User talk:NBeale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Richard Dawkins

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

[edit] Reasonable explanation for reverting your edits to Richard Dawkins

The detail you added on Betrand Russell, Huxley and Haekel is unsourced and this, along with the other detail you have added are riddled with POV and weasel words and are generally unencyclopedic in style all of which are against wiki policy and/or guidelines and I do not consider them an improvement. This article is very well sourced and well written so such additions are, more than likely, going to be reverted, if not by me, then by someone else.--KaptKos 19:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

a. Nothing in the first para is sourced. And I cannot see what is controversial about the assertions I make. If anything I am too kind to Dawkins in comparing him to Haeckel who was a first-rate scientist.

b. if there is PoV or Weasel Words then please amend them.

c. And why delete the references to Bob May and Dennis Noble (both truly world-class scientists)?

NBeale 19:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Four separate editors have reverted you. You've gone way beyond the 3RR. World class scientists can be mentioned in their own articles in a neutral way. *Sparkhead 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The answer to all your points is POV, weasel words and style and editors are under no obligation to ammend contributions from other editors who add such detail. You're obviously passionate about your angle on Dawkins so why not try to engage other editors on the articles talk page in order to get the changes to the article you desire in a way that is acceptable to all. Just a suggestion as the approach you have so far taken has led you to a block. Regards --KaptKos 07:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi KaptKos - thanks that's a v constructive suggestion. What I objected to was the fact that you and your colleagues simply reverted by changes without discussion or suggestion of improvement (until your contribution at 19:02 by which time you and your colleagues had done this 8 times!) NBeale 08:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Reverts by other editors were accompanied with edit summaries which in most cases surfice (except me, I'm bad;) but by the time of my rv I assumed the suituation was clear so I didn't bother but I really should have used one anyway). Justifications on talk pages are common when editors are going to make controvertial changes, which yours were, editors in gereral will not justify reverting on talk pages, so in my experiance what happenend was inevitable. The 3RR rule applies to the individual not the article. BTW they're not my colleagues, they're my, and your, fellow editors, I'm not part of any cabal or clique although I have been accused of this in the past, and I'm not aware of any existing in Wikipedia. One of the most important policies in Wikipedia, IMO, is Wikipedia:Assume good faith and I always do, its stops you going nuts when things don't go your way and stops you seeing phantoms where none exist. There are over a million registered editors, its inevitable that on occassion everyone will make edits that cause seperate editors to react in similar fashion, this may seem coordinated but really its just a bunch of individuals doing what they think is right, it was just unfortunate for you it happened early in your wiki experiance. Happy pedying --KaptKos 09:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on October 26, 2006 to Richard Dawkins

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Re your mail... quality of edits is not the question, please read WP:3RR carefully (and hopefully WP:1RR too). Now, if you're new and didn't really appreciate this, and are prepared to prmoise to be good in future, you can be unblocked (though I'm just off to bed so maybe someone else will...) William M. Connolley 22:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking

