Jump to content

User talk:Rldavisiv: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)
11,637,095 edits
m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)
 
(16 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>Copies of this User talk: '''Rldavisiv''' and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daynal Daynal] are archived [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Daynal_talkpage here]</center>
{{sock|Daynal}}
== April 2008 ==
[[Image:Information.svg|left|25px]] 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 [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]''' by [[User:ClueBot|ClueBot]]. Please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|the sandbox]] for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{User:ClueBot/Tracker}} '''If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please [[User:ClueBot/FalsePositives|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Landon+Garland&diff=207296108&oldid=203139913 changed] by [[Special:Contributions/Rldavisiv|Rldavisiv]] [[User:Rldavisiv|(u)]] [[User talk:Rldavisiv|(t)]] blanking the page on 2008-04-22T05:32:37+00:00 <!-- MySQL ID: 333055 -->. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> [[User:ClueBot|ClueBot]] ([[User talk: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.


--[[User:Rldavisiv|Rldavisiv]] ([[User talk:Rldavisiv#top|talk]]) 05:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
<center>--[[User:Rldavisiv|Rldavisiv]] ([[User talk:Rldavisiv#top|talk]]) 03:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)--</center>

----


<div style="background-color:black; color: white; font-size:130%; border:Red solid 8px; padding: 1em;">
<br>
<br>
<center><big><big><big>'''Why is this page black?'''</big></big></big></center>
[[Image:Information.svg|left|25px]] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to [[:Timothy Wyllie]]. Your edits have been '''automatically''' marked as [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|unconstructive/possible vandalism]] and have been '''automatically''' [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]. If you would like to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. {{User:ClueBot/Tracker}} '''If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please [[User:ClueBot/FalsePositives|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timothy+Wyllie&diff=207296156&oldid=207247541 changed] by [[Special:Contributions/Rldavisiv|Rldavisiv]] [[User:Rldavisiv|(u)]] [[User talk:Rldavisiv|(t)]] blanking the page on 2008-04-22T05:33:01+00:00 <!-- MySQL ID: 333056 -->. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning2 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 --> [[User:ClueBot|ClueBot]] ([[User talk:ClueBot|talk]]) 05:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
<br>

<br>
----
# Because I am mourning the loss of [[Wikipedia:civility|<span style="color:white;">civility</span>]] and and the [[WP:MWP|<span style="color:white;">loss</span>]] of too many good editors from the Wikipedia.
Most interesting as this is the comment received when I wrote the article in the first place. Perhaps automated 'editors' cannot discern the difference.
# Because the Wikipedia has become a victim of its own success and its internal mechanisms for helping maintain civility have not scaled well.

## '''[[WP:RFC|<span style="color:white;">Requests for comments</span>]]''' now generates more heat than light.
--[[User:Rldavisiv|Rldavisiv]] ([[User talk:Rldavisiv#top|talk]]) 05:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
##Even some members of the '''[[WP:MC|<span style="color:white;">Mediation Committee</span>]]''' admit that it is not working and skip '''[[WP:RFM|<span style="color:white;">Requests for mediation</span>]]''' and go on to the next step.

##Finally there is '''[[WP:RFAR|<span style="color:white;">Requests for arbitration</span>]]''', which takes forever to make decisions, and seemingly refuses to take on the bad behavior of some administrators unless the admin's behavior is so egregious that it can't ignore it.
==[[Wikipedia:Sock puppet|Sockpuppetry]] case==
##I will not even attempt to enumerate the other dysfunctional areas of the Wikipedia, such as '''[[WP:AFD|<span style="color:white;">Articles for deletion</span>]]'''.
{| align="left"
<br>
|| [[Image:Puppeter template.svg|50px]]
'''Just one part of the solution:''' There are some editors who don't necessarily need to be banned, but just need a '''[[time out|<span style="color:white;">time out</span>]]''', which is why the Wikipedia has a [[WP:BLOCK|<span style="color:white;">temporary blocking process</span>]]. Well admins are editors too, and they also occasionally step over the bounds of appropriate behavior for editors. What is worse is that they can use their admin tools to do their misbehavior.
|}
You have been accused of [[Wikipedia:Sock puppet|sockpuppetry]]. Please refer to [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daynal]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect|notes for the suspect]] before editing the evidence page. [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk:Pastordavid|talk]]) 20:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

