User talk:DavidYork71

SEE MY USER PAGE FOR MY ANNOUNCEMENT OF MY SABBATICAL FROM EDITING HERE (March 2007)

Talk Page Archive 1 - February 2007
Talk Page Archive 2 - March 2007
Talk Page Archive 3 - early April 2007

The image

DavidYork, could you explain the image here on your talk page. It seems like it could well be objectionable. You really should explain it for the community, and how it relates to improvement of the wikipedia project. You've already had an administrator ask you to remove it: [1] Merbabu 13:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an image that is part of wikipedia. Something for people to select, access, and learn about a subject. A means of deepening awareness. Readers are benefited by informing themselves about someone's research and inspired to think and reflect on it, learn from it and apply it to their world.DavidYork71 13:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop playing games - tells us nothing. Please explain it clearly, not cryptically, for the dummy's amongst us. Ie, what does it mean. What subject? Awareness of what? What research? How specifically do you suggest we apply. Assume for a moment we are all stupid and need to be spoon fed. Merbabu 13:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reference. What does the horizontal axis represent? Merbabu 13:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That axis represents a numerical scale.DavidYork71 04:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what the numbers mean, or remove it. please stop your disruptions to wikipedia Merbabu 04:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu-Arabic numeral scale inclusive of the range from about three-score to seven-scoreDavidYork71 04:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish Merbabu 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it - explanation in edit summary [2]. Merbabu 05:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, I've removed the graph. Your talk page is assigned to you to help you contribute to the project, but it still belongs to the community. I cannot see any valid reason for you to place an image like that on your talk page. How does it benefit the community? How does it help you contribute to the project? It looks to me like pretty blatant trolling and disruption and I would strongly encourage you to think very carefully about what you do from here on out. I note that you have previously been blocked for disruptive behaviour (3RR and edit warring, disruption, block evasion and creation of sockpuppets). Another administrator has already informed you that using this graph in this is manner is inappropriate and asked you to remove it. You may consider this is your final administrative warning. If you continue with this disruptive behaviour, you will be blocked and the next block will be considerably longer than the previous ones since it is quite apparent that they have not made any impression on you. Sarah 07:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued disruption regarding Yoga

Your continued unsubstantiated claim that sodomy is a form of Yoga is disruptive. Please stop. Buddhipriya 16:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and Happy Easter :); I'll supply only referenced content to that end.DavidYork71 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

David, following my removal of the racial grouping IQ graph from your talk page, I reviewed your contribution to the project, particularly since your last block expired. What I see is a person engaging in very trollish and disruptive behaviour, wasting good people's valuable time, rather than a person who is sincere and genuine about helping build an encyclopedia. You note at the top of your talk page that you are going on a "sabbatical". I think that might be a good idea and I've helped you along with a disruption block. Sarah 08:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DavidYork71 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is a seven day block citing 'disruptive contributions since last block', and to do with a decorative image supplied on my talk page. The block-imposer claims things in the image that aren't there, namely IQ, where it should be considered that the image is informative of the presence of the straight-hair gene or the presence of blood groups or blood factors or any number of things. I have politely responded to queries about the image on my current talk and in archived talk. If wiki policy requires it, I'll undertake to supply images only to my user page or even reduce it to thumb size as a compromise. The presence of the image inhibits no editors from employing my Talk Page for its purpose. In putting the block without seeking my comment, the block-imposer has traduced her own comment framed as a warning a short time earlier (0743hrs on 5 April 2007.

Decline reason:

Please, stop thinking we're idiots waiting for you to spoon-feed us deceptive information. You know what the graph on your talk page meant, and so do we. We also know, however, that the graph was provocative and offensive, and under Wikipedia policy we have the right to remove said graph without your consent (you don't own your talk page, anyway). Your actions were disruptive and have been told so, only to see you feign ignorance in the face of reality. Your insistence in projecting said ignorance has earned you a well-deserved week-long block. Block upheld. — ²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"The block-imposer claims things in the image that aren't there, namely IQ, where it should be considered that the image is informative of the presence of the straight-hair gene or the presence of blood groups or blood factors or any number of things."

