Wikipedia Daynal talkpage

From DaynalWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Image:lighterstill.jpg

Contents

User talk:Daynal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search It is proposed that this user talk page be deleted because of the following concern:

Soapboxy compilation of stuff on talk page of indef blocked user

If you can address this concern by following the user page guidelines, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the user talk page or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.

The user talk page may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days.Prod, concern: Soapboxy compilation of stuff on talk page of indef blocked user This template was added 2008-04-30 19:21; five days from then is 2008-05-05 19:21. If this is your user page, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the page so that it is acceptable according to the user page guidelines.


Portrait by MEDcirca 2002 Portrait by MED circa 2002

"Opinion is the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world. It requires profound, purpose driven larger-than-the-self kind of understanding" Bill Bullard, Educator

"Does the ostracism of high gossip cause a blank and passive silence? The question reflects the current misére. It tells of the dominance of the secondary and parasitic." George Steiner, 1989

"Myths of objectivity that devalue knowing subjects are no friend of living minds." Rob Davis --Daynal (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Contents [hide]

Dispassionate description or passionate persuasion?

Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

One of the delights in surveying much of the rhetoric of apparent reason is finding that beneath the glib surface of cool confidence lurks so many unruly passions that remain unexamined in that state of mind oriented toward acquisition and material control over one at home in a state of progressive intellectual inquiry. Few things seem to elicit turbulence in this arena of mind more than the study of Jesus that becomes manifest in the comparative survey of the range of sustained observation, experience, and study of his life. Indeed, it would appear that anxiety operates proportionate to one's investment in 'authorized' i.e. existing cultural 'forms' defined by dogmatic defenses against what are seen as unruly intrusions of the dynamic of human experience. It is hoped that the editorial character of this online reference would value the investigation and accurate representation of textual sources commented upon more than unstudied opinions reacting to perceptions of sources, and especially those lacking approval in or from prevailing patterns of the culture at large.

Gratefully,

Daynal 08:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Rob Davis

Rob, it's worth noting that several recent studies have shown that individuals who use overly elaborate language to convey simple ideas are often viewed as more unintelligent than their peers who utilize a less "dynamic" vocabulary.

Basically, I'm telling you that there's no need to present your idea on the talk page as if you're addressing a philosopher-king. You'll get much less accomplished by forcing such complicated language into a comment that can be summed up into two or three sentences.

Assuming that this is all in reference to the removal of the Urantia business, I should notify you of the concept of undue weight. I think that a quick read-over will make the reasoning for the removal of text quite clear. The Urantia concept, as intriguing as it may be, has no discernible body of followers (I did see a source some time ago which claimed that it only had 7 or so adherents- from a "Urantian" source, interestingly enough), and is in every way an extreme "minority" viewpoint. To sum up what WP:UNDUE says, "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.". Therefore, I see no justification for the inclusion of this information at all.--C.Logan 09:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear C. Logan,

Thank you for clarifying the importance of unnamed sources to rationalize deletion without dialogue contributions giving priority to original sources in a written article. Appeals to popularity of unnamed references underscore the value of peer review as a viable means of maintaining trust required for expanded sharing. Alas, 'minority view' is but a frame of mind that in terminology of local acronyms translates to POV. Nevertheless, should an article on what 'a' religion is and how it comes to frame ensuing "religious perspectives" be undertaken, I will gladly contribute to the labor of any at home with a taste for philosophy more than the manufacture of mythology feigning as 'fact'.

Gratefully,

Daynal 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Rob

In terms of religious groups and denominations, the direct number of adherents is used as a general guideline for coverage. It's not strictly proportional, but you should have a good idea that in an article such as this, where the beliefs of millions (and billions) of individuals are summarized in a mere three or five paragraphs, a tiny sect which contains an indeterminately small number of individuals should not have "equal representation". Doing so would be akin to providing a separate section for small organizations, or even for the individual opinions of scholars. The view presented in the Urantian belief system is simply far too insignificant (as it is) to warrant coverage, as the group is both historically disconnected and numerically disadvantaged. I'm not entirely opposed to inclusion, however, and it would seem that if any real body of followers can be shone, it would be a step in the right direction for assessing Urantia's standing.--C.Logan 11:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Dear C. Logan,

Certainly your rationale is understood even if it does represent a reductionist model for assessing relative strengths of various social 'groups', religious or otherwise. Religious groupings as defined by ecclesiastical hierarchies is inflated for political and enonomic reasons, and even then, only 'count' persons on the 'rolls' rather than actually supportive which is a bit like the US Government boasting wealth while ignoring the vacuous base of its currency.

Such a methodology is useful for 'groups' sponsored and or sanctioned by governments whose own census methodologies are but a means to maintain oversight and control. 'Groups' with little or 'no' infrastructure are 'invisible' only because their objectives are intangible, focused as they should be, upon the value of spiritual reality more than visible and material interests.

The citizens of this world have discarded these traditional methods for controlling their thought used throughout history to define what is authentic and/or acceptable spiritual experience. Anyone attuned to cultural trends, and if not, 'official' demographic patterns, recognize the true state of 'mainline' status in the most prominent organizations whose institutional decline make hollow any claims of majority status and pose interesting questions as to what it is that is represented by the term 'religion', that notwithstanding demise of traditional models, is alive, well, and growing throughout the world, albeit, in vastly more fluid 'forms'.