I am not going to get involved in determining the quality of your edits or their relevence to the article in question, but there does seem to be an issue with WP:BITE in which User:Sparkhead seems to not have recognized that you are a newer contributor who isn't aware of our policies here about the number of reverts. Feel free to post the {{unblock}} tag here and an administrator will review the situation and maybe unblock you...this is not something I am almost never willing to do since I do not agree with overturning another administrators decisions.--MONGO 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, it appears you didn't review the content in question. It seems if it were some unknown editor that submitted the 3RR report your involvement would have consisted of this. He cited policy regarding reverts[2], reverted after that discussion multiple times, including once with an edit summary "Restoring facts...that Dawkins's acolytes seem to want to hide. I wonder why?",[3] which doesn't foster the idea of working within the community. Finally, he reverted after the 3RR template was placed and the report made, at which point he clearly had full knowledge of the policy.[4]. If you think the 3RR template is too harsh as it stands, perhaps you could fix it and create one you feel is more suitable for newer editors. *Sparkhead 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was asked by NBeale to look into the edits on that page, but wasn't looged in when the edit war was going on. I only see that he has few edits under this username, and within 11 minutes of you issuing the 3RR warning to him, you have a report filed at 3RR, (which is about the time it takes to compile the diffs). I also see, (without determining the quality of the edits since I am unfamiliar with the subject matter), that you reverted edits that he had added that were referenced [5]. I haven't unvlocked him and you better start assuming good faith soon.--MONGO 13:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As should you. Read above and associated talk pages. References weren't the issue. If the fact that he reverted after being explicity told of 3RR doesn't convince you a 3RR block was the proper course of action, I'm not certain what will. Try to disassociate me from the action and remember to focus on content. Thanks. *Sparkhead 13:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sparkhead. If you had signed your warning or explained why you objected to the changes or even added "sorry I haven't got time to explain why I don't like your changes but I suggest you post them on the talk article first" it would have carried more weight. I honestly thought it was designed to scare me off :-) NBeale 20:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't intended as such, and my lack of signature was an oversight. It's the first template for 3RR in Template:TestTemplates. If you feel the wording is harsh, you can propose a new wording for possibly a "General Note" version of the warning. In fact if you want to work on that I'll support it or help with the wording and attempt to get it into that template grid. *Sparkhead 20:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Point is not whether the block was a good one, it was that after warning him of 3RR, the next edit you did was to report him...that's a bite whether you think it is or not. He didn't "cite policy" as you claim...he merely stated it was against policy...citing it would have meant he would have done something like WP:NPOV or similiar. Do you have proof that NBeale is a sock or something along those lines? If not, then you need to slow down and stop assuming that newbies are going to get the point of 3RR right away...next time, think about that.--MONGO 04:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bite, it's an appeal for an uninvolved administrator to review the situation. *Sparkhead 12:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "Hi! I sense that you are frustrated that your changes are being reversed. But simply re-instating them won't help because you are likely to get hit by the 3RR. The best way is to put your suggested changes into the talk section of the article and then wait for feedback. When a consensus emerges the article will be stronger." NBeale 21:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mongo - I agree with you about WP:BITE. And IMHO relevant facts that are referenced to world-class authorities should certainly not be deleted without discussion. But they will still be true tomorrow. And I am very keen on constructive dialogue - I repeatedly appealed to the rev-ers to give some reason. Well we live and learn. NBeale 12:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording of "General Notice" 3RR Template

(copying your text down here)
How about "Hi! I sense that you are frustrated that your changes are being reversed. But simply re-instating them won't help because you are likely to get hit by the 3RR. The best way is to put your suggested changes into the talk section of the article and then wait for feedback. When a consensus emerges the article will be stronger." NBeale 21:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Was thinking more along the lines of a message with links, something like what's there but lighter wording:

Please note that repeatedly undoing other people's edits (as you are doing in <article>,) can be considered disruptive. The Wikipedia blocking policy states you could be blocked from editing for doing so. The three-revert rule states nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. This also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert. Please revert only when necessary. Thank you.

The part in parentheses would be a only show if a parameter were included with the template. That last sentence may need work, and the "revert only when necessary" is an essay, not even a policy or guideline, but seems useful. *Sparkhead 22:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well let's use your links but lighter wording. What about: "Hi! I sense that you are frustrated that your changes are being reversed. But simply re-instating them (as you are doing in <article>,) can lead you to be blocked from editing (see the three-revert rule). The best way is to put your suggested changes into the discussion section of the article and then wait for feedback. When a consensus emerges the article will be stronger." NBeale 00:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Still don't like it. The "sense you are frustrated" line is simply no good. How about: Please do not repeatedly revert other people's edits, it could be considered a violation of three-revert rule. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. *Sparkhead 12:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That still feels like a Bite! We need to (a) be friendly and (b) offer a constructive suggestion on what the poor editor should be doing. How about: Hi! Simply re-instating your changes when they have been reversed (as you are doing in <article>,) can lead you to be blocked from editing (see the three-revert rule). The best way is to put your suggested changes into the discussion section of the article and then wait for feedback. When a consensus emerges the article will be stronger. NBeale 13:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Review the "General Notice" templates at Template:TestTemplates, which is what I'm attempting to use as a guideline. I'll post a thread in the talk page over there with our last two revisions and get some other input as to whether it's even necessary and if so what form it could take. *Sparkhead 13:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I put a thread in the 3RR talk page here: Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#.22General_Notice.22_3RR_Template. *Sparkhead 13:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 217.158.22.35