DavidYork71, as you are well aware, the source given for the removed graphic is a pdf entitled "Social Consequences of Group Differences in Cognitive Ability."[3]Proabivouac 02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a decorative artwork of labelled intersecting statistical bell curves and not to be judged in light of any supplied commentaries outside the context of its placement.DavidYork71 02:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this block, and thank the blocker for having the courage to apply it. I've been watching David for a very long time, and what I've seen is an editor whose every edit seems calculated to frustrate, annoy and anger other users, whilst staying within the letter of policy. The image is a prime example - it was blatant trolling, but it is hard to nail someone for trolling when all they've done is post without commentary an image extracted from an academic article. David, your skillful gaming of policy has enabled you to disrupt Wikipedia for too long; but the game is now up. Hesperian 05:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adhering to announced policy. Not reprehensible at all.DavidYork71 08:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of this user's edits have been unacceptable, whether or not they were in jest. He has made valuable contributions as well, though. About the graph, of course it is provocative, but I don't see how the results of scientific inquiry can ever be considered objectionable. Arrow740 06:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting the results of scientific inquiry is among the purposes of the project. Shooting messengers isn't.DavidYork71 08:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The graph isn't objectionable; but David's use of it to troll us is. Hesperian 07:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The graph is objectionable as it contains Original research, inaccurate representation of the data, and some of the data is not from the source stated. Ultimately after many discussions including this the graph was removed from the article Race_and_intelligence, given that the graph isnt used in any articles, its own issues and it use in trolling I have nominated it for deletion. Gnan garra 07:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gnangarra for the information about the graph. --Aminz 07:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The decorative image is a part of wikipedia.DavidYork71 08:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow, it would not be objectionable in an article where it was topical. Where it is not topical, such as in user space, the viewer naturally wonders what is meant by its appearance, and the mind fills in the blanks. This is a form of trolling. That's not to say it's in bad faith - earlier comments indicated a desire to force others to face what he considers to be the truth. However, this merely leads us to the broader observation that Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for such activities. This space includes editors from a very wide range of beliefs, some rather extreme by contemporary Western standards. Getting along in a reasonably scholarly atmosphere means keeping these to ourselves. Some of DavidYork71's views are quite controversial, even famously so, and he has failed to keep these to himself. Introducing oneself to strangers by saying, "Hey, do you realize that some studies have indicated that races differ in intelligence?" is extremely rude, as is telling people at a cocktail party that Hitler was a great man. Other comments, such as claiming to be the sockpuppet of Allah, or that Halal meat tastes bland, are less obviously outrageous, but taken as a pattern show an editor who, consciously or otherwise, seeks verbal confrontation and aims to insult and provoke editors of other ethnic and religious backgrounds. At the same time, he affects a reasonable surface attitude, wishing to be seen as a civilized and lawful individual. This rational civilized side must understand and inwardly admit that he has been passive-aggressively trolling, and that he's got to stop this if he wishes to contribute to this encyclopedia (and probably should stop it anyway.) There are useful contributions in the history, but the social negatives approach the intolerable.Proabivouac 07:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advocating Hitler for [WP:ACID] .. not even part of the blocker's justification. The man lives in notoriety for his active participation in public affairs and for making something memorable with his life.DavidYork71 09:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::I'll take note of any of the above that doesn't smell of un-[WP:AGF|AGF]ingDavidYork71 08:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the block, which was based on the generally-disruptive behavior pattern that has included the recent use of overtly pornographic materials linked to religious images, such as the use of a picture of a Hindu goddess on a page dealing with sexual activity [4], the promotion of now-deleted articles pertaining to sexual activity on Yoga pages [5] and the use of a pornographic picture taken from a porn site to support a disruptive claim related to Yoga [6]. The wide range of the trolling suggests an underlying behavioral issue that must be addressed. A longer block or permanent ban should be considered if the disruptive behavior resumes when this brief block ends. Buddhipriya 07:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occluded images of advanced yoga practice sit on articles such as autofellatio enjoying community acceptance. The kama sutra directly references the name of a Hindu god and confirms the yogic nature of certain sexual practices. I'd be exposing that in a [WP:BOLD] fashion.

Endorse. Canvassing, trolling, defamation, personal attacks, racism, false information, among many other things... Your trolling of Wikipedia won't be tolerated. Like Buddhipriya said, a indef. block will be enforced next time you vandalize. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Contribs 07:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never once been asked to explain or apologise for a 'personal attack', defamation, or racist statement. 'False information' ... not even an aspect of the blocker's justification.DavidYork71 08:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage guidelines don't excluded the presence of decorations. What guidelines there are are exactly that, a guide rather than an inflexible policy.DavidYork71 08:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decorations? If you've been looking at anything discussed on this page... And talk page guidelines still applies to those who blatantly violate it. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Contribs 08:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Please take a look at this diff [7] where David states having anti-Islamic sentiment. In order to cite one example, please take a look at this diff [8] where he renames "Listed terrorist organisations" to "Islam-inspired listed terrorist organisations". --Aminz 08:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent example of your racist comments, defamation and personal attack is above. As for obviously false info, I believe it is covered in WP:VANDAL. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Contribs 08:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]