Gratefully,

Daynal 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Rob

While you may be correct in general concerning the issue, it doesn't make much of a difference in the face of Wikipedia policy. As you're aware, this discussion concerns what goes into Wikipedia, and given the current information available, Urantia does not satisfy the framework of WP:UNDUE, which states:

"Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority."

[...]

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

As things stand, it would seem that Urantia has no verifiable body of followers, and no real significance beyond its own existence (and uniqueness of presentation). As is pointed out above, there appears to be no need to give article space to this extreme minority view, where religions like Buddhism receive only a paragraph's worth of material on the subject.--C.Logan 22:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear C. Logan,

Thank you for your willingness to engage in dialogue on this matter! This in itself reinforces the legitimacy of Wikipedia content.

However, the WP policy regarding a minority 'view' cannot be applied as it is not a quantitative measure, but one that must forever presume upon a quantitative methodology while relying upon purely qualitative considerations. The methodology you represent could be very well applied to an article on Jesus as represented in the major world 'religions', but is misleading when governing religious 'perspectives' on Jesus or anything else. The former can easily comply with WP criteria on this point, but the latter will never as it is entirely subjective.

Regardless of the ambiguity of WP terminology, the verifiable 'fact' towering above this subjective fog is that of all the 'religious perspectives' found in 'religious' literature throughout the world, including the New Testament, none feature a more prominent focus upon the life of Jesus, and none provide such extensive details which are being quietly examined by many theologians, philosophers, scientists, and as well, the most influential performing artists that have ever have lived on this planet.

Gratefully,

Daynal 19:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rob

The policy is quite clear on the matter, as the judgment of a "minority view" can only be considered in the neutral sense; that is, quantitatively. We are extremely limited in making qualitative decisions in matters like these.

The case with this article is no different then it is in the Jesus article; it would just appear to be different as it is presented as a cafeteria of perspectives on the subject, with no apparent limitation on representation. However, WP:UNDUE still applies.

Without a sold quantitative basis upon which to base the general acceptance of views, there is very little separating the views of true world religions and a religion dreamt up by some old man out in the Ozarks which has received minimal media coverage. WP:UNDUE is a quantitative judgment.

We must adhere to the rules of WP:NPOV, and by that measure, WP:UNDUE, when assessing any text for incorporation. Per this policy, we cannot present minorities (especially those in the extreme minority) with as much (or even more) coverage as views which are held by the majority groups.--C.Logan 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear C. Logan,

I respect the requirement of a 'solid' quantitative criteria to ascertain the general acceptance of views, but in the absence of any reference to 'solid' data from sources authenticated by an inclusive 'group' of editors, the appeal to mere perceptions of popularity only underscores the vacuity of these 'mainline' claims. Nevertheless, it may prove helpful to recall that almost without exception, the religions you recognize as 'major' were all "dreamed up" by persons living on the margins of their respective 'civilizations'.

Gratefully,

Daynal 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rob

becoming an article

After discovering Wikipedia featured only a sentence on Landon Garland, I did some initial research and composed the article as it exists at the moment. As I am not that familiar with all the technical requirements for an ideal Wikipedia article, I wanted to register my interest in eliciting any input that others might have.

It would appear that it no longer is but a 'stub', however, I would like to see the article feature pertinent references and sections, but will wait until I conclude further research. Additionally, the categories under which the article is labelled seem to need adjustment if not supplementation. After studying the subject further, I will check back.

Daynal (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Barnard telescope.jpg

Daynal (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for uploading Image:Barnard telescope.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

rue-the-Bots

After writing this article enclosed with a family portrait of this subject, I received what appeared to be an automated email from a 'bot' warning me against further 'vandalism' and inserting "unwelcome edits". Obviously, this entity read the draught of this article as worth retaining, but I am glad to have been disabused of the thought that human beings were editors at Wikipedia.

Daynal (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Daynal Institute Press

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Press_logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Press_logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Daynal Institute Press, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add Template:Hangon on the top of Daynal Institute Press and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. AndrewHowse (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello AndrewHowse:

As my username has been "blocked indefinitely" in the context of adding a stub linking from another article, I seem physically unable to reply to your suggestions for engaging in the dialogue recommended to address your concerns. --Daynal (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Rob Davis

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: single-purpose account here to promote Daynal Institute Press. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

  • If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
  • If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
  • You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC) This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because of concerns that the chosen username may not meet our username policy.

This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it - see below.

Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, confusing, or misleading.

If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username which is quick and easy. To do so, please follow these directions:

  1. Add Template:Unblock-un below. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
  2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
  3. Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far easier allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username.

Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text Template:Unblock below or emailing the administrator who blocked you. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cobaltbluetony:

It appears I violated a guideline recently by composing the (now quickly deleted) stub on Daynal Institute Press linking from the article I submitted on Timothy Wyllie whose work we are publishing. When I went to reply to the concerns expressed about the stub, I found that I had also violated the Wikipedia username policy (even if there was no such concern expressed in the context of previous articles or talk pages). The stub then has apparently stirred sufficient indignation to ban further contribution.

As there is always lot to learn about local protocols, I would like to discuss with you how further contributions to Wikipedia may be done in a way that does not cause such adverse reactions.

