User talk:Davesmith au

Welcome!

Hello, Davesmith au, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

User talk pages

Hi Dave,

Welcome to Wikipedia.

I want to say first of all that I have very little in the way of involvement with David Talbott's article, but if you need some help on the matter please take it up on biographies of living person's noticeboard. They should be able to help you with any and all issues related to problems with that page.

Secondly, the user talk pages are generally considered user domain to remove comments as they see fit. The relevant policy is WP:USER. I said "RL stalker?!" with a question mark because it looked superficially like you were stalking me from other locations (in Real Life). However, it was meant mostly in jest and I want to be clear that I do not consider you to be a real life stalker and I apologize if it offended you in any way.

All the best,

ScienceApologist (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giday ScienceApologist, thanks for the warm welcome! I was not offended by the "RL stalker?!", just wondered what it meant, being new to this wikijargon, so to speak...

Anyhow, the reason I posted the below on your talk page is I found it difficult to understand how an editor with so much experience can allow a huge diatribe to stay on their user talk page when it is in clear breach of Wikipedia policy. Moreover I am now confused as to why you would see fit to delete my bringing this to your attention, and yet still see fit to allow the diatribe to remain, which also should and could be deleted by you. It seems to me that if you "have very little in the way of involvement with David Talbott's article" you would have no reason to keep the said diatribe on your talk page, and even if you have involvement with the article in question, then surely the guidelines I've re-posted below still apply? Especially in light of

Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage as Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, nor social networking site. Instead, think of it as a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working.

which is from WP:USER which I have already read, hence this line of action.

(Following is the original comment deleted from ScienceApologist's talk page):

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. .
[...].
The policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies. There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.
Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:
Editors should remove any negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.

Both ScienceApologist and Phraedrus7 are displaying blatant diregard for Wikipedia policy in their abuse of talk page space.Davesmith au (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Davesmith au (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages on Wikipedia are generally given very wide leeway and aren't indexed by internet search engines. If you think there is damaging information that needs to be removed, I'm not sure exactly what it is. As it is, we are allowed to have whatever discussions we may like about subjects related to encyclopedia development. That's precisely how I see Phaedrus' comment. I'm pretty sure that the rest of the community is not going to find much wrong with that particular post by Phaedrus, but if you really would like to press the issue, there are ways of getting outside opinions: WP:DR, WP:TO, WP:OFFICE, WP:BLPN, etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I am writing in response your post to Wikipedia:Third opinion. I have reviewed the discussion linked and find that it is very lengthy without a clear indication as to what is disputed. Perhaps you could elaborate slightly. Are you trying to get part of the talk page deleted or is something else the issue? Thanks! (EhJJ)^TALK 01:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giday EhJJ and thanks for dropping by. Really I was simply after a third party to attempt to inject some sense into the discussion, and help keep it on track.

The problems go right back to the top of the talk page, and previous to that too, in regard to the bio itself. Phaedrus7 has been told more than once that most of his comments amount to original research, and that his references to talk.origins and some others are invalid under the circumstances. Yet every time something is brought up on the page, he jumps in with extended diatribes of his own original research, and again keeps referring to talk.origins etc.

He now seems to think that as I've joined in the editing of the article (I have been involved in private on-line discussions with him over this and other matters), that somehow he is free to post his policy and guideline breaching content over again.

Since proposing the additions I proposed, and asking for comment on same, I have been in a 'battle' with Phaedrus7 in the sense that he keeps avoiding the simple issues of the bio itself to soapbox his own original research onto the page. As this has been raised with him by other editors, he should by now know better.

The talk page is considered part of the article, from a BLP perspective and according to the talk page guidelines, and should remain free of both potentially defamatory remarks (see Unfounded Nonsense on the Talbott talk page, "the details of David Talbott's career as a neo-Velikovskian cult leader"), negative (and positive) unsourced comment, original reaserch, etc.

No-one is attempting to champion Talbott or any related hypotheses, yet Phaedrus7 is championing anything negative against both the man and related hypotheses, clearly in breach of the BLP and talk page guidelines, and also in breach of a serious COI which he has still left undeclared.

I don't think it's too much to ask that we keep discussion to improving the bio as an encyclopedic article. Interestingly, since I listed this on the 3O page he has not posted. Davesmith au (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Reply

In the first instance, you seem to have a peculiar conception of what is acceptable content regarding BLP with respect to "negativity" and failure to discriminate between it and "criticism" and fair "description". For instance, describing a living serial killer as a "serial killer" is certainly "negative", but true and an essential part of the bio for Dennis Rader, the BTK Kansas serial killer: "Dennis Lynn Rader (born March 9, 1945) is an American serial killer who murdered 10 people in Sedgwick County (in and around Wichita, Kansas), between 1974 and 1991. He was known as the BTK killer (or the BTK strangler), which stands for "bind, torture and kill" and describes his modus operandi. He sent boastful letters describing the details of the killings to police and to local news outlets during the period of the in which the murders took place. After a long hiatus in the 1990's, he resumed sending letters in 2004, leading to his 2005 arrest and subsequent conviction." See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader>. Similarly, if someone has made a career promoting some pseudoscience or other, he might fairly be described as a "pseudoscientist". Velikovsky, for example, contstantly objected to being labelled as such, but the conclusion cannot be denied once someone examines what Velikovsky believed and promoted through his writing.

In the second instance, with regard to your objectivity in editing the David Talbott bio, you would have been more objective citing well-known criticism such as that by Ashton, Rose and James, than by identifying Ben Ged Low for the first time as the producer for the second video documentary. This is an irrelevant factoid. You seem to be resisting the idea that Talbott's beliefs are flawed and even wrong as anyone can discover merely by reading Talbott's sources for themselves, as Velikovsky constantly exhorted the epigoni to do.

