DrL's Message Center
Please come by, to say "hi" :)
(Messages are deleted every 24h or when message box is full)
Thanks for stopping by!
Message Box
Please see Wikipedia:Removing_warnings#Vandalism. Removing warnings from your talk page is not the recommended way to do things. Best regards. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I've replaced the only official warning that I received. I will be sure to retain any recent, non-libelous, relevant and accurate warnings - thx! DrL 16:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. There's a process, woolly and vague though, for getting rid of them, at the link above. The fact is that lots of people remove warnings, but it's probably best not to court trouble. Enjoy what's left of the weekend ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
Regarding reversions[1] made on July 17 2006 (UTC) to Cognitive-Theoretic Model_of_the_Universe
![]() |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
Please note that I was reverting mass deletes/vandalism (examine history for further details). It was my understanding that the 3RR rule does not apply in such cases. Please explain your action. Thank you. DrL 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please read WP:3RR more carefully. Only blatant vandalism counts, which this wasn't - it appears to be a perfectly sensible argument about what should be on the page William M. Connolley 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Completely disagree. DrL 16:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Digging
I asked you not to edit that page but to complain on my user talk page if you had a concern. I don't agree that the material you removed was a copyright vio, but I am also seeking guidance from admins. Please WP:AGF and recognize that this takes place in the context of cruft control at WP. Ironically, you seem to have overlooked the fact that these pages are related to my attempt (still in very early states) to formulate, propose and establish new policies related to digging and cruft control. Specifically, I feel that WP needs a clear policy on "digging" and when it is and is not appropriate, since this is clearly a difficult area to navigate without guidance, and also touches on subjects which many Wikipedians feel very strongly about. Please continue at my user talk page because User:Tim Smith strongly desires not to fragment the discussion. TIA ---CH 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- DrL, you may be interested in this discussion, where Hillman's "dig pages" are up for deletion. Just thought it would be fair to let you know. Byrgenwulf 11:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- If the community wants to keep Hillman's Dig pages, they should conform to WP. I've asked you to please stay off my talk page, Byrgenwulf. I would rather not have any interaction with you. Please respect that. DrL 11:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify some things.
- This isn't *your* talk page. You don't *own* it. Anyone can edit anything here on Wikipedia, including other peoples' talk pages (and userpages, for that matter).
- The comment I left was a genuine attempt to be decent.
- I have never posted your personal details in such a way that they can be conclusively linked to you. I have highlighted edits you have made that show that you know somebody-in-particular, and I have posted publicly accessible information about somebody-in-particular's wife. Never have I conclusively said that you and that person are the same.
- Which is more than can be said Asmodeus' childish posting of my IRL in "revenge", when there was no conceivable reason why it should have arisen.
- I have also never touched Hillman's dig pages, as their edit history will reveal.
- Just to clarify some things.
I am really sorry, Byrgenwulf. You are correct. I will amend my complaint to the admins. I appreciate you pointing that out. FWIW, I made a mistake by posting the ebook link but I don't believe that I violated NPOV with my edits and this treatment by Hillman is very out of line. Btw, if you can somehow supply me with an email address, I would like to send you something. DrL 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Go to my userpage, and on the "Main Wikipedia" panel with the search box (probably on the left unless you've set up your own layout) there is a link "E-mail this user". You will need to have activated your own email here to use this, I think, so if you haven't and don't want to do that, let me know and I can put it somewhere. Byrgenwulf 13:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I did not activate the email feature but I think I may do that. Thx. DrL 13:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you help me?
- copied from User talk:Jitse Niesen
Jitse, I am wondering if you can help me to set limits with two Wikipedians. Users Hillman and Byrgenwulf have adopted a negative focus and have been posting conjecture about my IRL. As I understand it, this is in violation of WP. This started after Hillman tried to run a checkuser on my identity and the admins refused this request because I had not broken WP.
Is there a way to ask an admin (are you an admin?), after reviewing their behavior, to warn these two individuals about breaking the guidelines? I have asked them both to please back off and stop violating WP and posting speculation about my IRL and unsubstantiated accusations (that have already been dismissed by admins) to no avail. DrL 12:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am indeed an admin. However, in my view speculation about your IRL identity is permissible since there is a well-founded suspicion of a conflict of interest. The comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig support this view.
- I haven't seen an administrator dismissing the accusations; all they say on the links provided is that (as far as they're away) you didn't violate any of the Wikipedia policies.
- It's not clear to me why you want to contact an administrator. As Wikipedia:Administrators explains, admins are no more than people "who have access to technical features that help with maintenance". Anybody can warn people, that does not require these admin-only technical features.