Gratefully,

Rob Davis

--Daynal (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What an honor to be 'banned' from Wikipedia for contributing the articles Landon Garland, Timothy Wyllie, and Daynal Institute Press. The first article was greeted with automated accusations of "vandalism", the second was judged as having an inappropriate 'tone", and the third was "deleted" without discussion due to "blatant advertising". As such, Wikipedia represents well a mechanistic culture by the sustained exhibition of a precipitous disinclination to dialogue where


"the primary felt activity of questioning is eclipsed by an (immediate) demand for answers, puzzles by solutions, creativity by control.¹


1. Theology Vol. 102 (1999) pps. 169-176, Real Presences: Two Scientists Response, by Wilson Poon & Tom McLeish

--Daynal (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


FYI

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Landon Garland, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Landon Garland was changed by Rldavisiv (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-04-22T05:32:37+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Most interesting as this is the comment received when I wrote the article in the first place. Perhaps automated 'editors' cannot discern the difference.

--Rldavisiv (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Timothy Wyllie. Your edits have been automatically marked as unconstructive/possible vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Timothy Wyllie was changed by Rldavisiv (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-04-22T05:33:01+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Most interesting as this is the comment received when I wrote the article in the first place. Perhaps automated 'editors' cannot discern the difference.

--Rldavisiv (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anthony:

Thank you for your reply!

I do appreciate the rationale for discouraging individuals from choosing usernames of a 'business, band, or other organization'. It is for this reason that I want to be sure no one else will use the name daynal on Wikipedia. If you can assure me that this username will remain blocked indefinitely, I will gladly choose another name. In such case, the reason for the initial use of 'daynal' will have been accomplished.

As to how the editorial culture of Wikipedia demonstrates that it does "value positive contributions", it may prove helpful to revisit the practice of individual 'editors' focusing upon what warrants elimination to the exclusion of appreciating the human source(s) of what is retained in the collection of articles. Where editors function solely as copyeditors, ferreting out what does not comply with policy the higher editorial functions of identification and composition suffer accordingly. No doubt, there are groups of editors who actually know one another well and recognize the value each brings to the project because Wikipedia could not have emerged without such. However, the requisite for continued growth beyond this current stage of development is to foster such appreciation proportionate to the project's expanding scale given all writing emerges from within human beings who have a 'single purpose' i.e. to live.

Gratefully,

Rob Davis --Daynal (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Unblock-un

--Daynal (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Allowing username change to tiahuan (talk · contribs). Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking.

Request handled by: - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Press logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Press logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi Daynal, Happy to discuss a new submission. Please be sure to read Wikipedia's policies on notability and verifiability, and then the best thing might be to start your new page at User:Daynal/sandbox. You can then move it into mainspace when ready. --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Andrew:

I am grateful for your willingness to have a discussion!

The policies on notability and verifiability will be re-read along with a range of articles the policy governs to understand how the literal theory functions dynamically. After composing a new article, I would appreciate your review prior to any consideration of moving it to the mainspace.

Thanks,

Rob --Daynal (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The best thing might be to put a note on my talk page with a link to the new article, when you're ready. No rush, of course. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Timothy Wyllie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

I am interested to know how Wikipedians define "tone" in anything but a manner indicative of a POV. As for inline citations, it appears probable that the time required to locate them may not be afforded by the native propensity toward "speedy deletion" without dialogue. If the posted objection has been generated by an algorithm, perhaps it could be designed to highlight problematic portions, and if by a 'real' person, they might register the details of their concern here.

Looking forward,

--Rldavisiv (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

After consulting with Wikipedia editors, I am compiling a list of third party citations to address the first objections posted against the merits of the article. As to 'tone', given no one has answered how such is defined, I will address that when it becomes more evident there is an policy statement making more vivid the intent of the reference to an "inappropriate tone".

Looking foward

--Rldavisiv (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Having now obtained a formal statement regarding 'tone', I would like to address the objections made against the article relative to the policy statement.

Policy: "Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining understandable to the educated layman. Formal tone does not mean the article should be written using unintelligible argot, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner."

Reply: A rexamination of the article does not turn up instances of informality. If any should find otherwise, please articulate your thought.

Policy: "Articles should not be written from a first or second person perspective. Articles written in this fashion are often deleted. First person pronouns such as "I" and "we" imply a point-of-view inconsistent with WP:NPOV (although "we" may be used in mathematical contexts). Second person, "you" or "your", perspective often appears in how-to instructions and is inappropriate. First and second person usage should only be used in articles in attributed direct quotations relevant to the article's subject. Gender-neutral pronouns should be used where the gender is not specific; see Quest for gender-neutral pronouns and the related discussion for further info.

Reply: All references to the 'person' utilize third person pronouns.

Policy: Punctuation marks that appear in the article should only be used per generally accepted practice. Exclamation marks (!) should be used only if they occur in direct quotations.

Reply: This editor finds no punctuation at variance with common usage, and no exclamation points have been used. This editor is particularly reluctant to make use of superlatives without substantiation, therefore the two references "premiere" and "seminal" appearing in the article at different places will be verified with third party citations or changed accordingly.

Further comments are welcome.