Is 217.158.22.35 your IP? *Sparkhead 23:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding WP:3RR, see User_talk:217.158.22.35 and please undo your last revert. Thanks. *Sparkhead 23:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. On Sunday I was getting error messages about "session data" saying that I had to log out and log in. This must have posted when I was logged out. Was puzzled that you suggested I was at 3RR but on close inspection you could count the removal of Kelvin Medal from the Notable Prizes box as a revert (a bit pedantic! the intention was simply to clear up a confusion and it is non-controversial that THIS Kelvin Medal is not a "notable prize" (Not even the Dawkins website considers it so) though the IoP's one would certainly be. I think you have kindly got someone else to undo for me, since I was offline. NBeale 09:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That person undid it on their own without input from me. *Sparkhead 13:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Tx. BTW are you comfortable with what seems to be a consensus between me and Lawrence on Balanced listing of notable academic critics and supporters (see Dawkins talk page)? NBeale 16:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But as stated on the talk page, take care. You might want to discuss any large additions on the talk page or create it in your user space for review before inclusion. *Sparkhead 16:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Dawkins

I'll be more specific on the talk page of the Dawkins article. ;) mensch • t 23:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected Socks

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/NBeale. I've also commented in your 3RR report regarding mensch. You've violated 3RR yourself. *Sparkhead

Note that it has now been officially determined that these people are not "socks" so can we please stick to the issues and not throw insults around? NBeale 07:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the terminology, consult WP. Per Meatpuppet: "A meatpuppet is a variation of a sockpuppet; a new Internet community member account is created by another person at the request of a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues." That's exactly what was done. *Sparkhead 12:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't. I've been wanting to contribute on various subjects in my area of expertise to Wikipedia for some time, and that's what I've been doing recently. User:Rclb

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[6] made on November 1, 2006 to Richard Dawkins

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours.

Using my skill and judegment I assess that there is a fair chance that the anons are your socks; and even by yourself you are close enough. Please back off a bit and let things calm down.

William M. Connolley 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard_Dawkins/Sandbox

You'll want to put this into your own user space as I suggested in talk on the main article. Thanks. *Sparkhead 13:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I believe we met years ago, in Cambridge, when you were a student. Charles Matthews 12:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed - how are you? Donkeys Years - have you seen it? NBeale 15:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Post to Dawkins User Page

WP:NOT. You seriously need to review some of the basic policies and guidelines. *Spark* 12:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what is your problem exactly? NBeale 13:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Per your statement "The carefully crafted consenus we had on the definition of Delusion has been removed by two of the "defenders of the faith" who systematically remove things that may be seen as critical of the Great Man." [7], remember WP:AGF and WP:NPA. *Spark* 16:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think wikipedia practices censorship in regards to the evolutionary position and...

I don't think the evolutionist inquisition at wikipedia will allow criticisms of Dawkins from creationists. I have decided to end my contributions to the article. But thanks for the email. ken 04:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Warning

If there is insufficient support for a change and you cannot revert anymore, asking someone else to make the change for you is inappropriate. This is considered using a “meatpuppet” and is disruptive at best. A glance at your talk page reveals you have difficulty accepting positions different from your own and that you have mad repeated efforts to push your own changes through despite considerable opposition. This poor behavior will not be tolerated. Also, I believe you fill find your arguments carry more weight if you refute their position with logic and rational arguments, rather than trying to insult them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Propriety

