User talk:David in DC: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:21, 17 December 2013

EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN
Caution: This is a very powerful tool.
Handle With Utmost Care

Welcome!

Hello, David in DC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia is one of the world's fastest growing internet sites. We aim to build the biggest and most comprehensive encyclopaedia in the world. To date we have over 4 million articles in a host of languages. The English Language Wikipedia alone has over 1 million articles! But we still need more! Please feel free to contribute your knowledge and expertise to our site.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We 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:Questions, 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! I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly.

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only.
You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David in DC 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive One: 6 February 2007 - 14 July 2008
Archive Two: 22 July 2008 - 2 December 2008
Archive Three: 5 January 2009 - 10 December 2009
Archive Four 24 February 2010 - 8 August 2013
Archive Five: 9 August 2013 - 18 November 2013

Pseudoscience sanctions notice

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Consensus by exhaustion at Rupert Sheldrake. Thank you. I'm sorry it had to come to this, but our patience is exhausted. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, will you please close your RfC?
If you want, we can all discuss and come up with some type of contained RfC that will actually actually have a chance of determining consensus on specific content that will prevent the circular re-discussions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. Please see the ANI thread. David in DC (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and the horse you rode in on

David in DC (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the shirt color of the victim has any significance. David in DC (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lose heart

Your instincts are basically sound. If you and Vtaak and TRPoD could confer and ignore the input of others I expect you could work out a compromise. You all seem to know what you are doing - the problem is the peanut gallery. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the encouragement. You're one of the folks around here I've come to respect most.

I don't think you're right though. Things would be less vitriolic and no one would have wound up going to AE if things were left to the triumvirate you've suggested.

But with TRPoD in the mix, there's no way it would work out. The peanut gallery is only part of the problem.

There's a basic tension that exists when a living person espouses theories like Sheldrake's. The editors who are most concerned that wikipedia not legitimize nonsense don't heed, and don't see any need to heed, WP:BLP. Refusal to call Sheldrake a biologist, and multiple reversions of the word, despite citations to multiple reliable sources, derogates Sheldrake, along with Morphic Resonance. His degree has not been revoked and even articles critical of him, plus numerous neutral reliable sources from the general press (BBC, Guardian, HuffPo) use the word. It can be reffed just as easily as "psuedoscientist." And both should be.

Similarly, the words theory or hypothesis are not magic. They do not confer scientific status on quackery. But there are oodles of electrons wasted and numerous reverts in the page's edit history crusading against using these words about morphic resonance. With all of the sourced material in the article critiqueing, dismissing, rejecting and debunking morphic resonance, there's not a chance on G-d's green earth that a reader with a comprehension level higher than 2nd grade could possibly come away from the article misled about morphic resonance. Biologist, biochemist or scientist and theory or hypothesis would not change that. It suggests that our readers are dolts to cling to the notion that they would. And a an arrogant dismissal of the important values embodied in WP:BLP to revert the words, time and again, with talk page entries and edit summaries that say "He hasn't been a biologist for 30 years", "Scientists do science, Shelly does psuedoscience. The two are mutually exclusive".

There's a similar arrogance, detrimental to the project, that causes Fringe-fighters to lump Sheldrake acolytes in with editors motivated by fidelity to BLP. It makes the BLP arguments easier to dismiss. IRWolfie got tired and frustrated with me for repeating this next part and I hope not to do it ever again, because I hope to steer clear of the Fringe-fighters who seem bound and determined to silence, ban and block editors who they cannot persuade. But I figure I can get away with it once more, on my talk page, responding to you: "We must treat living fringe theorists more gently than we treat their theories. Handling the tension between BLP and FRINGE in these cases requires nuanced, careful, collaborative editorial judgment. Binary, toggle-switch, on/off editorial judgment is especially poorly suited to these cases."

Again, thank you for the encouragement. It helps. There are a lot of ways I can continue to help build this encyclopedia. But I've tired of trying to correct the incorrigible. The talk at AE in the last day about "tip of the iceberg" and at AN/I about a need to go after many more editors than Alfonzo Green troubles and, to a certain degree, frightens me. And I don't need my hobby to be giving me such tsuris as it's been giving me of late.