It appears the only comments ensuing are those of pastordavid whose user page identifies his username representating the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on Wikipedia. His comments on this article consist of accusations against it as Sockpuppetry. His talk page also cites that while "Wikipedia is not censored, his talk page is", and that any writing he considers to be 'obscene' i.e. 'vandalism', etc. "will be deleted". This together with the automated deletion of articles on Wikpedia, it seems best to provide a link to the original {uncensored?} article here.

Rob Davis (usernames Rldavisiv and Daynal)

--Rldavisiv (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

--74.223.63.66 (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Andrew:

When I attempted to follow your instructions, I was greeted again by an automated message indicating that I was not allowed to do the kind of work you recommended in either the sandbox or your talk page. What might you suggest now?

Rob

--Daynal (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Message: This account was blocked in accordance with the user name policy (see above). You were unblocked specifically to allow you to request a name change, which it does not appear that you have. However, you continued editing as a single-purpose account, interested only in those subjects which are directly connected to your publishing company, Daynal Institute Press. I will not be available to unblock you again today (I am leaving soon); you may address this with another administrator if you do not want to wait. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Daynal's account was blocked in accordance with the user name policy (see block message on his page). He was unblocked specifically to allow him to request a name change, which it does not appear that he ever tried to do. However, he continued editing as a single-purpose account, interested only in those subjects which are directly connected to his publishing company, Daynal Institute Press. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'll proceed cautiously, although I'm not ready to say he's an incorrigible spammer yet! --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you try to get unblocked for the sole purpose of changing your username, and make no other contributions under Daynal. I'd then suggest that you stay well away from any articles in which you might be perceived by others to have a conflict of interest; Daynal Institute, its Press, and its authors would all fit in that category. I realise that's not what I said earlier, but in the interim I've noticed that your email address is at a daynal domain. I don't know if you really have a conflict of interest, but that doesn't matter; it's enough that there appears to be a risk of such. If those topics are sufficiently notable, then other editors will eventually contribute articles on them. If there are no contributions, then that's a good sign that they are not sufficiently notable to be included here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I might have been wrong. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy Review

Hello Anthony:

As there was no reply to the message sent¹ yesterday, it appears the communication indigenous to these emergent phases of human-computer interface require patience, so I will wait for your return.

Enjoy-

--Daynal (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Earlier message

Subject: Re: username block? From: rdavis@daynal.org Date: April 22, 2008 12:03:06 PM EDT To: cobaltbluetony@yahoo.com

Hello Tony-

Again, thank you for taking the time to articulate the rationale for the necessary framework within which persons around the world can contribute to such a valuable reference! No doubt, we are all learning how to correspond more effectively within the framework of an open source environment, and despite its shortcomings, I am committed to fostering its success.

It is my understanding that the difference between opening a new account with a new username and following the procedure to "change in username" will transfer all edits to this new username. If so, I will follow your suggestions and :

Add unblock-un|your new username here below (at bottom of Daynal user talk page

Otherwise, I would like to utilize the method you refer to as being used by "experienced editors" that "work on their articles in user space sandboxes, releasing them into the main article space only when they are convinced that it does meet policy", but I would like to know if there is a procedure for inviting the scrutiny of such editors prior to releasing to the main article space. It would seem that this would mitigate the need for negative comments.

In any event, please look over the insertion of unblock-un|your new username here at the bottom of Daynal talk page and let me know if it is in order.

Gratefully,

Rob

Hello Andrew:

After some consideration, I think it will be best for me to retain the username Daynal given that under such circumstances it will be blocked indefinitely accomplishing the purpose outlined above with Anthony. Otherwise, I will continue corresponding in venues appreciative of the constructive role writers' interests bring to bear upon the advancement of knowledge.

Gratefully,

Rob

re: I'd suggest that you try to get unblocked for the sole purpose of changing your username, and make no other contributions under Daynal. I'd then suggest that you stay well away from any articles in which you might be perceived by others to have a conflict of interest; Daynal Institute, its Press, and its authors would all fit in that category. I realise that's not what I said earlier, but in the interim I've noticed that your email address is at a daynal domain. I don't know if you really have a conflict of interest, but that doesn't matter; it's enough that there appears to be a risk of such. If those topics are sufficiently notable, then other editors will eventually contribute articles on them. If there are no contributions, then that's a good sign that they are not sufficiently notable to be included here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy Review

Good practice Centralized discussion: Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums. This fragments discussion of the idea, creating discussions in separate places with no interchange of ideas. This is rarely desirable, and leads to redundant effort where an idea that has already been adequately addressed has to be considered all over again. Instead, solicit discussion in only one location, either an existing talk page or a new project page, and if needed advertise that in other locations using a link. See also: meatball:ForestFire

If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one of the locations, removing them from the other locations and adding a link.

  • Be welcoming to newcomers: People new to Wikipedia may be unfamiliar with policy and conventions. Please do not bite the newcomers. If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake. Politely and gently point out their mistake, reference the relevant policy/guideline/help pages, and suggest a better approach.

Dear AndrewHowse:

I am writing to request clarification of Wikipedia policy governing "Publishing company stubs". After reviewing the Pages in this category consisting of 512 companies, how does Wikipedia distinguish between publicity composed by these organizations the majority of which only cite their official website for information and bona fide articles for readers that may benefit from the opportunity to know more about the publishers and any literature they produce?