== User name block ==

Why didn't you simply change your user name? Now you are creating more headaches for yourself. Wikipedia users operate transparently; sock puppets are strongly discouraged unless the practice fits with our policies and the socks are openly revealed without any effort to use them abusively. I cannot change your user name for you (admins with special privileges perform these functions on the referenced notice board). You should have followed the instructions within the unblock message and then your account would have been properly updated. Now it again appears that you wish to behave surreptitiously, or impatiently, and behave as a [[WP:SPA|single-purpose account]]. If you had remained transparent and operated with our community's guidelines, I would have supported your efforts to contribute. Even so, your submissions may very well remain as part of the project, but unless I see some actions that back up the reasonable responses I've gotten from you via email, I'm going to support whatever actions other administrators choose to take in connection with your disregard for our policies and procedures. -&nbsp;<font face="Verdana">[[User:Cobaltbluetony|CobaltBlueTony™]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User_talk:CobaltBlueTony|talk]]</sub></font> 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

----
<center>Please see the main user account and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daynal talk] page for an integrated review of '[[dialogue]]'.
--[[Special:Contributions/75.104.157.17|75.104.157.17]] ([[User talk:75.104.157.17|talk]]) 23:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''blocked indefinitely''' from editing in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for {{#if:using multiple accounts to evade a block|'''using multiple accounts to evade a block'''|repeated [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|abuse of editing privileges]]}}. If you believe this block is unjustified you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:|<sub>[[User:Gb|GB]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Gb|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gb|C]]</sup> 15:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3 -->[[Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages|{{PAGENAME}}]] <sub>[[User:Gb|GB]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Gb|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gb|C]]</sup> 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cobaltbluetony 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndrewHowse 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pastordavid 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.
<center>Case Closed - IMO ;-)</center>

--[[Special:Contributions/74.223.63.66|74.223.63.66]] ([[User talk: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 an 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)

<center>Please see the main user account and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daynal talk] page for an integrated review of '[[dialogue]]'.
--[[Special:Contributions/75.104.157.17|75.104.157.17]] ([[User talk:75.104.157.17|talk]]) 23:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

----
Given the deletion of the original talkpage, an integrated review of its dialogue is enclosed here though this talkpage may be deleted as well. In such case an archive of the page in question can be found [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Daynal_talkpage here].

{{dated prod|concern = Soapboxy compilation of stuff on talk page of indef blocked user|month = April|day = 30|year = 2008|time = 19:21|timestamp = 20080430192135}}
<!-- Do not use the "dated prod" template directly; the above line is generated by "subst:prod|reason" -->

[[Image:Ellen's_portrait.jpg|right|frame|thumb|<center>Portrait by MED</center><center>circa 2002</center>]]

"[[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

"[[Myth]]s of [[objectivity]] that devalue knowing [[subjects]] are no friend of living [[mind]]s." [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rob_Davis Rob Davis] --[[User:Daynal|Daynal]] ([[User talk:Daynal#top|talk]]) 22:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

==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 [[religion]]s 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
==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 [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags|image copyright tags]] to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All|this list]], click on [[:Image:Barnard telescope.jpg|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. --[[User:ImageTaggingBot|ImageTaggingBot]] ([[User talk:ImageTaggingBot|talk]]) 12:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

==='''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)

==='''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)===
[[Image:Nuvola apps important blue.svg|25px]] 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 [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, it is currently [[Wikipedia:Orphan|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. [[WP:BOLD|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 [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|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 "[[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|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 [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> [[User:Melesse|Melesse]] ([[User talk:Melesse|talk]]) 03:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
----

[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|left|48px|]]<!-- use [[Image:Nuvola apps important yellow.svg|left|48px|]] for YELLOW flag -->A tag has been placed on '''[[:Daynal Institute Press]]''', requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the [[WP:CSD#Articles|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 [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11|the general criteria for speedy deletion]], particularly item 11, as well as [[WP:SPAM|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 <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> on the top of '''[[:Daynal Institute Press]]''' and leave a note on '''[[Talk:Daynal Institute Press|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 [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citations]] from [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] to ensure that the article will be [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]]. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.<!-- Template:Spam-warn --> [[User:AndrewHowse|AndrewHowse]] ([[User talk: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.
--[[User:Daynal|Daynal]] ([[User talk:Daynal#top|talk]]) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Rob Davis
----
Hello, and [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|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 [[Wikipedia:Username policy|username policy]] for the following reason: '''[[WP:SPA|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 [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes|dispute resolution process]], such as [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names|requesting comments]] from other Wikipedians. [[Wikipedia:Administrators|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.

