User talk:DaveApter

Welcome!

Hello, DaveApter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 17:10, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding mediation

Hi Dave, Redwolf24 forwarded your request to me. Looking at it, I'm not sure if it really falls under mediation -- we don't ordinarily handle content disputes so much as interpersonal problems. I would suggest you start a straw poll, and proceed to RfC if the parties involved are unwilling to listen to the poll. I am willing to take the case in mediation if you can get other parties involved to agree to it, but understand that mediation cannot be about content -- it is about how you interact with them. If you can interest the other parties in mediation, and are willing to accept what mediation is about, let me know. --Improv 21:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Financial Sourced Information

User Alex Jackl, who I believe is a Landmark Education seminar leader, and I had come to an amiable consensus RE: the blockquoted citations about the Financial Ties section. We had communicated via email. Perhaps this would be a good idea for us as well, so as to have a more civil discussion? You could also talk to AJackl if you like. He was such a pleasure to work with: even though we have/had very disparate POV, we worked it out in such an enjoyable and courteous manner.Smeelgova 14:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Pending Landmark edits...

Hi DaveApter, I just wanted to let you know that I intend to make the Landmark Education article slightly less pro-Landmark. I am guessing you may disagree with me, so rather than getting into a massive edit-war, I welcome your reply to my comments on the Landmark talk page. Ckerr 10:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DaveApter for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Smeelgova 17:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. Feel free to read my comments by following the link above if you haven't got anything better to do. DaveApter 12:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re "Orchestrated Campaign"

Dave: Regarding your message at User talk:Aaron#Orchestrated campaign?, I'd say you have three options. You could do a mass AfD for all the articles which you feel they've messed up beyond repair, but whether you'd get the desired result is questionable, since a lot of editors will vote only on what they feel is the subject's inherent value, not how bad the article is. (Here's a recent mass AfD I did (purely because I thought the articles were spam); as you can see, I only had about 50-50 success, though it was the worst articles that were deleted.) Second, you could find an admin you have a good working relationship with and post to their user talk page, laying out the entire problem with both editors in detail. Make sure you list what they're doing that's against the rules and against policy; arguments about content generally don't count for much. If you can't think of an admin you're close to, you could post the same thing to WP:AN or WP:AN/I. Your third option is to go to either WP:PAIN or WP:AIV, and fill out the forms there. (Keep in mind that falsely accusing an editor of vandalism, as seems to have been done to you, is a personal attack violation, and is more than enough to get that editor blocked if they do it continuously. Smeelgova accusing you of being a sock seems to be an egregious WP:NPA violation in and of itself. Good luck, --Aaron 16:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Style tip

Hi. I have a small note on style conventions. Per WP:MoS#Headings, one should not use capitals in section headings, so

==Conic Sections and Gravitational theory== 

should be

==Conic sections and gravitational theory==

That's a small thing, but I thought I'd let you know. Happy holidays. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ya Beat Me

Looks like we both had the same idea, but you beat me to it by about 30 minutes. I posted on both users' pages also. My biggest objection so far was the reverting to old versions instead of editing going forward. Hopefully with the page protected everyone will get serious about compromise and come to the table to work this out.

Btw, howdy, I'm John. Lsi john 23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I responded to the MedCab - actually had to deal with an edit conflict from you :P Lsi john 14:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Anthropic Frayn

Hi Dave, thanks for adding the Frayn book to anthropic principle. I've been trying to reduce the number of "orphan" references in this article by citing them at appropriate points in the text. Any chance you could do this with Frayn (havn't read it myself so I have no idea which bit of the article is relevant). PaddyLeahy 22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! PaddyLeahy 09:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruption

Distraction is used to derail and disrupt the process. Stick to the subject and don't take the bait that is being chummed out. Disruptive editors will be seen for what they are. Lsi john 12:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I love skiing!! Lsi john 15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

French comments

Thanks for your comments on the mediation (and the thank you on my talk page). Could you draft a couple of sentences, or one, about the French description, along the lines of what you already suggest? Then if anyone wants to argue, at least we're discussing text. Chrislintott 18:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

LML

Greetings. I just made another change to LML, you might want to look at. I didn't mean to save the change, I was going forward to double check something and it saved. I'm comfortable with the edit, but you might want to double check it. Thanks. Peace.Lsi john 14:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Landmark Education

Might you be so bold and modify it to the proper point? I don't know enough about the subject. I was merely assuming good faith and tried to make the statement sound less definite especially when it was supposed to be the opinion of the person being quoted. Knippschild (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to the article Outrageous Betrayal