Gratefully,

--75.104.157.17 (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

fyi: Daynal Institute Press uses "an alternative approach to the corporate model (via) open access, the online distribution of individual articles and academic journals without charge to readers and libraries, and open source publishing, which is participatory group editing, as exemplified by various wiki projects."Alternatives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.157.17 (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Rob, As I think you know, Wikipedia has policies on notability and advertising. Ideally, any page would comply with those policies. It's doubtless true that some pages do and that some pages don't comply, but we don't allow an exception to provide a precedent for another exception. I hope that answers your question. If not, then please provide more details and I'll try to answer. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello Andrew-

After examining forty or so of the 'publishing company stubs' in a somewhat random sampling, it was clear that the exception(s) are those citing anything other than their own internal production. While conflict of interest is of concern in any undertaking at anytime, for 'conflict' to exist, there must be present two or more interests in opposition to at least one of the others that is commonplace in competitive settings of any kind, be they academic, commercial, ecclesiastical, or otherwise. Where all such interests share a common goal there can be no 'conflict of interest'. The only 'conflict' then is one always present in human evaluation(s) based as these are upon the 'perceived' merits of any given work.

For this reason, in view of the perceptions of questionable 'intent' behind this article, it appears best to withdraw interest in seeing any such stub or article on the Daynal Institute or its Press unless such may arise naturally from the general recognition of its work. It is just such work that is understood to be an organic process unfolding without the more familiar coercive pressures animating so much trade and academic writing that I know is the shared objective of Wikipedia and countless other initiatives that are germinating throughout this world all too hungry for the "genuine article".

Gratefully,

Rob

--75.104.157.17 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daynal for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Pastordavid (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Civil practice requires that hearings occur before sentencing. Please refer to the note above asking that the account be blocked indefinitely.

--Daynal (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

True to form, ecclesiastical practice cites "sui generis" when subject to 'civil' protocols i.e. usernames representing organizations and advertised as such on the usertalk page.

--Daynal (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Some persons like sweet looking 'sockpuppets' while others prefer an open 'hand'.

Suspected sockpuppets

Rldavisiv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Pastordavid (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Evidence

User:Rldavisiv responded to a cluebot warning for blanking two articles by stating that he/she had started these articles. Article histories (here and here show that both articles were begun by indef-blocked user Daynal, who is using his/her talkpage for a WP:SOAPBOX of one sort or another. Pastordavid (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments

I gave the original user the opportunity to rename his account by unblocking him per his unblock request. Instead of filing for a user name change, he continued editing articles that are directly connected to his publishing company, Daynal Institute Press. In all likelihood the user could have resumed his editing with minimal objection, but now it appears that, after my reblocking him for the aforementioned actions, he went ahead and created a new account for himself. I do not see it as typical sock behavior, as there is some transparency, but his philosophical disagreements with how we work, which are completely absent in his private correspondence with me, are here evident, and suggest that he may choose to operate under his own rules and disregard the community's agreed-upon policies and standards. I'm uncertain how to respond to him now, as I feel completely deceived. For now, I intend to make public any further email correspondence of his with me for the sake of transparency; he would do well to instead correspond with all Wikipedians within the same framework as the rest of us. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I endorse CobaltBlueTony's comments, especially regarding Daynal's potential for ignoring our community norms. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. Although not common, some Wikipedians also create alternative accounts. It is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts. Sockpuppet This is a 'sockpuppet account', however, the 'hand' can easily be found here


--75.104.157.17 (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Free intelligence is endowed with the potential for violating norms. If such were not the case, meaningful discussions could not exist.

--75.104.157.17 (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Conclusions

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for using multiple accounts to evade a block. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text Template:Unblock below. GBT/C 15:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No contest is needed as it was my objective to block indefinitely the username Daynal as per my earlier email to CobaltBlueTony™. After discussing this with him, he recommended requesting a name change that I submitted, but according to his email of April 24, 2008 "the request to be unblocked did not in some way initiate the name change request automatically". I went to edit the Timothy Wyllie article as per the instructions of AndrewHowse, and thought it best to sign in rather than do so as an anonymous user. This required the use of an alternate username that brought the Sockpuppetry accusation from the user pastordavid who represents the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America on Wikipedia. It is just such a practice that initially raised concerns about the username - Daynal . It is certainly 'notable' that this accuser proudly demonstrates how his talkpage uses censorship to maintain an 'obscenity' free zone. Case Closed - IMO ;-)

--74.223.63.66 (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Anthony-

Now that the Sockpuppetry case is closed, how might Wikipedia address the Conflict of Interest implicit in the accuser's username representing an organization (that is the reason I am grateful Daynal is blocked indefinitely as per Wikipedia username policy)? While I am aware the policy governing Disclosure serves to act as a disclaimer for all to see, when this is applied to selected organizations only, it sends the message that Wikipedia endorses the organization as well as the edits of those representing them. Given ecclesiastical and academic organizations have deep traditions in explicit and tacit forms of censorship, might this be a question best suited for a group of 'editors' not pre-occupied with blocks & deletion? If so, how might these be engaged?