In the third instance, I have no special COI concerning David Talbott, it being the same COI as I have for the ideas of Immanuel Velikovsky, Zecharia Sitchin, Donald Patten, John "Angiras" Ackerman, James McCanney, and all other crackpots or pseudoscientists who promulgate their fantasies in the face of demonstrations of their falsity and misconceptions and proofs of their erroneousness. When Talbott confronted Jensen's relating that the Babylonians reverred both the "Pole of the Equator" (Talbott's idee fixe) and the "Pole of the Ecliptic" (which has no meaning in Talbott's model) by saying "I certainly cannot accept" that (see The Saturn Myth, p. 342, n. 60), he gave up any claim to being a true scholar and showed himself to be just another huckster of hokum. Oh, but excuse me, that's just another instance of "original research". Phaedrus7 (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Davesmith au/pigwrestling

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. jps (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Davesmith au/pigwrestling

User:Davesmith au/pigwrestling, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Davesmith au/pigwrestling and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Davesmith au/pigwrestling during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, please provide some reasoning which conforms with Wikipedia rules and guidelines for deletion, as to why you seek to remove my notes in my userspace. Be specific about what rules you think are breached and how. Davesmith au (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Joshua P. Schroeder

Given the history of harassment and incivility by and against this editor, I felt your comments were inappropriate and removed them. My apologies if you feel I overstepped in my refactoring. Go ahead and use your best judgement in how to respond. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I felt your comments were inappropriate and removed them."

I made no comments at all for you to have removed. The only thing which could be (mis)construed as a comment, was the Edit Summary, which read: "Courtesy blanking used out of context. It is not designed to hide blocks." which is both accurate and an appropriate summary.

Please don't un-blank these userpages again. If you really feel that we shouldn't extend courtesy blanking to this user, then you can raise the issue at the administrator's noticeboard or wherever. But - especially given your history of antagonism with this user - please don't un-blank his pages again. It looks like you're going out of your way to pay off a grudge, and that's the most charitable interpretation. MastCell ^Talk 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a subsection of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, courtesy blanking is not intended to hide the fact that a user has been blocked! This has nothing to do with any perceived grudge, and everything to do with appropriate application of Wikipedia's own policies.

Courtesy blanking

"From time to time, a discussion will have its content hidden from view based on the judgment of the community, an administrator or another functionary. This is generally not done except under rare circumstances, where discussion may cause harm to some person or organisation. To avoid having such text in the most recent version and thus be indexed by search engines, the debate will be blanked out of courtesy. For Articles for Deletion discussions, the entire debate can be replaced with the {{afd-privacy}} template; the actual content remains accessible via the edit history. In more serious cases, the entire history of the page may be deleted. Courtesy blanking, history blanking or oversighting should be rare, and should be performed only after due consideration.

On occasion, pages in the project namespace, such as requests for adminship and requests for arbitration will be blanked as a courtesy, for reasons similar to those outlined above."

Please show how Schroeder's user pages conform with the proper use of courtesy blanking. Furthermore, "especially given your history of antagonism with this user" not only do you not show evidence of such antagonism, it is irrelevant what history is between editors when such policy is blatantly misused as in blanking Schroeder's pages. Now that I've cited clearly the policy's misuse, I'll probably be accused of Wikilawyering... Davesmith au (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to add one more tale to the saga, now his user pages are deleted! What a joke...

Plasma cosmology

G'day, you might be interested in a Request for Comments on the talk page of Plasma cosmology about the deletion of a section. Cheers Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solution to Plasma Cosmology controversy problem ?

Hello. I was following this discussion. I did start a holding page for a WikiProject to help in allowing editors to produce Encyclopedic articles in this area. But I wonder if that is premature at the moment. After examining this area again I wonder if what is needed is a page titled something like "Controversy in Plasma Cosmology" or "Controversy in Cosmology Science" ? That way pro and anti people in the controversy might both be satisfied. Those who regard the entire episode as "anti-science" would be able to edit in pertinent parts of the history, while other parties would be able to edit in what they know. This could make a page that is informative to those who have casually encountered the controversy and simply want to know what is going on. Personally I don't want to use WP to promote either pro or against any scientific hypothesis. What concerns me is that WP is effectively being blocked from what it does best; allowing parties from both "sides" of an area to put in well sourced edits. DJ Barney (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What next?

So now the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS) has been excised from this so-called encyclopedia. Regardless of what one thinks of the SIS (or any other organization) surely the fact that it exists and that is has a current membership and that it produces journals would indicate that some mention in a 'people's encyclopedia' would be warranted? It's not as though it doesn't exist, like some foolish editor included an erroneous wiki page just for fun. It's a real, existing organization and I cannot see the sense in removing it from 'the sum of all human knowledge'... Wikipedia has to be the biggest farce on the internet. What a joke.

And to add insult to injury, a (the?) most disruptive influence has now wormed his way back into wankerpedialand and begun his none-too-subtle attacks on anything he's not happy seeing in his favorite egostroking corner of the internet... Appearing humble and staying away from talk pages for the moment, I sense a wolfe in sheep's clothing... or is it a sheep in wolfe's clothing?...

MfD nomination of User:Dtalbott/bio notes

User:Dtalbott/bio notes, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dtalbott/bio notes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Dtalbott/bio notes during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. jps (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Dtalbott/bio notes

User:Dtalbott/bio notes, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dtalbott/bio notes (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Dtalbott/bio notes during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. jps (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]