User talk:Davkal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] You have been blocked
I hardly ever block for personal attacks, but this is ridiculous. I see you refer to other editors as "a bunch of pricks"[1], "Francescolinoo Fuckko", "Fukko Mactadger" (both [2]—these are transparent references to real editors' names) and use other choice expressions in the same post, that I prefer not to quote. I've also noticed your "jocular" (abusive) misspelling of Askolnick's name, btw. Blocked for a week for extreme personal attacks. Please edit civilly when you return. If you attack users in such terms again you'll get a month. I will post this block on WP:ANI for review by other admins. Bishonen | talk 01:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC).
- On a serious note, Bishonen. It should be clear to you that Askolnick's stuff on the Hilary Putnam page has nothing to do with the Putnam article (see the last revert to an incorrect version) and everything to do with me. Do you think it is reasonable for an editor to be pursued through various articles and have any edits he makes challenged as part of some vendetta. Perhaps you should have a word with your friend about this since to me it is abominable behaviour. Using Wiki to carry out a vendetta seems at least as reprehensible as calling someone a prick or Fukko Mactadger, or a liar and a drunk (the last two of which you appear to endorse).Davkal 12:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Given that askolnick above has quite clearly implied that I am a prick here - now deleted - I trust Bishonen will spring into action and tell him that his comment is the very essence of Wiki good practice and to keep it up.Davkal 12:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the WP:ANI review of your block so you can see what other admins think of it. (That link will not include any comments posted after this point; for those you will have to go to the subsection on the live WP:ANI page, which I can't link to). I have patience with insults towards myself from a blocked user, but if you launch one more attack on anybody else, I will lock the page so you can't edit it. As for you, Askolnick, please go away. Bishonen | talk 12:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC).
It would be nice if you answered the question. Do you think it is appropriate for people to stalk others on Wiki and revert edits and engage in debates about subjects where they admit they have no knowledge simply to continue a vendetta they have against anoter editor. Askolnick's involvement on the Putnam page was for no other reason than I posted there - the upshot being that disruption was brought to that page and an incorrect vesrion has been retained. Davkal 18:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] About removing warnings
I would also appreciate an answer to why you allowed Askolnick to remove my formal warning from his talk page for calling me a drunk and a liar (he called me a liar repeatedly). Davkal 18:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to the impression you seem to have formed, I haven't studied or followed your editing, or Askolnick's, or the Putnam page, or CSICOP and its monster talkpage, and you haven't inspired me with any great interest in doing it, either. As an unpaid volunteer, I won't put myself in the way of more of your atrocious rudeness than I have to, and the edits that I blocked you for don't actually need any context or any research; they're intrinsically unacceptable, under any circumstances—I don't care about their context. As for Askolnick removing your warning ("formal"? huh?), it's only the warnings that administrators need to see that have to be kept on the page. For anything else, you have wide latitude over what you do with your own talkpage. The warnings by Askolnick about removing warnings that I see above on this page were misguided, for instance. He asked me about that a while back, and I explained it to him. Frankly, any warning from him to you or from you to him is more likely to be part of your all-over personalized dispute, than to be the kind of good-faith warning that admins actually need to be able to see. You're free to remove his, he's free to remove yours. What you're not free to remove is, for instance, my block message. You're not free to post insults on this page, either. You'd be wise to remove those (though be careful not to leave other people's replies dangling, use common sense). I'm thinking especially about your vandalising of Askolnick's signed comments. That's outrageous behavior. Any stunts like that after this block expires will earn you a new block. Bishonen | talk 20:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC).
[edit] CSICOP
Davkal, you're aware that I have been acting as a neutral in the CSICOP mediation. I am willing to continue mediation after you return from the block, but given your most recent comments, I am only willing to do so if you will let me mentor you in how to communicate on that page. If you can't keep your temper when frustrated you should not be posting. If the others on that page are unwilling to continue mediation, I will not persist; there are several good faith editors there and I don't see any reason to interfere with their efforts to work on the article. I believe you can help improve the article, but you'll have to learn how to keep within the boundaries of WP etiquette.
Let me know if you would like to continue the mediation under those conditions, and we can talk here about how it would work. Initially, I would suggest that you email me your comments, and after an email discussion I will post an edited version of your comments. I can also advise you on how to avoid getting in trouble again.