{{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} [[Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over|{{PAGENAME}}]] <!-- Template:uw-username --> -&nbsp;<font face="Verdana">[[User:Cobaltbluetony|CobaltBlueTony™]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User_talk:Cobaltbluetony|talk]]</sub></font> 14:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

<div class="user-block">[[Image:Information icon.svg|left|50px]]This account has been ''blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia'', because of concerns that the chosen username may not meet our [[Wikipedia:Username policy|username policy]].

: '''This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to [[Special:Userlogin/signup|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.

[[Wikipedia:Username policy|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 [[Wikipedia:Changing username|change in username]]''' which is quick and easy. To do so, please follow these directions:
:# Add <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:unblock-un{{!}}unblock-un]]|''your new username here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk=below.|on [[Special:MyTalk|your user talk page]].}} This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
:# At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
:# Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance &ndash; 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 [[Special:ListUsers|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 [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this username block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk=below|on [[Special:MyTalk|your user talk page]]}} or emailing the administrator who blocked you. {{#if:-&nbsp;<font face="Verdana">[[User:Cobaltbluetony|CobaltBlueTony™]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User_talk:Cobaltbluetony|talk]]</sub></font> 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)|-&nbsp;<font face="Verdana">[[User:Cobaltbluetony|CobaltBlueTony™]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User_talk:Cobaltbluetony|talk]]</sub></font> 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:Uw-ublock -->{{#switch:User talk|User|User talk=[[Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}
----
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

--[[User:Daynal|Daynal]] ([[User talk:Daynal#top|talk]]) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

----

What an honor to be 'banned' from Wikipedia for contributing the articles [[Landon Garland]], [[Timothy Wyllie]], and [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Daynal_Institute_Press 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


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


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

--[[User:Daynal|Daynal]] ([[User talk:Daynal#top|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
--[[User:Daynal|Daynal]] ([[User talk:Daynal#top|talk]]) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

----

{{tlx|unblock-un|tiahuan}}

--[[User:Daynal|Daynal]] ([[User talk:Daynal#top|talk]]) 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

{| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;"
|-
| valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | [[Image:Vista-clean.png|50 px]]
| style="padding: 0.1em" |

'''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s):
<br><br>Allowing username change to [[::User:tiahuan|tiahuan]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:tiahuan|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/tiahuan|contribs]]). Please put this request in at [[Wikipedia:Changing username]] as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking.

''Request handled by:'' -&nbsp;<font face="Verdana">[[User:Cobaltbluetony|CobaltBlueTony™]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User_talk:Cobaltbluetony|talk]]</sub></font> 16:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Request accepted (after-block request) -->
|}

===Orphaned non-free media (Image:Press logo.jpg)===
[[Image:Nuvola apps important blue.svg|25px]] 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 [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, it is currently [[Wikipedia:Orphan|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. [[WP:BOLD|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 [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|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 "[[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|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 [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> [[User:BJBot|BJBot]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:AndrewHowse|AndrewHowse]] ([[User talk: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
--[[User:Daynal|Daynal]] ([[User talk:Daynal#top|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. [[WP:DEADLINE|No rush]], of course. --[[User:AndrewHowse|AndrewHowse]] ([[User talk: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 consultating 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pastordavid 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet 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 [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Timothy_Wyllie here].

Rob Davis (usernames [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rldavisiv Rldavisiv] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daynal Daynal])

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

--[[Special:Contributions/74.223.63.66|74.223.63.66]] ([[User talk: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

--[[User:Daynal|Daynal]] ([[User talk:Daynal#top|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 [[WP:SPA|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. -&nbsp;<font face="Verdana">[[User:Cobaltbluetony|CobaltBlueTony™]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User_talk:Cobaltbluetony|talk]]</sub></font> 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. --[[User:AndrewHowse|AndrewHowse]] ([[User talk:AndrewHowse|talk]]) 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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

====Policy Review====
<blockquote>'''Behavior that is unacceptable'''

Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia.