Please do not tag something as unsourced when there is a citation to a WP:V/WP:RS source at the end of the sentence, namely Contemporary Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There does not have to be online access for every single source in an article, quite the contrary that is not needed in order to satisfy the WP:V policy. This particular text from this article has undergone a high degree of review as it is similar to the text made at the Featured Article, Getting It: The psychology of est. Specifically, this is a statement sourced to a highly reliable source, Contemporary Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association. The full citation is provided in the References section at the bottom of the article, for verification if you so desire. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, this is not "my synopsis", but rather one that has been developed through significant review in various quality levels including Good Article review, Peer Review, and finally successfully getting to the level of Featured Article, at Getting It: The psychology of est. I have added a couple other citations as well for this info, which is certainly not "undue weight" to mention the one word of "brainwashing", as noted in many different WP:RS/WP:V sources such as Contemporary Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association, among many others. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's take further discussion to the article's talk page, please. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ken's Article

I appreciate your candor on the edit help page. I don't disagree with any of your personal perceptions of Ken. I do not know him at all - never met him. However, without intending to provoke a negative reaction, there are relevant facts surrounding his involvement with the internet, his investigative journalism and viewpoints. This is essential to present a complete picture of an individual, biographically. Wikipedia is not a PR site. I appreciate your loyalty and believe your personal viewpoint about Ken. From his writings, I sense he is a deeply committed, passionate individual.

Having said that, it appears that Ken is reading the article as well. He has modified his BrasscheckTV.com site to convert to a proxy ownership from the previous AMACORD, he included a disclaimer on the site and also temporarily removed his entire Brasscheck.com site from the web. It appears to me that Ken would rather not publicize this aspect of his life - but as we all know - the internet is forever. I suggest we consider deleting this article as I would NOT want a person to feel they must conceal their life's passion simply becuase it is public. What do you think? Thanks. Jettparmer (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for being in communication.

I'd like to say several things, all with the greatest of respect, and without any animosity or antagonism:

1) You seem to have a tendency to perceive conspiracies yourself even where there are none (see the next few points)

2) You see some malign significance in the fact that brasscheck.com was down for a short time yesterday. I checked and it is funcioning normally now. Websites go offline temporarily for all sorts of reasons.

3) You claim that the registration of these two sites has been made anonymous in response to your activity on wikipedia in the last two months. I just checked here http://whois.domaintools.com/brasscheck.com, and the most recent update was 17th July 2007. Many website registrants prefer to keep their details private for all sorts of legitimate reasons.

4) You say that Ken is trying to keep his involvement in these sites hidden, but if that were the case why would he publicly announce it in the alteri interview and elsewhere?

5) You say - as though it were somehow devious - that "it appears that Ken is reading the article as well". I'd be staggered if he were not. I certainly would be if there was a biography of me here, wouldn't you?

6) You make particular play of the fact that the disclaimer on brasscheckTV.com has recently been added. So what? Perhaps up until now he would have thought it obvious that he did not necessarily give 100% endorsement of every single piece of material linked, that had been published and put into the public domain elsewhere.

7) You have said several times that the article should be deleted unless it can be made to conform to your personal perspectives, but this is to confuse several distinct issues: a) should Ken wish not to have a biographical article here, he only has to request that and wikipedia would remove it; b) if you wish to suggest it under the AfD process, you know how to do that, and the consensus will be duly established - however there is no doubt at all that he qualifies readily on grounds of notability; and , c) whether or not specific points get the prominence you wish is resolved by collaborative editing, in alignment with the policies regarding verifiability, citing of reliable sources, undue weight, and no original research.

May I ask you now the straight question as to what it is that prompts you to embark on this energetic crusade here over the last two months (and counting)? DaveApter (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Let me cover the top few questions quickly and then move to the last.

1-2) The changes made seemed coincidental and the domain registry change all were within a few days. I jumped to conclusions when the Brasscheck site went dark - I would submit that page failures are not that common anymore. No conspiracy, just coincidence.

3) Registration of the TV site was changed from AMACORD recently. Concur most people would like to keep some things separate, however, the operation of BrasscheckTV is significant and much better known than any of Ken's other sites.

• As you've researched it, you'll know that it went private around September 9th, 2008 - well before the current flurry of activity on wikipedia; so why continue making the misleading claim that they are connected? DaveApter (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

4) I did not say he was keeping his involvement hidden, the Alterati interview obviously contradicts this, however, the anonymity behind BrasscheckTV is notable.

5) As to Ken reading the article, I don't mean this in a negative way, simply as a "what does he think?" sort of way.

6) The disclaimer issue is two fold. Prior to the addition of the sites, it was pretty clear that he endorsed many of these views - evidence by his positive reviews of the videos and selection for inclusion / promotion on the TV site. Issuing the disclaimer (on one level) seems like a weak attempt to claim neutrality - when there seems clear evidence that there is a bias. Secondly, if it was an endorsement issue, why now? Perhaps the article simply brought this to his attention.