Looking forward,

Rob

--74.223.63.66 (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As regards these edits, if you feel that my username is inappropriate, you are welcome to file a report at either usernames for administrator attention (which is for blatantly inappropriate usernames, asking for an immediate block) or you can make a request for comment on my username (which asks other editors to comment on the appropriateness of a username). If you feel that my username has revealed a conflict of interest in my editing of a particular article (or set of articles), you can post a notice at the conflict of interest noticeboard. If my conduct as an editor as been inappropriate, please feel free to make a request for comment on my conduct. If my conduct as an administrator has been inappropriate, you can post to the administrators' incident noticeboard. Pastordavid (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pastordavid:

Relative distances between theory and practice operating in local cultures indicates the utility of engaging their appeals process. As such, it would appear the fragmentation evident in this media mitigates against exploring just such expanded inquiries.

Gratefully,

Rob

--Daynal (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


It is proposed that this user talk page be deleted because of the following concern:

Soapboxy compilation of stuff on talk page of indef blocked user

If you can address this concern by following the user page guidelines, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the user talk page or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.

The user talk page may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days.Prod, concern: Soapboxy compilation of stuff on talk page of indef blocked user This template was added 2008-04-30 19:21; five days from then is 2008-05-05 19:21. If this is your user page, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the page so that it is acceptable according to the user page guidelines.


If editors are unwilling to have a dialogue about specific objections and instead resort solely to the automated use of general statements, it is evident the "exchange of ideas" stipulated above in Wikipedia policies is subordinate to the taste for such by approved organizations advertised as such by 'authorized' editors.

(copies of this exchange will be archived for future reference) [here] --72.250.232.242 (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daynal" Categories: Proposed deletion as of 30 April 2008 | All articles proposed for deletion | Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over | Temporary Wikipedian userpages

Not at all. But your refusal to abide by the norms of our community means that we're not obliged to grant you a soapbox. My notice at the top of your page, which you've copied down here too, is part of the process accepted within the Wikipedia community for removing such pages. You're not obliged to abide by these processes, but the community's tolerance for your contributions is reduced by your refusal to do so. There's really nothing wrong; you visited, didn't find our approach to your liking, and you have other channels for expression. No hard feelings; chacun à son gout. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Andrew:

There is an assumption that guides the action here. The assumption is there exits a "refusal to abide by the norms of our community". The record shows that in every case, requests were made for input only to receive automated replies defining submissions as being "unwelcome edits" and "vandalism". When attempting to work on the 'edit' with any real person to 'amend' such submissions, another would interject with the effect of fragmenting the discussion. In every case, as per the observation of CobaltBlueTony in direct correspondence, there is but a desire to work with real people to share authenticated information. The objections raised are those against the automated aversion to making good faith efforts to 'discuss'.

Dialogue entails working with thought expressed in words requiring a willingness to "edit, amend, and discuss"-something machines cannot imagine.

--72.250.232.242 (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)----


I disagree. Most of your correspondents are real people; only those whose names end in 'bot' are automata. We do use standard forms of message, which we call templates; we do this in order to express a particular notion consistently and with the greatest clarity.

Now, with regard to norms; CobaltBlueTony asked you to explain your username, and explained why he made that request, but you did not explain. He then blocked you, which is a norm we have adopted to defend the encyclopaedia against hijacking for promotional purposes. You asked to be unblocked; CBTony unblocked you in order that you could change your username; you went back to editing and didn't, as far as one can see, make any attempt to change your name. Again, this appears to me to be outside of Wikipedia's norms. A final example would be the collection of text on this page; I've never seen another user talk page that looks like this. Comments made by a number of editors have been copied and pasted in a way that doesn't preserve the context in which the comments were made, and you've edited your own remarks in a way that damages the chronological sequence of the exchanges. All of these behaviours are outside the range of usual behaviour in this community; all of this is perfectly understandable. I wish you success in your endeavours and in finding a venue for your opinions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing to disagree. The exchange with CobaltBlueTony is a matter of record part of which is his admission that "the request to be unblocked did not in some way initiate the name change request automatically". A preponderant reliance upon automation leads to errors in judgement.--72.250.232.242 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed template as per its suggestionTemplate:Dated prod

You may remove this message if you improve the user talk page or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason.

see top of page for complete statement.

Having witnessed the replacement of the 'template' giving notice of deletion after expressing why "it should not be deleted", it seemed the better course to simply 'cleanse' the discussion as per Wikipedia's request though I will retain the archive here with a link from the user page(s).

--rdavis 23:21, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

After 'cleansing' the accounts, I noticed that Elipongo 'reverted' them citing my edits had been "unconstructive" :-)

--rdavis 23:56, 1 May 2008 (EDT) Image:Wiki_cleansing.jpg

Moving forward

It appears that the original editor of the article is no longer active here. I'm going to try and salvage the article, or determine if it meets the deletion criteria. User:Paulbrock|Paulbrock User talk:Paulbrock|talk 17:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The writer is watching with interest how Wikipedia 'salvages' articles given the Evangelical Lutheran Church's displeasure with the thought of this on Wikipedia. --75.105.1.72 User talk:75.105.1.72|talk]) 06:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