* No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means:
o No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot, fascist (or ''incorrigible spammer''). Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.</blockquote>
----
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-

--[[User:Daynal|Daynal]] ([[User talk:Daynal#top|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

<u>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.<u>

* 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)

==[[Wikipedia:Sock puppet|Sockpuppetry]] case==
{| align="left"
|| [[Image:Puppeter template.svg|50px]]
|}
You have been accused of [[Wikipedia:Sock puppet|sockpuppetry]]. Please refer to [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daynal]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect|notes for the suspect]] before editing the evidence page. [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk:Pastordavid|talk]]) 20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

----

[[Civil]] practice requires that hearings occur <u>before</u> sentencing. Please refer to the note above asking that the account be blocked indefinitely.

--[[User:Daynal|Daynal]] ([[User talk:Daynal#top|talk]]) 03:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

----

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

--[[User:Daynal|Daynal]] ([[User talk:Daynal#top|talk]]) 03:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

----
<center>Some persons like sweet looking [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rldavisiv 'sockpuppets'] while others prefer an open '[[hand]]'.</center>

----

;Suspected sockpuppets
{{user5|1=Rldavisiv}}<br>

<!--If there are additional suspected sockpuppets to be included, add them above this comment using the form {{user5|1=SOCKPUPPET}}<br>, replacing SOCKPUPPET in each case with the user name that you suspect is a sockpuppet of the puppetmaster. (Leave out the "User:" prefix.) Leave the <br> tag after each one and add or remove lines as necessary. Remove this comment once completed. -->

;Report submission by
<!--Sign your name BELOW this comment line with 4 tilde characters "~~~~" -->
[[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk:Pastordavid|talk]]) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
<!--Do not use "==" or "===" style headers in this report. Such headers disorganize the report page. Please use ";" style (as below)-->

;Evidence
[[User:Rldavisiv]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rldavisiv&diff=207296558&oldid=207296170 responded] to a cluebot warning for blanking two articles by stating that he/she had started these articles. Article histories ([http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Wyllie&action=history here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Landon_Garland&action=history 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. [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk: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. -&nbsp;<font face="Verdana">[[User:Cobaltbluetony|CobaltBlueTony™]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User_talk:Cobaltbluetony|talk]]</sub></font> 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I endorse CobaltBlueTony's comments, especially regarding Daynal's potential for ignoring our community norms. --[[User:AndrewHowse|AndrewHowse]] ([[User talk: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.

<center>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rldavisiv Sockpuppet]</center>

<center>This is a '[[sockpuppet]] account', however, the '[[hand]]' can easily be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daynal here]</center>



--[[Special:Contributions/75.104.157.17|75.104.157.17]] ([[User talk:75.104.157.17|talk]]) 03:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

----
<center>Free [[intelligence]] is endowed with the '''potential''' for violating norms. If such were not the case, [[meaning|meaningful]] discussions could not exist.</center><center>

--[[Special:Contributions/75.104.157.17|75.104.157.17]] ([[User talk:75.104.157.17|talk]]) 13:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

;Conclusions

<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''blocked indefinitely''' from editing in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for {{#if:using multiple accounts to evade a block|'''using multiple accounts to evade a block'''|repeated [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|abuse of editing privileges]]}}. If you believe this block is unjustified you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:|<sub>[[User:Gb|GB]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Gb|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gb|C]]</sup> 15:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3 -->[[Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages|{{PAGENAME}}]] <sub>[[User:Gb|GB]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Gb|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gb|C]]</sup> 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cobaltbluetony 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndrewHowse 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pastordavid 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.
<center>Case Closed - IMO ;-)</center>

--[[Special:Contributions/74.223.63.66|74.223.63.66]] ([[User talk: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