Best regards

David in DC (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for giving the impression that you were one of the people I had in mind. I still think the RFC was not a good idea, but I appreciate your motives in bringing it forward.

Two comments: first, those of us who have spent much time on the Fringe theory noticeboard or watching one of the major fringe theory articles quickly come to have a deep empathy for Sisyphus. There's virtually no way to get the fringe partisans to behave except to get them banned; it's quite rare to come upon one of them who can approach their pet topic with some detachment. I wish it were otherwise: we had a long struggle over Ananda Marga topics with various followers who could have helped a lot, but who simply refused to do anything but evangelize. We tend to adopt an enforcer mentality because most of the time that's the way that leads to some resolution. Anyway, the second: when you have someone like Sheldrake, it seems to me that one of the crucial questions determining the approach to the article is whether or not the person would have caught our attention if he hadn't promulgated his theories. Noam Chomsky, for instance, is first of all famous as a linguistic theorist, completely apart from his conspiracy-mongering. I'm not so sure this is the case for Sheldrake; it may well be that he is a fringe theorist who happens to also be a biologist.

It looks as though any attempt to impose discipline on the article is going to fizzle anyway. Mangoe (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your taking the time to offer me reassurance.

It's funny you mention Sisyphus, because that's exactly how I've felt trying to get even the slightest acknowledgement that derogating a living fringe theorist is different from derogating his theory. Is there some logical reason why calling Sheldrake a biologist or biochemist, for which there are plenty of reliable sources, or calling MR a hypothesis or theory, when that's what MR is called in plenty of reliable sources, is such an anathema to enforcers of WP:FRINGE? With those words in, and with all the debunking and refuting of MR in the rest of the article, do you really think there's some danger a reader would be misled by the article into thinking MR is anything but outside the bounds of modern science? Just how stupid would such a reader have to be? Because no amount of policy and fringe-wariness will save that poor soul. You can't cure stupid.

The absolutist red line drawn on the Sheldrake article against these words, their exasperated dismissal by editors committed to defending against a mythical danger, the repeated intemperate attacks against anyone who won't hew to an arbitrarily drawn line, the lumping together of BLP defenders with acolytes of woo --- none of this reflects well on wikipedia.

Speaking of that, upon reflection, I understand why the RfC was a bad idea. But the imputation of motives was wrong and wrong-headed. I couldn't care less about the comments of the first editor who called me out for it. He's shown poor judgment throughout this whole kerfuffle. But the next two have struck me as reasonable folk. And so I was persuaded to cry "uncle" and make clear that I regretted losing some of their respect.

But some of the more hysterical responses on the talk page, especially the first, make me wonder. Decrying an invitation to fresh eyes from uninvolved editors to look the thing over with sensitivity to BLP as well as FRINGE sure does seem to have scared some folk. One or two actually offered explicit condemnation of the idea, predicting that it would be useless or worse. If the principles being defended cannot be easily explained to editors who are previously uninitiated into woo-fighting, that calls the principles into question. As Justice Brandeis said: Light is the best disinfectant. I'm afraid the jaundiced, cynical view of long-time, veteran woo-fighters, hard-won through Sisyphian labors, doesn't --- when viewed up close on the battleground by the uninitiated --- look ~~not too~~ to be very many steps removed from WP:OWN. Especially when coupled with the frequent trope that editors who don't understand lack WP:COMPETENCE to edit the article. A few years ago User:The Blade of the Northern Lights and I helped prune back some of the WP:WALLEDGARDEN that the suite of articles about the World's Oldest People had become. I thought I'd seen the limits of incorrigible intransigence then. I now have a newer, and worser, experience under my belt.

I'll stay the hell away from it now. Life's too short and the toll's too great. But if you have influence among FTN-centric editors, I urge you to try to get some serious reflection initiated among them, after they've successfully "rescued" the Sheldrake article from the menace I posed. It would be well-warranted. David in DC (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did see your response, and I get a sneaky feeling I was one of the next two. I wanted to say that I am not a heavy hitter with regard to real editing, but am opinionated and find it easy to voice that opinion on Talk pages, but am not so confident when it comes to the real work here. My comment to you re the RfC lightly tripped off my paws and was perhaps a reflection on me as much as you. The advice "Don't lose heart" is good advice. Articles like the Sheldrake one will always be difficult, and our mutual interest in things fringe will always bring us to articles like it. As regards 'good faith' per my comment, I think that it was a bit rash when I look at it now. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was intended as an apology. It isn't very good, is it? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a very nice thing to wake up to. Thanks for taking the time and for being motivated to make the effort.

