the hell are you contributing here. Stand up or shut up would be a helpful maxim here. If you're not going to do anything, then you're wasting people's time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of editors taking ownership of articles and cutting out factual information because they don't like it. I'm sick of editors taking ownership of and doing wholesale rewrites of t.v. universe chronologies and substituting their bizarrely "creative" personal notions of what the characters "really" did and said for what was actually depicted. I'm sick of editors younger than my children, ignorant of anything before 1994 and therefore not on the web, telling me events didn't happen because they occurred before newspaper contents were digitized, and due to having a life not having time to look them up in forty-year-old newspapers in morgues on the other side of town. I'm sick of my time being wasted in trying to make contributions of value written in coherent English sentences, only to be reverted by virtual illiterates sitting at keyboards they don't know how to use. I'm sick of admins who say I should assume good faith out of one side of their mouths while calling me a liar out of the other. I'm sick of factual inaccuracies being repeated because they're on the web somewhere else because Jimbo Wales, speaking ex cathedra, decided the standard should be "verifiability, not truth" when anyone with the common sense God gave an ant in one of Aesop's Fables can see that the standard for an encyclopedia should be "verifiability and truth".

So don't whine at me about e-vile non-Admin editors who don't feel like uselessly reporting you to your friends and cronies for being the jerk you're being to someone actually trying to do some good with and for Wikipedia. -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My actions were in line with policy and guideline. Yours are not. You're acting like a petulant child, so I'm assuming you realized that if you took me to ANI you would be found in the wrong, or else have deluded yourself sufficiently and have resorted to calling me childish names. Good for you. I'm going to continue building an encyclopedia, see you when you grow up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You keep telling yourself that -- whatever enables your conscience to forget your actions so that you can sleep at night. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Stan Freberg

It's not my rule, it's wikipedia's rule. You need to read it, and then you'll understand. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

See last post in the chain above. You helped inspire it. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not write the wikipedia rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cronyism

Bishonen,

Thank you for proving my point about cronyism among admins by threatening me for complaining about David Fuchs violations on his talk page. He, of course, is still posting on my talk page as much as he wants.

Don't worry, I'm done posting to you. As I said, just wanted to thank you. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be a little paranoid of admins, so let me try and explain it to you, as one user to another. WP:V, one of the core principles on which Wikipedia was built, clearly states that all information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. A statement or other piece of information may be true, but without a verifiable source, no one can check to make sure it's true.

In this particular instance, you added a piece of information that you know to be true, but that had no recorded source (such as a video or transcript) stating that this person did indeed say the things that you heard. If you put yourself in the place of everyone who did not hear Besch say those things, wouldn't you be dubious of that information, unless you could go check the information yourself somewhere? That is the basis of WP:V.

If there's anything else you need, please let me know! — OranL (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you: the use of psychiatric, medical terminology to negatively characterize total strangers is always helpful in intellectual discussions and edit conflicts. Keep up the good work! -- Davidkevin (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How does having a bad attitude towards others help? — OranL (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling people "paranoid", a medical term with a specific meaning, without the credentials to qualify yourself to use it, in order to demean a complete stranger, is evidence of a very poor attitude indeed, so I suggest you ask that question of yourself. -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you have only read half of the first sentence of what I initially wrote. I'm sorry that you feel that I have a bad attitude, even though I was trying to help explain a policy that you seemed to be unaware of. I guess you didn't get to that part, though, since you were too busy assuming that I wanted to demean you by saying you were paranoid, assuming that it takes a medical degree to quantify that behavior, and then assuming that I do not have a medical degree. You know what they say about assuming, right? — OranL (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

When one's first words to a total stranger are an insult, one is certainly acting in Bad Faith, no assumption necessary.

It takes a lot of gall to exhibit that kind of bad manners and then compound it with mealymouthed exhortations to assuming good faith, as if the other party is the one in the wrong. -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the way I explained the policy to you, since you saw it as an insult. Please understand that I was trying to lighten the mood, not dampen your spirits or cause you anger or pain. Since I have explained the policy to you as best I can, and you do not have any questions for me about it, I don't see how continuing this conversation will be relevant to building a better encyclopedia. Good day, and best of luck in your future edits. — OranL (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading a lot of strange stuff into Three Stooges

In July, 2008, we got into an argument in Talk:Schadenfreude#Schadenfreude_and_Hitler over whether or not an "example" saying that Hitler enjoyed schadenfreude belonged in the article. I said it did not belong because dictionaries define schadenfreude as "enjoyment of the misfortunes of others" -- a passive emotion, not practical joking, bullying, or sadism. Other editors who had the article on their watchlist agreed. You left the argument after asserting that the unanimous consensus against you was cyberbullying by editors who were 1) enjoying schadenfreude and 2) playing a "wikitrick" to get you banned by inciting you to post "inflammatory things."

The process of wikipedia editors arguing about what belongs here and what doesn't is called "achieving consensus." It is not "cyberbullying" or a "gang attack." Your personalizing of conflict and accusing people who disagree with you of all kinds of unsavory motivations and behaviors was and is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:FAITH.

Now you have returned to post a deep analysis of my motivation for adding an image of the Three Stooges, an action you say was "so egregious publicly noting it is mandatory." I hope that indeed (as you claim) you are "not coming back"; I frankly think you have already done more than enough to be permanently banned as a negative influence on the Wikipedia project. Let me now post your entire comment here so that you can enjoy the Last Word.

* What a textbook example of how people infected with schadenfreude hate it being defined 
as the vicious, negative, violent emotion it is.

* You fought like hell to remove an example citing it in one of the most evil men in history, 
and now have replaced it with an example of three Jewish comedians.  
It's never been an underlying cause for murder, no, it's a type of harmless comedy!  