- If you want to ask for people to review the behaviour of Hillman and Byrgenwulf, you can open a Request for Comment (RfC). If you really want to contact an administrator, you can leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but this edit shows that you are already away of that page.
- Best wishes, Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Response
Just letting you know I responded to your note on my talk page. Tim Smith 21:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do not edit my subpages currently under MfD
DrL, please let the MfD run its course. To repeat: I will respect its outcome if the community demands deletion of some or all, and you must respect the outcome if a community concensus to keep some or all should emerge. Please read User:Hillman/Digging for context if you have not already done so. You should probably also read WP:3RR if you have not done so already. Thank you.---CH 03:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
If the community decides to let me continue with my research as I asked in my opening statement in the MfD, I expect that there will be some reservations, e.g. the expectation that I delete some of these pages after the forthcoming policy discussions. As Jitse mentioned, you would still have the option of pursuing RfC, although I would ask that you let the MfD run its course since opening several proceedings against me simultaneously might be in violation of the spirit if not the letter of this clause:
Users that abuse measures of introducing new cases may be declared vexatious litigants, prohibiting them from filing new requests under such categories. If the user feels they have valid grounds for a new case they may be directed to contact one or more Arbitrators (named on a case-by-case basis).
Note also from WP:DR that user-talk-page-discussions < RfC < RfA. IMO, I have proven willing to listen to reason in talk page discussions, but you may not agree. ---CH 03:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but no thanks
Hi DrL. Thank you for your kind offer of a free copy of Langan's book of essays. I am afraid I must decline, however. Much as I am perpetually starved of reading matter, I do not feel, given the present situation, that it would appropriate for me to accept. Also, I am not going to comment on Hillman's behaviour privately via email correspondence. If you want to obtain my opinion of the "dig pages", you are welcome to read my comment on the MfD discussions.
I understand full well that Langan is not a Creationist. I do, however, know that his CTMU is involved with Intelligent Design, albeit not in the usual sense: the argument being, simply, that if the universe is sentient and "self-determinant", then one can say that it "designs" the forms of all objects found within it. Not quite what, say, Dembski says happens, but my quibbles with the CTMU are not based on Langan's involvement with the ID movement (nor do I feel that theories with which I have a problem do not belong here, otherwise postmodernism would be up for AfD in the next few minutes). Rather, it so happens that the only claim CTMU can make to being a legitimate theory is based on the scholarly status (or lack of it) of the PCID: that is why ID comes into this. Please do not confuse the issues here.
Now, regarding Langan's bio. The comment I inserted is taken verbatim from Errol Morris's website. As such, it is attributable to him. Since his documentary on Langan is being used to establish, at least in part, Langan's notability, I think it is important for the reader to understand exactly how Morris sees Langan. Please do not remove it again, or try to slant the wording of it so that it appears to be saying something that it isn't. Once again, it is a verbatim quote from Morris's website. Sourced, verifiable, appropriate, etc.
I am very concerned about Wikipedia being abused for shilling, autohagiography, and other purposes for which it was not designed. Please understand that while I carry no personal vendetta, this current situation has highlighted, to me at least, a pattern of behaviour which I do not feel is entirely appropriate. I am doing my best to avoid these sorts of conflicts in future, because I think they are unpleasant for everyone involved. I have made up my mind about how I see this affair, and my opinion will likely not change. Byrgenwulf 13:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
POV Pushing
DrL, there seems to be a pattern to your and Asmodeus' edits, which I would say amounts to "POV pushing". Why is it that you get to edit a page as you see fit, but then expect everyone else to enter into neverending discussions on the talk page before editing the page themselves? If you can leap in and edit, then so can anyone else. Deciding that your edit is the one that will remain while discussion takes place is neither fair nor acceptable. Please try not to do this. Thanks! Byrgenwulf 14:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
3RR
I would just like to remind you about the 3 revert rule; I know you are aware of it, since you've been blocked for violating it before. But these three edits here:
are all reversions within a 24hr period. Please stop, especially since these are verified comments from a reputable source. I understand you might not like what they say, but perhaps you should read this. Thanks. Byrgenwulf 14:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Those were not all reverts. Two were constructive changes. Please note that you are putting words into Errol Morris's mouth and violating WP:LIVING. Note that WP:LIVING states:
- Articles about living persons require a degree of sensitivity and must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.
- [...]Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule.
- You are attributing quotes directly to Morris that appear in a hype blurb at a website without any attribution or reference. This is simply not a good source. It is also a malicious edit that shows no sensitivity to the fact that this is a living person. Please do not violate this policy again. If you disagree, why don't we have a third party mediate? In the meantime, please review WP:LIVING and do not violate WP:3RR. DrL 14:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)