I'm mostly interested in biographies, so we may not see each other much except where FRINGE meets BLP, and even then, I'll be gun-shy for quite a while when I find an article with such a nexus. But I look forward to crossing paths with you in other parts of this great big, wonderful project. The only true markers of adulthood are the ability to disagree without being disagreeable and a sense of humor. You display both attributes, in spades.

As I said above, I do now understand why the RfC was a bad idea. David in DC (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need TRPoD because if you can persuade him, you have won. Try having a chat in a different context. I think you both want to do the right thing. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"An RfC" that would help determine whether the community views specific content as appropriate or not is not a bad idea. An "RfC" that asks people to put out their opinions about FRINGE and BLP about four paragraphs of content is a TERRIBLE idea. The talk page is already an unreadable wall of text of opinions and just collecting more walls of text of opinions could not possibly help determine any consensus about specific article content or how to present it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed it, but I've cried "uncle", asked to have the RfC shut down, apologized to editors whose opinion of me matters to me, and forsworn participation any time soon anywhere on the wiki where there's a nexus between WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE. I've laid out my opinions many times in places you could read, including in this thread. Guy is kind to imagine that I've got the magnanimity in me to have the conversation with you that he proposes. I don't. I'm feeling too bullied. Maybe it'll pass. But don't hold your breath. The shade of blue you'd turn by the time I recovered equanimity about our encounter would clash badly with your chosen color.

Please carry on. You'll not find me obstructing you. As Groucho once said: Don't go away in a huff. Just go away. David in DC (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I completely misread your comment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re. a point made above. The terms hypothesis and theory have specific meanings in science, which MR does not meet. It's a conjecture. Even Sheldrake should know enough to realise this. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The realty-check you've provided is welcome. I'm disengaging on a topic where my participation is not helping build the encyclopedia. David in DC (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too. Lou Sander (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Barry McCaffrey may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Charles Sheehan-Miles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

from a burning tank during the [[Battle of Rumaila|battle]] at the [[Rumaila oil field]].<ref>[http://www.sheehanmiles.com/about/ Charles Sheehan-Miles' personal web page</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Request Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askahrc (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the ping, without a watchlist I had not yet seen the statement by jps, nor the Carcaroth request-for-more-info. My statement has been slow going... as you might have guessed the 500 word limit is totally killing me. :-) Is there some kind of time-limit to Carcaroth's offer? Should I put some sort of "statement-by-74-in-progress" placeholder onto the page? I would have asked Carcaroth, and in fact wrote up a five-kilobyte list of questions for them <notJoking> <sad> <sigh> and then decided not to click save because maybe I'm not supposed to chat with the arbs 'privately' about an open RFAR... is it okay to *ask* them procedural questions like this, or ask a clerk, or do you know?

Anyways, at least a *couple* of the arbs have sensed that there might just be some kinda deep and long-lasting sturm-und-drang stuff going on here. The bullying part is secondary; it's the policy-dispute, which leads to perma-frustration, which in turn leads to repeated incidents of bully-flareup, that is the key here. What is the meaning of pillar two, that is the question; does the WP:MEDRS approach, apply to *all* sources in *all* fields of inquiry... arrgh. Thanks if you know the procedural-answers, but as always, WP:REQUIRED applies if you'd rather get your cheese-grater out for another eyebrow-trimming-session, instead of mess with this any more than you have to. ;-) Hope you are well, aside from the ahrbcohm drahmahz. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know, but here's the approach I'd take:

A very brief "Statement by 74.192.84.101" saying something like: I'm preparing a statement that addresses an Arbitrator's observation that he'd like to hear from parties who have not yet commented before deciding on whether to take the case. I'll replace this placeholder and post my no-more-than-500-word statement w/in X (48? 72?) hours. I hope that's satisfactory.

A no-more-than-500-words statement posted within your announced time slot, focused on why this is not a content dispute but one of policy/policies that require(s) ArbCom's attention.