* And I must say that using the three men who made the very first public satire of that evil man [3] 
for this purpose, men he ordered murdered without hesitation if they ever came within his reach, 
adds that frisson of irony which I'm sure causes that much more pleasure.

Don't worry, I'm not coming back (so you can have the Last Word I know you want so much), 
but this action is so egregious publicly noting it is mandatory.  -- 
Davidkevin (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

betsythedevine (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have participated in consensus-achieving discussions. I have been bullied. There is a difference. You were doing the latter.

I have cited multiple instances of your in fact actually acting in bad faith. Your chastising me for reacting to your deliberately doing so is hypocrisy and manipulative.

In both what happened previously and in what you've done now, as you are carefully not noting, context is, in fact, everything.

"...a negative influence on the entire Wikipedia project." You ascribe to me enormous influence, influence far beyond my meagre abilities, so I can only infer that your rage, and hatred, and schadenfreude are just as enormous...which doesn't surprise me in the slightest, given your determination to disguise what schadenfreude is at its base.

(Not to mention -- as you would literally have it, that they don't exist -- the nearly two thousand entries I've made which are indisputably positive contributions to the project.) -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

David, please stop the personal attacks. If you cannot detach yourself from commenting on contributors, then go elsewhere; betsy would do well to do the same. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from you are exactly as welcome here as the reverse is. Please go elsewhere yourself. -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody's got a case of the Mondays! :) Only it's Wednesday. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Every day is Harassment Day, it would seem. Go away. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just my way of saying that you've got a serious chip on your shoulder, and it's not doing either you or wikipedia any good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My, that was fast. You must be watching my talk page like the proverbial hawk.

What part of "go away from it and not post on it again" are you having trouble understanding? Your very presence here is part of what makes every day a cold, cloudy, rainy "Monday". Your absence will help raise the temperature, lighten the sky, and lower the humidity. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Anytime you edit a page, it automatically puts it in your watch list.

I was aware of that; the "hawk" comment was rhetorical.

You do not "own" your talk page; anyone has the right to post fair comments on it; so telling people to "go away", and making silly personal attacks, is considered uncivil, and is against the rules.

Regardless of your "right" as you perceive it, you could have the decency to heed the wish of the person whose name is on the page, as your comments here contribute nothing to the encyclopedia or to the pleasure of this user's experience.

You also have the right to delete comments, though, as it indicates you've at least seen them. You can do what you want with this one, as you are now off my watch list.

Huzzah!

But I suspect I might see you at WP:ANI eventually, unless you lighten up a bit; because I'm rather tolerant, but at some point you're liable to run into someone who isn't so much, and then you'll be asking yourself, "How badly do I want to edit wikipedia?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Your "tolerance" is underwhelming and your threat is overbearing. -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Davidkevin -- you slightly misquote and vastly over-interpret my calling your repeated violations of WP:NPA "a negative influence on the Wikipedia project." betsythedevine (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's more accurate, if not as precise, based on your obsesssional behavior toward and stalking of me. You would do yourself a favor if you used that time for something more productive and valuable -- go compile another joke book or something, why don't you? Or simply go away from this page, as you're not wanted here. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My use of a Three Stooges image had nothing to do with you.

Never said it did.

I was not thinking of you or sending you a secret message with that edit.

Never said you were. Never thought you were. Never said anything which would imply that to someone of normal, reasonable demeanor.

If you disapprove of wikistalking, as I do, I wonder how you ever found that edit of mine in an article that you claim you no longer edit.

I read the latest version of the article. How else would I know? Cripes, lady, you're weird.

I wonder also how you became so knowledgeable about my husband and the books I write.

I read your wiki article about yourself, your user talk page and looked at your public links from them back in July when you first started harassing me: your own public bragging about yourself. When a total stranger starts harassing me, I like to get an idea of what they're about. You're the one posting again and again and again to someone else's user talk page, long after they've asked you to go away, not me. You're the one who keeps creepily trying to start fights by implying stalker behavior where it doesn't exist, not me. You're the one actually harassing, not me.

You are correct that I could use my time for something more productive than arguing with you--and I mostly do. One read through your talk page shows how useless others have found it to try to give reasonable explanations for actions that made you unreasonably angry. betsythedevine (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In your own self-promoting article you say about yourself that you have "many years of immersion in...both Slashdot and Wikipedia flame wars." That translates to me that you're someone who loves to get into useless fights, I can only assume out of unreasonable anger issues, or out of a schadenfreude-laden desire to provoke other people into unreasonable anger. It's the actions of people such as you which have led me to the opinion that schadenfreude is a mental health syndrome.

Now: I have asked you to stop posting to my talk page. I ask again. The others in your clique appear to have gotten the message. You appear to have not. For all your faults, you're not stupid, so the message should be clear to you: adopt some manners (fake them if you have to) and do as I suggested above, "have the decency to heed the wish of the person whose name is on the page, as your comments here contribute nothing to the encyclopedia or to the pleasure of this user's experience." -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you stop insulting people on your user talk page and elsewhere, people will stop responding to your insults here. The flame-wars remark which you dug out of its context was a self-deprecating joke from a speaker bio. I will be happy to leave you alone; please grant me the same courtesy. Good luck with the rest of your life. betsythedevine (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how remarks which show hypocrisy in a speaker are always "out of context" when quoted back to them. There's a world-wide epidemic of out-of-contextness, one would think, given the number of times the phrase is invoked. Ah, well. And your last sentence shows you took my advice about faking good manners. Excellent.

We're done here. -- Davidkevin (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Skarl 18:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)