fr: Silensor

Sockpuppetry Case

Suspected sockpuppets Rldavisiv


Report submission by User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid (User talk:Pastordavid|talk) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence User:Rldavisiv responded to a cluebot warning for blanking two articles by stating that he/she had started these articles. Article histories (here and here show that both articles were begun by indef-blocked user Daynal, who is using his/her talkpage for a WP:SOAPBOX of one sort or another. Pastordavid (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments I gave the original user the opportunity to rename his account by unblocking him per his unblock request. Instead of filing for a user name change, he continued editing articles that are directly connected to his publishing company, Daynal Institute Press. In all likelihood the user could have resumed his editing with minimal objection, but now it appears that, after my reblocking him for the aforementioned actions, he went ahead and created a new account for himself. I do not see it as typical sock behavior, as there is some transparency, but his philosophical disagreements with how we work, which are completely absent in his private correspondence with me, are here evident, and suggest that he may choose to operate under his own rules and disregard the community's agreed-upon policies and standards. I'm uncertain how to respond to him now, as I feel completely deceived. For now, I intend to make public any further email correspondence of his with me for the sake of transparency; he would do well to instead correspond with all Wikipedians within the same framework as the rest of us. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I endorse CobaltBlueTony's comments, especially regarding Daynal's potential for ignoring our community norms. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. Although not common, some Wikipedians also create alternative accounts. It is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts.

Sockpuppet
This is a 'sockpuppet account', however, the 'hand' can easily be found here


--75.104.157.17 (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Free intelligence is endowed with the potential for violating norms. If such were not the case, meaningful discussions of normativity could not exist.

--75.104.157.17 (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Blocked accordingly. GBT/C 15:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The justice that governs genuine public space is never administered by persons using fictitious 'usernames'. Rob Davis

Pastordavid/ Daynal dialogue

Daynal

Dear Pastordavid,

Would you find it more comfortable discussing here the public display of what is described as an 'archived' page where your charge of Sockpuppetry was sustained against user:Daynal? If the page should be really archived as was the 'discussion' of the article that apparently offended your personal beliefs, we can agree to let this 'lie'. Gratefully, Rob Davis --72.250.232.242 (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you ascribe to me sensitivities that I am afraid I do not posses. I am not offended in the least. In fact, the SSP page is indeed archived just the same as the talk page in question - both are still viewable by the general public, as shown by your ability to view both of them. Neither of them, however, has been deleted. You are welcome to persue deletion for them ... I would guess that asking at misc. for deletion would be the right place. I would not, however, expect the deletion of either to be likely. And if you feel, as you continue to insinuate, my particular background produces an undue bias or conflict of interest in either my editing or my use of the administrative tools, you are encouraged to file a report either at requests for comment on user behavior or at the administrators' incident noticeboard. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Dear Pastordavid, Thank you for your reply! It is not sensitivities you possess, but rather the appearance of such that is suggested by your interjection into what was otherwise an evolving dialogue addressing issues raised by the article in question. That dialogue was silenced by the sustained accusation of using a 'sockpuppet' to evade compliance with Wikipedia policies. Deletion is not what is sought, far from it, but discussion of the perception of wrongdoing is, and such discussion must begin with the 'plaintiff' that you are in this virtual 'case' and myself who would otherwise be the 'defendant'. Obviously, such legal descriptors are inappropriate in a private environment, but the appearance of due process is suggested by the legal terminology utilized in this venue. I would suggest however, that two human beings capable of penetrating mere perceptions to probe the truth of any matter would be far more conducive to the collegial atmosphere sought at Wikipedia than any 'legal' pretensions could realize. Are you amenable to such? Gratefully, Rob --72.250.232.242 (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Very well. The disinclination to dialogue sustains the appearance you otherwise forswear. Rob--71.125.97.151 (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No. What it sustains is the limited amount of time I am available online right now given real life responsibilities. Patience. Pastordavid (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Gladly! Genuine dialogue is well worth the wait and work.--74.223.63.66 (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Rob

Rob, please have a look at this unblock proposal. Let me know if you are interested. Pastordavid (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pastordavid, Looks like a reasonable solution, but before we proceed, I would like to know a few things about Wikipedia that have been brought to mind by your original accusations using the term 'sockpuppet', once was a delightful term of endearing innocence, but now synonymous with deceptive practices of virtual sabotage on Wikipedia.
  1. Is Wikipedia so preoccupied with fraud, vandalism, and malicious actions of mean spirited persons to preempt the need to inquire with any apparent offender directly before bringing a virtual 'court case' against innocent, unsuspecting persons whose only desire is to contribute to a culture where sharing is valued above all else?
  2. What criteria operates whereby usernames officially representing organizations are approved and disapproved by Wikpedia?
Looking forward, Rob aka--68.238.123.94 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Rob, there is a long history behind the policy of WP:SOCK, much of which occured long before I arrived here (the conversation about the practice begins really around the spring of 2004). Suffice it to say that wikipedia's visibility, combined with the easy accessibility, makes it prone to disruption. One particular way to be disruptive, is to register multiple accounts, and have them operate simultaneously -- quite simply, persons with multiple accounts (except for in certain, well-defined situations) are usually being intentionally disruptive - and so multiple accounts are not allowed. It may be helpful to understand the rationale, but the bottom line is that it is one of the accepted norms of this project, and to take part in the project on must be willing to uphold it. In regard to the "preoccupation" with such things, not that there are millions of visitors to wikipedia each day, and any one can edit wikipedia - and so it takes a dedicated effort to keep the vandalism in check.
As to "usernames officially representing organizations", see this policy page. In short, they are always discouraged, and beyond that are handled on a case by case basis. Another admin deemed that your editing habits were a bad combination with the username. The process would then be for me to unblock the User:Daynal account, and walk you through the changing username process. Pastordavid (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pastordavid:

Thank you for this as I understand well how security issues loom large proportionate to the profile of any 'target' and relative to the culture in which it functions. The username policy is understood given that 'defense' of integrity in the context of a civilization learning to be 'civil' will necessarily injure innocent parties, but case by case basis review, even if requiring lavish exposure over time for authentication purposes, is the requisite price for security in an insecure world.