If I don't see a reply from you after you're unblocked and have started editing again, I will close the mediation out. Mike Christie (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just to let you know: Askolnick, Karl and Bubba73 have all said they are unwilling to use mediation. I am going to close down the mediation case; there's no value unless two sides want to participate. Let me know if I can help in any other way. Mike Christie (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't suppose there is any point in continuing mediation. However, as soon as I return I am going to request a formal arbirtration process begin since I am not prepared to be royally abused day after day, even on my talk page and on any other articles I work on, and then blocked when the abuse becomes intolerable and I respond.Davkal 01:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Arbitration is a last resort, and wouldn't be appropriate at this point. Take a look at WP:DR to get an idea of how dispute resolution can be managed short of arbitration. My best recommendation would be to find a completely neutral, uninvolved third party and get their opinion before you do anything else. That will give you an idea of what the reaction might be to an RfC or other next step. Mike Christie (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
While working on the CSICOP article in my absence - don't forget the point that the ONLY legitimate source you have is the Times HES. Therefore all the stuff from Hyman et al, given it has ot been published in such a reputable source, can't go in. All you have in response to the criticisms from reputable sources, then, is Wiseman's response which, as Keith Rennols so perceptively put it, deomnstrated a total lack of understanding of how experimental data should be interpreted statistically. Nor should you forget his "woefully inadequate" description of the experiment which the editor of the Times HES saw fit to publish. Davkal 07:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stop Edit Warring or you will be blocked again
Davkal, I'm sorry you seem to have learned nothing from your fourth and this time week-long block. Despite the consensus reached by editors on the CSICOP discussion page, you have resumed your edit war. I've asked Bishonen to step in if you continue your disruptive edits. Askolnick 14:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
My edits are not, are not intended to be, disruptive. Also, a consensus does not gurantee anything other than, in this case, three people agree on something. The fact is that there would be many more people agreeing with my side of the argument if they had not been driven off by the constant abuse dished out to anyone who dares to disagree with askolnick.Davkal 20:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- He's right Davkal. Your edits are plainly intended to be disruptive rather than constructive. Several editors are unanimous in accepting the edits you're trying to change, and likewise are unanimous in stating that you're too disruptive to engage in mediated dialog with. If you persist, not only will you not attain your goals, you're very likely to bring further blocks on yourself. KarlBunker 15:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
He's wrong, as are you!Davkal 20:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please note also that when your recent block was imposed, you were warned not to continue personal attacks on your return or your next block would be for a month. Although not aimed directly at an editor, saying "ie. the musings of Robert Carroll on his Skepdick website." is clearly a personal attack, and is inappropriate, insulting and disruptive language. KarlBunker 15:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Oops my mistake, I got confused with having to write "K" instead of "C" when writing the "skep" in "skepdic" rather than "sceptic" (as it is in the UK) and must have added another K at the end by mistake. I will make the necessary amendment.Davkal 20:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Editing talk page comments
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that you are allowed to retract disparaging statements you make on talk pages and replace them with a comment that you made a mistake and you are retracting the statement. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable. Wmahan. 01:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Favourite lyrics
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye
[repeat many times and fade out]
Davkal 06:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is a quote from Bishonen's own page:
"This is so sad. Those we want to keep are being driven off; those we'd love to get rid of keep coming back."
I am the one being discussed here, and so I am the one they would love to get rid off is me - how nice for an administrator to have such things on her page clearly making no bones of the fact that some people would rather see me gone. Yet, if I write some lyrics that Bishonen thinks is a reference to Askolnick's departure she thinks I should be blocked.
None of this surprises me since Bishonen's behaviour re Askolnick is extraordinary: he has been warned countless times on his talk page for abusive comments, assuming bad faith, pestering, harrassing and just generally being rude to anyone he disagrees with, and almost without fail those warnings will be followed by a comment from Bishonen telling him that it is fine to remove the warning and in some cases warning those who posted the warnings. Since I have been involved with askolnick he has implied I am a prick, and a drunkard, and has called me a liar more times than I can remember. But hey, that's OK Andy, cos you're a valuable contributer to a few articles about yourself ansd your mates.Davkal 14:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Page ban
I see you congratulate yourself on having driven off a valuable editor, how nice. Also that you continue your kneejerk revert warring at the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Please note that the WP:3RR rule doesn't mean you're entitled to three reverts a day. You're supposed to respect consensus and work with others, but I'm as tired as everybody else of telling you that. You are hereby banned for one month from editing CSICOP. Such a page ban means that, while still technically able, you are not allowed to edit the article, and will be immediately blocked if you do. You may still edit the talkpage. (Civilly.) Bishonen | talk 12:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC).