If necessary, link(s) within the no-more-than-500-word statement to questions of policy you'd like to see addressed if the case is taken, or other supplemental matter, said questions or supplemental matter to be posted on your own sandbox page(s).

Like the no-more-than-500-words statement, the sandbox page(s) should be concise enough to avoid a tldr response.

Thanks for your expression of hope regarding my wellness. It may simply be a manifestation of your signature courteousness, but I grok that there may be some kind of V. Michael Smith-type awareness (or perhaps its a morphic resonance-related telepathy-like phenomenon) in play, as well. Some drama IRL has been playing out hereabouts. It probably bleeds into my editorial judgment, at least insofar as my typing becomes more tart-toungued than I'd like on talk pages and noticeboards. It's why I'm trying to avoid them. But only with moderate success. :)

I hope you are well, as well.

Best,

David in DC (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No-more-than-500-word statement within 48 hours??? You are a cruel, cruel being! :-) Thanks, though, your advice is sound, as always. And here is a laugh-out-loud moment for you, if you would like a boost: I hurried over to add my placeholder... only to find that such a placeholder is impossible to add, let alone a statement later. The damn page is semi-prot, to keep naughty anons from vandalizing it, just like the Sheldrake mainspace! Aaarrrrggghhh. :-) If you are not averse, can you please post this "statement" for me underneath vzaak's? Gracias. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 74

This statement in a nutshell: I would urge ArbCom to consider this case, because disagreement about the fundamental meaning of pillar two is the root of the constant content-disputes, the resulting frustrations for all concerned, and the repeated flareups of anti-pillar-four behavior that are caused thereby. This RFAR page is semi-prot against non-auto-confirmed editors.[1][2] Please see instead — User_talk:74.192.84.101#2013-12-01_RFAR.2C_statement_by_74.2C_concerning_Rupert_Sheldrake. Thanks. — User_talk:74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:45.678, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are not comfy sticking this up there for me, no problemo, I will ping Carcharoth or some clerk or something directly. I wish you smooth sailing, both on-wiki and IRL. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks, appreciate it. p.s. And hey, quit reading the depressing Heinlein, put down that Martian tragedy and pick up something uplifting, Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. :-) That's *my* metaphor for wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great books all. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I thought you were talking about *my* little talkpage-novels. ;-) Yes, great books, although Heinlein had the gall to prefer felines, rather than canines... turrible, just turrible. :-) Anyways, Roxy doesn't hold that against him, and *I* don't hold his gigantic computer technologies against him... the moon-cities of the future have *one* big honkin mainframe to run everything... arrrgh.

And now, something completely different. For folks brave enough to delve into discretionary grammatical sanctions related to the provisional Irish Republican Army, there is a grammar-question I've run into. Back during WWI there was at least one, and maybe more, Active Service Unit(s), note the capitalization. Later in the post-1969 Troubles, there were many small groups which had a similar generic name, which was either Active Service Unit or possibly active service unit. There are various arguments based on what capitalization the Reliable Sources used, though even *those* arguments are tricksy because some newspapers would word-ize acronyms and say Nato rather than NATO and therefore methinks Asu rather than ASU. However, my question is different -- there is an argument which has been put forward, that says two adjectives and a noun cannot possibly every form a proper noun, and therefore active service unit must be lowercase except when initialized as ASU, similar to frequently asked questions being lowercase except when written as FAQ. Does this adj adj noun gambit hold any water? What about things like Special Air Service, which seems like a perfectly fine proper-noun-thing to me?

Background, in the military jargon there is this concept of the brigade, which is lowercase and common-noun-generic, and refers to any organized-military-grouping of some fuzzy-varies-by-nation-and-time-period troop strength. Then, there is also the capitalized Brigade, which is used to refer via shorthand to a *specific* proper-noun-type individual brigade, such as the 137th_Armoured_Brigade_(United_Kingdom). Now, during the 1970s and 1980s and so on, the PIRA had a military-unit which was about fireteam-size-to-squad-size, of 5 to 8 troops. There is a dispute over whether those can be dubbed Active Service Units with capitals, mostly from what I can gather because they tended not to be numbered, and tended to shift membership fluidly, but I'm not really clear. Back in the day, during WWI the folks who *eventually* became the PIRA also had at least one Active Service Unit based in Dublin... and there is some claim, not sure if WP:RS or not, that other ASU stuff existed embedded in other larger groups. Anyways, apologies if neither David nor his talkpage-stalkers are interested in this grammar-quandary. Thanks for reading, either way; sarong for now. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel S. Loeb