Right now there is no quick and effective way to punish a misbehaving administrator or even stop their misbehavior. If another admin blocks them, they can unblock themself. If an article is protected, they can edit it anyway. If they are in a revert war, they can continually use their rollback tool. And they can do all of this basically with impunity.
--Daynal (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Because admins are trusted members of the Wikipedia community I feel that their misbehavior must be taken more seriously than those actions of other editors. There needs to be a small group of trusted supervisor administrators who have the ability to temporarily block misbehaving admins from doing any editing for periods of time up to a week and removal of admin powers for at least a month based upon the severity of the misbehavior. Any further misbehavior would be grounds for permanent removal as an administrator and they would have to reapply at Requests for adminship.
{{dated prod|concern = Soapboxy compilation of stuff on talk page of indef blocked user|month = April|day = 30|year = 2008|time = 19:21|timestamp = 20080430192135}}
<!-- Do not use the "dated prod" template directly; the above line is generated by "subst:prod|reason" -->


:(Also, the number of admins is growing so large, and the Wikipedia is growing so complex, that it would be a very good idea to have volunteer "mentor" admins to help show the newbie admins the lay of the land.)
----


Look at the '''[[WP:RFA|<span style="color:white;">Requests for adminship</span>]]''' page. It says, "<u>Admins...are held to high standards, as they are perceived by some users as the "official face" of Wikipedia.</u>" Unfortunately the first part of that statement is not true. Instead, because they are admins, they can do practically anything they want without facing any consequences in almost all cases of admin misbehavior. Because they are admins they are given much more slack than other Wikipedia editors for any of their misbehavior. This needs to be changed.</div> <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.250.232.242|72.250.232.242]] ([[User talk:72.250.232.242|talk]])[http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rob_Davis Rob Davis] 20:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
If editors are unwilling to have a [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Dialogue 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_of_America approved organizations] advertised as such by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pastordavid 'authorized' editors].


(copies of this exchange will be archived for future reference) [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Daynal_talkpage here]
--[[Special:Contributions/72.250.232.242|72.250.232.242]] ([[User talk:72.250.232.242|talk]]) 18:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


<center>=]</center>
--[[Special:Contributions/72.250.232.242|72.250.232.242]] ([[User talk:72.250.232.242|talk]]) 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:21, 10 March 2023

Copies of this User talk: Rldavisiv and Daynal are archived here


--Rldavisiv (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)--[reply]


Why is this page black?



  1. Because I am mourning the loss of civility and and the loss of too many good editors from the Wikipedia.
  2. Because the Wikipedia has become a victim of its own success and its internal mechanisms for helping maintain civility have not scaled well.
    1. Requests for comments now generates more heat than light.
    2. Even some members of the Mediation Committee admit that it is not working and skip Requests for mediation and go on to the next step.
    3. Finally there is Requests for arbitration, which takes forever to make decisions, and seemingly refuses to take on the bad behavior of some administrators unless the admin's behavior is so egregious that it can't ignore it.
    4. I will not even attempt to enumerate the other dysfunctional areas of the Wikipedia, such as Articles for deletion.


Just one part of the solution: There are some editors who don't necessarily need to be banned, but just need a time out, which is why the Wikipedia has a temporary blocking process. Well admins are editors too, and they also occasionally step over the bounds of appropriate behavior for editors. What is worse is that they can use their admin tools to do their misbehavior.

Right now there is no quick and effective way to punish a misbehaving administrator or even stop their misbehavior. If another admin blocks them, they can unblock themself. If an article is protected, they can edit it anyway. If they are in a revert war, they can continually use their rollback tool. And they can do all of this basically with impunity.

Because admins are trusted members of the Wikipedia community I feel that their misbehavior must be taken more seriously than those actions of other editors. There needs to be a small group of trusted supervisor administrators who have the ability to temporarily block misbehaving admins from doing any editing for periods of time up to a week and removal of admin powers for at least a month based upon the severity of the misbehavior. Any further misbehavior would be grounds for permanent removal as an administrator and they would have to reapply at Requests for adminship.

(Also, the number of admins is growing so large, and the Wikipedia is growing so complex, that it would be a very good idea to have volunteer "mentor" admins to help show the newbie admins the lay of the land.)
Look at the Requests for adminship page. It says, "Admins...are held to high standards, as they are perceived by some users as the "official face" of Wikipedia." Unfortunately the first part of that statement is not true. Instead, because they are admins, they can do practically anything they want without facing any consequences in almost all cases of admin misbehavior. Because they are admins they are given much more slack than other Wikipedia editors for any of their misbehavior. This needs to be changed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.250.232.242 (talk)Rob Davis 20:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


=]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rldavisiv&oldid=1143842765"