What am I being banned for?
- Sigh. " you continue your kneejerk revert warring at the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Please note that the WP:3RR rule doesn't mean you're entitled to three reverts a day. You're supposed to respect consensus and work with others." That's what you're being banned for. As for your favourite lyrics, I'm considering asking an uninvolved admin to review your behaviour, so you may be blocked yet. Bishonen | talk 13:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC).
The changes I have made to CSICOP have been tacitly agreed by the other editors on the page to be better since they have changed some of the wording but have left some of my edits intact. For example, Hob has changed "criticised for" to "accused of" in the criticism section, but has left the inclusion of the words I added intact. KB has changed "Do not" to "Not to" but has left out the poorly worded "Avoid" which bore no relation to CSICOP's owbn website. It seems to me that your ban and stuff simply smacks of sour grapes. Davkal 13:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Bishonen, here is an interesting piece of Wiki policy:
"Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute."
Given that we are currently engaged in such a dispute, ie.e, it is my edits of your edits that you are complaining about (they are the only one's I have made in the last few days), it is clear that you are breaching a policy and that your behaviour is "striclty prohibited". I would therefore be grateful if you could remove the page ban from the CSICOP page immediately.Davkal 13:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
xxxxccfdgtfr
[edit] University Hill Elementary School
I replied to your "keep" opinion on the above article's AfD. My comments were meant sincerely, and with no sarcasm. I'd really appreciate a reply in the same spirit. I also find that a major pleasure of perusing encylcopedias (and especially wikipedia) is finding trivia unrelated to what one was originally looking for. However, IMHO, this goes a step too far. The facts (such as they are) could easily be found through a merged article, and the page itself fails all criteria that I'm aware of for inclusion on wikipedia. Having too many random pages inhibits the finding of useful information -- this is why we have criteria in the first place. I'd like to discuss this further with you on my talk page, because I really am curious why you would like to keep this article. Many thanks for your time and consideration, Storkk 21:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reposted from Talk:Yeti
Just in case you've suddenly stopped reading the talkpage you've been arguing on, I'm reposting my latest message to you here.
- Davkal, I see from the timestamps that your latest revert, where you refer to a meat- or sockpuppet, happened before you had a chance to read my admonition about such accusations above. But now you have. Please revert yourself and request a CheckUser if you intend to go on with these accusations. I mean it. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC).
I don't know how to. Perhaps you should check it out. While you're at it please note that Gowron posted an anonymous post on the yeti talk page at 20:17 and then changed the signature to Gowron at 20:18 - presumably he had forgotten to log in as Gowron again after assuming his Plaid Cymru sockpuppet persona in order to make some non-gowron reverts and add some abusive comments about me to the yeti talk page. Alternatively why not just ban me for 60 days for being right.Davkal 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I posted a link to the CheckUser page for you on Talk:Yeti the first time I mentioned it. Here it is again: WP:RFCU. You click on it and read the instructions on the page that comes up and then you do like it says. Your logic above is baffling. Are you proposing in good faith that Gowron deliberately posted without signing because he had forgotten to log in as Gowron? Or are you just trying to waste my time, otherwise known as trolling? Er, what state of mind do you take Gowron to have been in at the moment he deliberately left out the sig—forgetting, or remembering, that he wasn't logged in..? "Dear me, I've forgotten to log back in, I'd better not sign...?" (If that is indeed what you mean by posting anonymously. I can't find the edit in question despite research in the History—I don't see any post there ending in "17", which I looked for since wikipedians are in all sorts of different timezones—don't know if that ever struck you?) Please try to learn how to produce a diff link.) Anyway. If you think I'm going to waste any more of my wikitime delving into thought processes such as those while you kindly spit at me, think again. This is it. Troll my page again and I'll post your civility issues on ANI for review. Congratulations on so ably chasing off a potential contributor like Gowron, btw. He needed som help formulating all the stuff he knows, but why give him that, when it's so much more constructive to revert him? Bishonen | talk 02:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC).