Hey! I've noticed your recent edits to Daniel Loeb and on one of the edits in particular, you redirected Third Point back to his page until the page is created. Well, I just created the page under Third Point Management and was wondering how to redirect the wikilinks to the new page I created. Any help is appreciated. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meatsgains: Glad to help. I've turned the Third Point LLC redirect from the Loeb bio to your new article, wikilinked to your new article in the lede and put a "main article" tag in the Third Point subhed of the bio. David in DC (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for the help. Meatsgains (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration rejected

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. The arbitrators felt that the already imposed discretionary sanctions were adequate to deal with current issues. Failure by users to edit constructively or comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be brought up at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for further potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marsha Blackburn may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

It's nice to have a friend. Thank you Billbird2111 (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outing

Regardless of who / what / when self disclosed, it's been redacted, and continuing to post diffs is not appropriate. Please knock that off. If you believe there's still a policy violation that was done please contact Arbcom in proviate (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org) and ask them for their input on whether the issue constituted outing or another policy violation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my final comment on the COI string and privided Jimbo with a second perspective on an email he's received about me. I'm done. David in DC (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is "harrassive" a word?

"I find that harrassive and if you, as the fool you claim to be, are sanctioned...then you well deserve it. As for your fucking "scorn". I don't give a goddamn rat's ass about the shit. -- [Potty-mouthed critics name redacted.]"

I sure attract some odd fan mail.

David in DC (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA. Probably not...in fact that is an actual...no. LOL! But I would like to mention...it wasn't mail. I have never sent you any mail. At any rate I see you are not one inclined to assume good faith. That's cool. I do the same at times. But if you should ever choose to actually look through the history of articles and pages you may see your error. I should also mention I have no real issue with you. I have a very real history of getting over conflict and eventually respecting many of the editors that have a conflict with me. One day, perhaps that will be the same here. I won't dismiss it. I hope you don't either, even with your "scorn".--Mark Miller (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shall use the word Sheldrakially. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of words that are not words, my wife (or as she prefers to be called, my Reason for Being) and I have come up wiyth the perfect one for the person sitting in the passenger seat with the maps on a long road trip. (S)he's called the "nagivator". David in DC (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey....I'm the spouse that nagivates. Its odd that GPS hasn't helped that much. LOL! Anywho, I felt obliged to mention that I self censored my uncivil response on WP:COIN. I was upset and didn't need to use that language.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this message will self-destruct in 10 thousand years

User_talk:Acroterion#Kerik There is a BLP former-NYC-police-captain and now former-federal-prisoner who was just released in October. BLP violations galore, by a couple editors on the pro and con sides. Want to take a swipe at fixing the page up? Acroterion is uninvolved, but was called in to topic-ban one side or the other (there is always a third logical possibility should the banhammer actually fall). As always, WP:REQUIRED applies if you are otherwise busy. Danke por improvising da pedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARE notice

There is currently an Arbitration Enforcement Request "Barleybannocks" regarding an issue in which you may have been involved. --Iantresman (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 210: / Line 210: @@
 [[User_talk:Acroterion#Kerik]]  There is a BLP former-NYC-police-captain and now former-federal-prisoner who was just released in October.  BLP violations galore, by a couple editors on the pro and con sides.  Want to take a swipe at fixing the page up?  Acroterion is uninvolved, but was called in to topic-ban one side or the other (there is always a [[:File:NP-43.jpg | third logical possibility]] should the [[banhammer]] actually fall).  As always, [[WP:REQUIRED]] applies if you are otherwise busy.  Danke por improvising da pedia.  [[Special:Contributions/74.192.84.101|74.192.84.101]] ([[User talk:74.192.84.101|talk]]) 19:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
+== WP:ARE notice ==
+[[Image:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently an '''Arbitration Enforcement Request''' "[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Barleybannocks|Barleybannocks]]" regarding an issue in which you may have been involved. --[[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] ([[User talk:Iantresman|talk]]) 10:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)