Regarding this comment, I thought you might be interested to know that it's generally considered inappropriate, on Wikipedia at least, to round up like-minded allies to help sway a vote, and the discovery of such efforts is usually enough to sway administrators' judgement of the consensus in the opposite direction. Cheers, Kasreyn 07:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kasreyn & co. Thanks. The point is that user put the POV tag up and (naturally) assumed it would stay until the matter was resolved. It was very rapidly removed (on a Friday night) and a vote was called without notifying him. I thought (and still do) that it was reasonable to notify him of this, and to keep the flag up until at least he had his chance to put his case. In no way is this meatpuppetry. NBeale 14:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dawkins

The issues of WP:BLP are nonnegotiable, so any negative material that is put in biographies has to be cited from completely reliable sources. I see that you have been doing this for the most part, but the consensus seems to be against you on this issue. You can draw up and article request for comment to attract new editors to the issues you have concern over, or if you look at the intoduction, is does appear to me that Dawkins is clearly labelled as being:

Dawkins is an outspoken atheist, humanist, and sceptic, and is a prominent member of the Brights movement. In a play on Thomas Huxley's epithet "Darwin's bulldog", Dawkins' impassioned defence of Darwinian evolution has earned him the appellation "Darwin's rottweiler".

Which in my opinion is about as clear an indication that he is a hardnose about his atheism as we can say without slandering the guy. Again, I am not blowing you off, but suggest either an Rfc or possibly moving on to something new. Let me know what else I can do to help.--MONGO 14:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This raises an interesting question, MONGO. What is slanderous about being called an atheist? For example, my brother is a staunch atheist and skeptic and a member of AU. If there were a WP article on him, it certainly wouldn't be slander to call him one. In fact, he might take offense at being inappropriately labelled a Christian (which some might consider a compliment). So isn't this concept of "negative material" somewhat subjective? I mean, if someone accuses Dawkins of raping and eating babies, I think we can all agree that that's negative and BLP would definitely mandate tougher standards. But atheism? That's only negative if you hold the opposing viewpoint. I think the BLP standard should be "controversial" material, not just negative material. That would cover this issue better. Cheers, Kasreyn 19:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith in edits on Dawkins talk.

Regarding your edit of, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Dawkins&diff=prev&oldid=88858682 (last para, last sentence)...offhand comments like this "regarding supporters of Dawkins" are really not in the spirit of WP:Assume good faith. If you have a specific issue with edits with any person or persons then take it up on their page. Ttiotsw 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ttiotsw. What I meant was that when people are listed as supporters of Dawkins in the article detailed references to substantiate this are not required (eg Pinker). Will clarify - thanks. NBeale 21:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism

I've been reading your most recent edits to Creationism, which I don't have any problem with. However I note you include a rather long statement in the references, and don't think this is particuarlly helpful: This does not mean that adherents of this view doubt the truth of the Biblical accounts, their view is that these accounts should not be read as scientific treatises. If this is a sourced position, of course it can be included in the main text, with appropriate references if possible. If it is just your opinion, as original research it shouldn't be there are all. Cheers, --Michael Johnson 08:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simonyi Prof

Thanks for implementing that change re. origins of the Simonyi Professorship. TimRR 22:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