On the first point he posted as 80.176.235.247 - not sure how you do it but it was presumably because he had signed out as PlaidyMaly and had forgotten to sign in as Gowron, saw the IP address and then logged in and changed the signature. Here it is my love http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYeti&diff=88269649&oldid=88269436
so that's how you do it 82.35.70.17 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC) OOPs Davkal 02:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
By Christ, you seem like a thoroughly sensible fellow Davkal, great name as well Kaldav 02:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Why thank you Kaldav, awfully nice of you to say so old bean.Davkal 02:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyone up for a vote on what we should call the Himalayas, how about the 23rd of October just passed.Davkal 02:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ufo.gif
[edit] Medium (spirituality)
Hi Davkal, good to have you involved! Good points on the Medium (spirituality) article. Have you seen my Mediumship article? (I say "my" because I saved it from certain doom... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 17:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you about the skeptics, and that’s actually one of the reasons I don't mind keeping Mediumship separate from Medium. The start of Mediumship came from skeptics who kept removing information from Medium. The medium article seems to get more skeptical attention than does the Mediumship article, I think because it deals with specific mediums, mediumship just explains what it is in a general and historic fashion. In all paranormal cases, though, it’s a constant, draining battle against the legions of skeptics on Wikipedia. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- LOL! What a great barnstar! It is wonderful! Thank you so much, I love it!
-
- And hey, I really like your ideas about setting paranormal article standards, I've been experiencing exactly what you describe - "arguing round and round in circles at every step of every article with people whose prejudice against anything even paranormal sounding leads them to more and more bizarre arguments" - most recently in the John Edward article - and it's so damned aggravating and unnecessary. I can't believe anyone is arguing against the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research being a WP:RS, not even askolnick did that. Let me know if you need help on with it, and I'll be happy to join in. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Transcripts
It looked like you were being asked to provide actual transcripts from material only available in print. Here's a question and answer similiar to that situation: proving I have read the book on the citing sources talk page. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked for 3RR
I've blocked you for 8 hours for 3RR on EVP. Please try to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page when your block expires. JoshuaZ 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not th one refusing to discuss them on the talk page.Davkal 17:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- And after looking at your history and block log I've increased the block to 3 days. JoshuaZ 16:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't made 3rr. I have made about 100 different edits today but no more than two of them have been the same revert. Please recheck the evidence.Davkal
- You reverted 4 times on EVP. Whether it is the same reversion or not is not what is relevant. Furthermore, you have a history of edit warring. JoshuaZ 17:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I've edited and changed things hundreds of times today. The 4 examples given on the 3rr page are simple editing involving 3 different edits - this is no way contravenes any rules since if it did Inshanee, and almost everyone else would be guilty as well. .Davkal 17:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Huh, that's interesting. I didn't even notice that Inshanee had added you to the 3RRV board. I blocked you simply because I saw the reversions on my watchlist. I'll go take a look at Inshanee's report but whether or not Inshanee reported the correct difs isn't relevant since you reverted four times. The relevant difs are [3] [4] [5] [6]. JoshuaZ 17:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
They're not reverts, none of them involve reverting the article. All are simple edits. Some of them change text back to what it was exactly, some of them change the text from what was added to something like it was and some of them are new edits which change an edit into something quite different from what was there before. This is the simple procces of editing and reeditimg articles to make improvements to them. Davkal 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Familiar path, blocked for something I haven't done (the last time it was for changes to my own edits - I apparently edit-warred with myself), this is then pointed out to the blocking admin, who sudddenly have nothing more to say on the matter. The simple fact here is that only 3 of the above diffs could even be construed as reverts, while the fourth is a straightforward edit to create a new piece of text in order to imporve Wiki and bring it into line with the cited sources. Unfotunately, it appears too much to ask for an admin to actually go back and check that they got it right first time. Who cares? Here's a block.Davkal 17:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, you appear to be correct that the Raudive->observer edit is not a revert. I have therefore unblocked you. JoshuaZ 17:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, this is most uncommon. I accept tht I was getting frustrated and was getting perilously close to 3RR anyway. I actually had no idea that it even referred to many different sections of the same article. I do now and will endeaver to not come that close again. Davkal 17:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It appears I am still blocked though. Davkal 18:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- What message are you getting? JoshuaZ 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by JoshuaZ for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Davkal". The reason given for Davkal's block is: "4RR on EVP".
Any news?
JoshuaZ said he had lifted my block - not sure what has ahppened but here is the autoblock tag that the page says should be pasted here
That should do it. I don't think the autoblock could be lifted until you used the autoblock template like you did, because there is no way to know what IP address was autoblocked. -- Renesis (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorted now, thanks. Davkal 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
