User talk:Dustin Dewynne

Welcome!

Hello, Dustin Dewynne, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, visit the Teahouse Q&A forum, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-dual diagram

Hi, Dustin, just wanted to explain why I have removed your diagram from some articles. I think it is really well done and I am sure that you have really put a lot of thought and effort into it, and I want to thank you for putting that time into trying to improve wikipedia. But it seems to me from reading the description that it is basically your own personal interpretation of the relation between mind, body and soul. If this is the case then we cannot really accept it in wikipedia articles, because of our policy on Original research - we only publish kinds of knowledge that are already well established in their respective fields. So if it is not the case that the diagram is your own personal take on this complex philosophical issue you need to show the sources that you use, i.e. whose interpretation is it a representation of and which published authors have suggested this kind of a representation. Secondly you need to be absolutely sure that the particular diagram is relevant for the articles and that it helps readers understand the topic. I think that given the complexity and creativity of the diagram it is unlikely to be possible for others to understand without at least a paragraph of explanation. Then it becomes a question of whether the diagram is so important that it merits a paragraph of text in the article - that would only be the case if it is considered important in other sources about the particular topic. So basically I think it is going to be difficult to include the image that you made in many articles here. Thanks for your work though, and I hope you keep contributing. But it will be easier for you if you start by reading the guidelines on how we require Reliable, published sources for all information, also illustrations. And that we don't publish individual editors unpublished original research. All the best. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the corrections. I actually had those same concerns before deciding to make those posts, but proceeded with the notion that some diagram is better than no diagram. Then after reading your objection, it dawned on me that I could just make a very simplified chart that would depict only the well-studied ontological views - basically limited to the top-left corner of my original diagram. I hope people will find this to be helpful and not disturbing any uncharted ground. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a very reasonable solution to me. Thanks!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To voice a concern (with interest in author intent), would you mind either updating or if I were to update this image to subtly reflect a position that the content is not intended to be all-inclusive as an over-arching categorization method for subsequent philosophies? I am concerned of a stance where the contents of this diagram are used as a foundational model for all classifications of opinion on this topic, rather than an incomplete set of discrete examples. xerxesbeat (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad to see whatever mods you or anyone else might offer as improvements. Wikipedia encourages us to be bold. I see that one policy to be a huge reason behind its success. And the other reason being that it is impossible to break Wikipedia. It is just as easy to revert changes as it is to make them. If the consensus is that your changes are improvements, I expect that I would support that myself. I make changes to other people's diagrams quite regularly. If I introduce a change to the character of what the image is communicating, then I reupload it under a different file name. That way, editors will be able to utilize either version.

Sorry, xerxesbeat, that I took a month and a half to see your comment.=Dustin Dewynne (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Youtube on Wikipedia.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:NOYT, it will give you some sense of the appropriate use of Youtube on Wikipedia. For now I will be reverting your misuses across recently editing pages.Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is crystal clear to me that you are missing the primary gist of NOYT. In the individual articles' Talk pages, I have elaborated on how NYOT is there to guide us about throwing out bathwater, not babies.

And aside from this disconnect in understanding this one particular policy, your repeated characterization of my efforts as "spamming" strikes me as absolutely bizarre. I fail to see how anyone could view anything I've contributed to Wikipedia as spam. On top of that, you may want to familiarize yourself with W:AGF. (Notice that I do not call your persistent reverts "vandalism", because I assume that you are editing in good faith.) =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your "view" of Wikipedia policy does not override policy.Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have thoroughly explained myself to you, with my specific understanding of W:NYOT, and W:IAR above that. I have never to this very moment seen you explain yourself to me. The most you have done is provide a link to the policy, and that was after calling my constructive efforts 'spam' (which also, you have not explained how anyone could view it to be such). And now you are relying on scare tactics in lieu of persuasive reasoning.

If you would simply provide the logic behind your understanding of NYOT, I would see that to go a much longer way to convincing me that I am the one who is in error here. If such reasoning cannot be provided, then it might be an indicator that I am not the one who is on the side of error on this. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---I just now saw that you have finally given a specific explanation of your position. I will post a reply on those specific article Talk Pages. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

I see it as a common courtesy to have all comments posted to a user's Talk Page to be signed, even if (and perhaps, especially if) the purpose of the comment is to issue a threat. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Toms Shoes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

"...please consider using the article's talk page..."