Hi William. I think you may have been misled about these "revert"s. The "third" one was because user Snalwibma posted on Talk:Viruses_of_the_Mind#Additions, about my previous contribution (which had unfortunately got garbled in trying to edit it to meet Sparkhead's objections): "I have tried to make sense of it and have failed. I have therefore removed the addition. If anyone knows what it is trying to say, and can edit it to make sense, please go ahead! Snalwibma 17:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)" As soon as I saw this request I acted on it (at 23:11) and Snalwibma then made some further improvements to the text. I was not therefore in any sense undoing Snalwimba's work, I was specifically doing what Snalwimba asked. I also respectfully point out that even if this and all the other changes were to be considered reverts (though in fact they were attempts to address the objections that were raised, and changed the inserted text substantially in each case)it was only 44 minutes inside the 24 hrs. NBeale 04:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I've now looked at Spark's report and the comments. I don't understand the comment: "Discussion in talk asked for justification for the additions, which was not given." There is extensive discussion on talk - in each case I have replied to requests as soon as possible. Perhaps you were misinformed about this? NBeale 04:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You have 4R, and not for the first time. Please learn caution William M. Connolley 09:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi William. Thanks. I honestly think this is unreasonable - we'll see what the community thinks in due course. BTW can you explain your comment "Discussion in talk asked for justification for the additions, which was not given." There is 2,742 words about this on the talk section of which I contrubited 484 (and would have contributed more but for the block)? Thanks. NBeale 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi NBeale! For the record (and because you asked me specifically on my talk page), no, I would not count your reversion of my deletion of those two paragraphs as a revert. You were indeed doing exactly what I had suggested on the talk page. But this is hardly the point. In the circumstances it might have been wiser to address the range of issues raised by a number of editors, not just to correct the syntax, and to discuss first on the talk page. Snalwibma 08:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice you're still pursuing this, which of course you're welcome to do. However... next time, just wait before doing things which are, or like like, 3RR. Its simpler all round. These things are seldom as urgent as they seem at the time William M. Connolley 13:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding reversions[8] made on December 4, 2006 to Viruses_of_the_Mind

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

Next time it goes up...

William M. Connolley 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Positive Contributions

NBeale, you're equating "addition of material" to "positive contribution". You consistently ignore policy and add content that falls outside the realm of the article, reliability guidelines, and is in conflict with the consensus, even to the point of adding material while it is still under discussion. Your latest addition to World view doesn't belong. You're defending a religious person's belief in a god, not defining the topic. --*Spark* 17:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, NB - I have just spotted your contribution on the village pump page, viz: ... One Editor's "footnotes and glosses on minor points" (etc...) can be another Editor's "inconvenient facts that people are trying to hide". I was going to reply there, and then thought maybe I'd do it here instead (not sure why - maybe because it seems a rather specific issue that I don't want to make too big a deal of). I think one of my problems with some of your additions has in fact been that you put (IMHO) too much stuff in footnotes. I would argue that it is you who are trying to hide them by footnoting them (as well as making the thing harder to read). Why put it in a footnote? If it's worth including, include it where all readers can see it at a glance. A footnote sometimes looks like trying to sneak something in by the back door. Or a cunning way of having the last word. It looks fishy. A footnote is a good place to put details of sources, but it is not the right place for something that is a bit dubious POV-wise, or for something that is "probably not really worth including but I want to have my say at all costs"! Snalwibma 18:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Snalwimba: Yes I'm possibly a bit over-keen on footnotes (my book has 175 of them) but I think the idea of them is to put 2nd level information which a reader might want to know but which would break up the flow of the main body. So if a reader wants to know more, (s)he looks at the footnote. Is there a WP:Policy on this? (BTW you were not someone I had in mind, I think you do make a reasonable number of constructive contributions. And I really don't want to personalise this issue). NBeale 18:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Impossibilities

Have a question for you that isn't relevant on the article talk page. You changed a line from "it is equally impossible to disprove the existence of" to "it is also impossible to disprove the existence of" with the edit summary: '...Also Dawkins does not say "equally" which would be absurd' .

They're saying the exact same thing. Why would "equally" be any more absurd than "also"? --*Spark* 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Spark. It is impossible for humans to run faster than 40mph. It is also impossible to travel faster than light. But it would be absurd to say "equally". NBeale 23:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you see the existence of Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Yahweh, Vishnu, or any number of gods all being equally impossible to disprove? --*Spark* 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Spark. No. There is no reason to think Z, T, A are real, as opposed to Mythological. There is also a profound logical contradiction in polytheism. But pretty well everyone agrees that if the Resurrection of Jesus happened as claimed by c.1bn Christians this would be conclusive evidence of the existence of Y. as interpreted by Jesus (of course like any [alleged] historical fact you can never quite prove whether it happened or not). It is also pretty obvious that if an Ultimate Creator exists this UC is unlikely to be incompetent, so if God exists, one of the major religions is likely to be a reasonable approximation. Even Dawkins seems to agree that, if he had to choose, he'd be an (anglican) Christian. NBeale 07:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)