Gratefully,

Rob--74.223.63.66 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock?

I have been in conversation with various IPs which seem to be connected to User:Daynal. I believe that the editor behind these accounts, currently blocked for operating multiple accounts can be a productive editor. However, I do have a couple of reservations, which I hope we can address here. I have asked a couple of editors to step in and help to mentor User:Daynal and direct him toward the ways of contructively participating in the wikipedia project.

Here are my conditions for unblocking:

  1. At least one trusted editor agrees to function as mentor (I have asked two).
  2. Editor will only operate one account, and preferably limit the amount of un-logged in editing.
  3. Editor will refrain from copying the comments of others to various places and refactoring them (which breaks the contribution history and misrepresents the words of others).
  4. Editor will focus on content, not soapboxing.

Agreement to unblock conditions

  • Editor:
  • Mentor(s):
  • Blocking admin: These are my expectations: The user must complete the name change process under which I originally unblocked him, under technical guidance if requested/needed. The user must also to agree not to edit subjects which are directly connected to his publishing company without the mentor's agreement/guidance. The user will also not start any articles directly related to his publishing company at all. I will not mentor. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 00:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Greetings! How good it is to see opportunities to discuss issues of concern for all those concerned-virtually present together.

Until the charge of sockpuppetry was made against account user:Daynal, I was content to use but this name only, and then only to prevent others from using it as I have a responsibility to and for the public use of this name by virtue of serving as admin to most domains operating with this name.

The articles I wrote, Landon Garland and Timothy Wyllie (read by bots as vandalism) prior to sustaining the sockpuppetry charge stand on record for continued examination and revision. After consultation with CobaltBlueTony, the unblock procedure was implemented as per his instructions, but just before the sockpuppetry charge, it appeared to him "for some reason" the change was not processed as expected. Another editor, AndrewHowse, had suggested that I address the conflict of interest raised by the Timothy Wyllie article by editing the article under his oversight. By this point, such required an alternate account user:Rldavisiv to do so without working anonymously. To avoid misunderstanding, these were linked as per suggestions of Wikipedia policy. This apparently triggered the accusation of sockpuppetry by user:Pastordavid (quickly sustained) bringing to an immediate halt the implementation of any suggestions of these two editors.

Further dialogue to address the situation has required the utilization of anonymous IP addresses, and traveling extensively finds the number of IP addresses uncountable for most tracking purposes.

replies to conditions and expectations above:

  1. The process of mentoring was previously initiated, even if informally, but stopped by the sockpuppetry case.
  2. This editor desired but one account linked directly to his personal contact page to demonstrate transparency.
  3. This editor 'copied comments' to the personal talkpage to "centralize discussion" as per Wikipedia policy addressing confusion of a fragmented dialogue.
  4. After writing two articles, requests were made to Wikipedia editors for their comments on the 'content'. The reply to the first was an automated accusation of vandalism, and the second elicited only the Sockpuppetry charge from Pastordavid.
  5. This editor had elected, after consulting with CobaltBlueTony, to retain username Daynal to block it indefinitely.
  6. This editor will not edit Wikipedia articles unless requested given all subjects of human inquiry are 'directly connected to his publishing company'.

Gratefully,

Rob Davis --74.223.63.66 (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rob, I have a hard time understanding what you exactly mean with your last points. Also, why do you refer to yourself in the third person? Merzul (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Merzul, and thank you for your willingness to work with us through this process!

The last two points causing misunderstanding are replies to the expectations of CobaltBlueTony stipulating that I agree not to edit subjects directly connected to Daynal Institute Press that as per our purpose necessarily includes all subject areas that preclude then my direct contributions to this particular wiki project.

As for referencing myself' in the third person, it is my understanding Wikipedia prefers to limit first person pronouns to foster neutrality. However, the use of third person references seem appropriate when pointing to the 'account' at issue, while first person usage might be best reserved solely for the 'person' I am.

Gratefully,

Rob--12.172.30.9 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen:

It appears I have come to an understanding of how 'special contributions' can be appropriate to my interest in blocking indefinitely any use of Daynal on Wikipedia and avoiding any further edits related to any "subject connected with Daynal Institute Press" i.e. all subjects of human inquiry.

I will not initiate any articles on Wikipedia, and any future 'edits' will be done under my name Rob Davis using the 'special contributions allowance' and then only in response to a request for such by an editor working on an article in need of citations or other such evidence. Otherwise, my support for Wikipedia and its 'sister' sites will be by direct contributions to MediaWiki, its use and ongoing development.

Gratefully,

Rob Davis --12.198.116.2 (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Background material

Note; This 'background material' was deleted by Wikipedia, and I note that Pastordavid is still away 'for a month or so'--rdavis 17:23, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

More 'Cleansing'

Pastordavid apparently is now back to Wikipedia on a 'very limited' basis.

Personal tools