7) This is a mischaracterization. If the article is overly skewed (i.e. individual is only presented in one aspect), then it doesn't meet the encyclopediac definition of a good biography and devolves into either a PR or hit piece. There is no original research here, all the sites are Ken's sites and the writings are his. Nothing has yet arisn to dispute that. In the case of undue weight, which would you balance? The TV site is orders of magnitude more popular than his business site. The internet libel lawsuit was mentioned in several major news publications and is considered part of beginning internet case law. Is this more or less relevant than being program director at the Princeton College FM station?

To the last point about my interest. I have stated it clearly, I have received numerous forwarded e-mails from firends and relations from Ken's BrasscheckTV site. After viewing a few I began to wonder where all this was originating. There was no information whatsoever on the BrasscheckTV site, so I began to research it. Once I realized it was the work of one person, I was further interested. Finding his beginning bio on WP I was surprised to find no mention of this work at all. I began to edit the bio, perhaps with too much of a counter to a bias I felt was almost purely PR. I am a sporadic Wikipedian. I noodle around what intertests me and generally enjoy a little research challenge. I am a little sensitive to being labeled a "crusader" and assigned attributes that are not warranted WP:CIV. I have worked to create a more complete view of Ken McCarthy the whole person, not simply the internet marketer. Jettparmer (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am comparing the current state of the article to its pre-December state. I think by any standard it is now objectively better referenced and more complete. The pursuit of truth can be a passionate endeavor, especially for the sincere. I'm certainly not a power user myself and am sure I've made mistakes in procedure and tone along the way and for that I apologize. If things have been messy to this point, we seem to be arriving a good place in terms of this particular article. I sense fundamental good will in all the parties who've taken an interest in this.

In that spirit, I'd like to encourage Jettparmer to take a look at the most recent comments relating to the Rick Boyce article. There are some clarifications and significant new references that may well address some of the concerns he's expressed about that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolatime (talk • contribs) 21:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

LE & Cirt

What is the previous username/account of Cirt? You can reply here, I'll come back. Thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to give you a straight answer because I've been threatened for doing exactly that previously. Have you asked him/her this as a straight question? DaveApter (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A straight answer has come on my page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added your post to the collapsed thread, since the initial request has been withdrawn and there would be nothing specific for an administrator to do about it. Per the edit summary, serious concerns of that nature would normally go to dispute resolution rather than to the administrative boards. Durova³⁰⁶ 19:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have undone this edit, for two reasons: first, admins themselves can decide what needs their attention once someone has posted to that page, and second, even if it is true that this concern ought to go somewhere else, this does not amount to a reason to prevent people from seeing that it was in fact raised at AN. It is not normal practice to collapse threads on that noticeboard, and there's no particular reason to depart from normal practice in this case. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually to collapse a thread is a fairly normal practice. Especially since the poster had already decided to withdraw the request. Since you weren't requesting for him to be blocked, or any page protected, or any restriction placed upon him, it didn't actually appear to be a request for administrative action. If you have a dispute to resolve with Cirt, here's hoping you and he can work it out amicably. Best wishes. Durova³⁰⁶ 04:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Help Locating Complaint re LE edits

I appreciate your alert of a complaint against me back in September. I have not been able to edit in some time due to family emergency. Now I am back, and have not been able to locate the specific complaint you referenced. Can you help me track it down? Aclayartist (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on my Talk Page. Aclayartist (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding unreliable source at article Landmark Education

Your recent edit to the article Landmark Education [1] removed sourced info to secondary sources, and added info cited to www.keepandshare.com. This is not a WP:RS source. Please do not do this again. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is totally unnecessary wikilawering. Anyone can easily establish from the public record that these cases were dismissed, and the keepandshare.com link is simply a convenience to enable readers to view copies of the documents. This is typical of the double standards you apply to sources according to whether they support your POV or not. You have frequently used court papers as refs for your edits, and frequently referred to them via reprints on various websites. DaveApter (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit just provided a link to a collection of various documents at www.keepandshare.com. The edit did not reference a specific document. That is poor sourcing practices. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I take your point entirely and apologise for that. You will see that I already referenced to the actual court documents in the refs in the article to avoid contention over using the reprint site, and for convenience, I provided links to the actual pdf reprints of the specific items (rather than the catalog listing) on the discussion page. Again, my apologies. DaveApter (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Cirt (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material from page List of Scientologists

• 14:35, 9 June 2010 -- This edit removed sourced material from citations to 28 references to this article, with no specific explanation as to why.
• Please be aware of the ArbCom cases, WP:COFS and WP:ARBSCI, and the applicable remedies therein.
• It is non-constructive to revert to an older version of the page due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and remove multiple WP:RS sources from the article. FYI, the current structure of the page was modeled after existing Featured lists on Wikipedia. Please, do not do this again. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly untrue that I gave no explanation - I wrote a careful explanation on the Talk page, and referred to it in the edit comment. DaveApter (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, did not explain the removal of 28 sources. Did not explain reverting to a poorer quality version of the page, from a version modeled after multiple different Featured Lists. -- Cirt (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You might note that at least one of your recent edits also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you. Nakon 21:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)