This is exactly what I have been doing. I have provided very thorough explanations of my understanding of Wikipedia policy (NYOT in particular) as the rationale behind my efforts toward improving the articles in question. For any authority that may want to review this situation, you may be interested to note the huge asymmetry in the imbalance between my level of explanation behind my action, versus the other "warring" party's level of explanation. Another point of note is the level of respect maintained by each for the other. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not to revert and use the talk page, but to use the talk page and not revert. If you have a novel idea on how the entire community should revamp itself go right ahead and discuss it with the administrators over at the policy pages, but you cannot claim to use the talk page instead of reverting if you are still reverting. Please make the effort to read policy issues more thoroughly and from a neutral perspective, rather than from the perspective that there will be some way to prove yourself right and more experienced editors wrong. And believe me, I'm one of the less grouchy ones when it comes to that kind of inexperienced editor zeal. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have communicated to you as clearly as I know how...

I am not a new editor. I have been editing Wikipedia prolifically since the middle of the last decade.

I have not been promoting any novel ideas on editing, nor pushing for any revamping. All of my actions have been consistent with the letter of NOYT as it stands today, verbatim. I have not violated any WikiLaws as I understand them. This is how I have always used YouTube references, and I intend to continue to do so until such time that I am persuaded that my actions are in violation.

What I have stated is needed right now is further clarification within NOYT, which is thoroughly evidenced by your interpretation as well as my interpretation both fitting within the letter of that policy as it is written today. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Final Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Well it seems clear that you have little intention to accept my invitation to move this entire matter over to the forum that I see to be most appropriate: the WP:NOYT Talk Page. I have suggested to you that gaining clarification and refinement of NOYT would be in the best interest of Wikipedia. Your view appears to be that the best interest is to continue to threaten well-intentioned editors. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to argue for language changes at NOYT's talk page, I do not feel in any way that the language is unclear so I have no interest in discussing such policy there. All you have to do is stop breaking policy in terms of these warnings. If you feel so strongly about NOYT, then feel free to contribute there, but that is a fully separate issue from your posting of inappropriate Youtube videos. Besides, I already demonstrated for you that your main problem can be fixed by seeking a different source. If one doesn't exist, then sometimes we just have to deal with the fact there is no RS for a fact so we can't use it.Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to see these types of primary sources as about the highest quality sources available. You too are free to argue for language changes of NOYT so that your rigid interpretation is the one that would be clearly, explicitly delineated. Clearly both you AND I have strong feelings about NOYT, as we have both put a significant amount of time into this discussion. Again, I think it would have been excellent to have had this over at the NOYT Talk Page from the very beginning for the benefit of the entire community, instead of being fractured across many different pages as this has turned into.

A stark point of difference between your view and mine is regarding whether or not the source I've been using do indeed count as a RS. I see absolutely no way that they cannot be understood as such. It is crystal clear to me that these videos are the highest quality primary sources available. And if Wikipedia were to ever refine NOYT to explicitly exclude the types of videos I have been using, I will see that to be a huge loss for all Wikipedia users.

I have little more to say on this topic at this time. Perhaps I will just share my desire that anyone who is trying to get an understanding of NOYT to step back and look at the big picture of why that policy is there. The babies/bathwater analogy is as clearly as I can communicate that. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your sentiments. After all, academic publications (far more credible than Wikipedia pages) require primary sources, and yet Wikipedia does not allow them. One way of looking at it is that third party sources from reliable publications are seen by Wikipedia as pre-vetted by editorial boards or publishers, as Wikipedia does not trust its editors to vet sources for its pages. Because there are millions of pages and only ten or so thousand active editors, this kind of source limitation also allows faster decisions to be made across the billions of edits made. Again I encourage you to seek clarification or seek to clarify NOYT at that policy's talk page. You'll likely find individuals there willing to debate the finer points of your argument, and if you are passionate about it then that contribution could be very worthwhile. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]