User talk:DavidYork71

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The majority will never replace the man. Just as a hundred fools do not make one wise man, so a brave decision is not likely to be made by a hundred cowards." - Quote from a mid-20th Century Euopean statesman [Kindly don't remove]

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

Contents 1 The image 2 Continued disruption regarding Yoga 3 Blocked 4 User:BongHitz4Musa 5 User:Amatullah33 6 Community Ban 7 Message for David 8 Sockpuppets 8.1 Blocked indefinitely

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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. Gnangarra 07:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

:::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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is only necessary to address justifications for the block, which are:1.objections about a decorative image, and 2.the allegation of disruptiveness since the expiration of the last block.DavidYork71 09:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

David York based upon what I'm seeing here (even User:Arrow740 is talking about your unacceptable editing), a call for your community bannishment would probably succeed at this point based upon the habitually disruptive nature of your involvement in the project here. (→Netscott) 09:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an unblock request challenging the justification described by the blocker, and the length of the block. It also highlights how imposing the block traduces her earlier pronouncement of a 'warning'DavidYork71 09:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not challenge the block again as it is a waste of time for everyone. It is unlikely to succeed due to the level of disruption you have brought to this project. A community ban will be imposed if you do not stop your disruptions. --KZ^{Talk • Contribs} 09:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

David some of your contributions have advanced the knowledge base of wikipedia, but more recently and with apparent resolve you engage in deliberate actions just to annoy other editors thus you've become disruptive. Maybe you should take this time to have a retrospective look into the past couple of months and find why you've taken to these disruptive ways. You'll be welcome back at the end of your block with the ability to move on from this, while also knowing that the community doesn't tolerate your current behavior and will issue longer even indefinite blocks if necessary. Gnangarra 10:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:BongHitz4Musa

DavidYork71, despite productive contributions in your history, it would not surprise me to discover that you exhausted the community's patience.Proabivouac 08:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

David, I've extended your one week block to one month for sockpuppetry to avoid the block. The previous shorter blocks obviously have made no impression on you at all and so I feel that you have left me with no option but to apply a a longer block. Your behaviour is just ridiculous. All you're doing is wasting our time. Please give this some serious thought. Sarah 09:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice pics you've added to this page - it's real shame though that the swastika got hijacked by the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Merbabu 09:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Swastikas must go. I shall remove them again.Proabivouac 10:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Our patience will only last so far... Continue making disruptive and offensive gestures on your talk page, and a indef. will come your way. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Amatullah33

Wow you must be really having fun david SatuSuro 11:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Community Ban

DavidYork71, continued block evasion, image trolling and vote stacking with sockpuppets is unacceptable. You must candidly acknowledge and engage with the community's concerns or you shall rightly be community banned.Proabivouac 11:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

'Sometimes paranoia means having all the facts' - William Burroughs. Sure I detect the hate-in and the personal spiting directed at me: Mobbing. When I edit while blocking threats are still under appeal it's called 'sockpuppeting'. If others defend content and perspectives raised by me, they're judged because that associates them to me rather than on the merits of the content. Let me list all the things I'm willing to feel sorry for to make everyone happy:

• Putting time and consideration into GA reviews
• Pursuing copyright clearances and supplying illustrative images
• Balancing efforts of religion-glorification
• Counter-softpedalling coverage of permissions for the oppression of children, women, animals, slaves, and nonmuslims arising from Islam
• Supplying referenced content (including images) from reliable sources in appropriate places
• Promoting and encouraging articles for GA and FA
• Numerous new article raised by me and doing well
• Keeping disrespect out of talk and edit summaries
  
  

As for swastikas they're symbols of life and eternity. As for Hitler right I'll place the quote atop my talk page to define the aspect of his character that I endorse.DavidYork71 13:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

David. I've been following this mess since a couple of days now and didn't want to intervene because of me being too busy and also because Sarah has been dealing w/ your case.

This is the situation. On one hand, i've interacted w/ you in the past and that was positive and appreciated your manners and civility. On the other hand, what i've been witnessing lately is plain disruption, trolling and sockpuppetry from your part. If i have to make a judgment i'd surely be very concerned about your wrongdoings and not give a damn importance to your prior positive attitude which has lasted for little time and gone w/ the wind.

• We accept the verdict of the past until the need for change cries out loudly enough to force upon us a choice between the comforts of further inertia and the irksomeness of action. - Judge Learned Hand

• You cannot have a proud and chivalrous spirit if your conduct is mean and paltry; for whatever a man's actions are, such must be his spirit. - Demosthenes

• The reputation of a thousand years may be determined by the conduct of one hour. - A Japanese proverb

• Remember, people will judge you by your actions, not your intentions. You may have a heart of gold -- but so does a hard-boiled egg. - Anon

Now, whether you stop all that immediately or you will face harsh actions. Next time, it will be indef and if you persist your name would appear on Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard which is just next door at left. I am sure nobody would defend your case as it is shown in this talk page. So please, enjoy the 1 month wikibreak (it is already mentioned in your userpage) and come back w/ a new spirit. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Message for David

David, some of your edits on Islam were very good. I believe you should have been more careful to make sure you followed policies. Wikipedia will miss you on the Islam related articles. I hope you can talk to the admins in getting your ban reversed and come back and this time not violate any policies. --Matt57 20:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

David, just so you know, each time you create a sockpuppet to evade the month long block, your block is reset. If you continue to create sockpuppets, you will be effectively indefinitely blocked. You are leaving us with no option but to seek a community ban which will apply to you, the person operating these accounts, and not to any single account. Please reconsider your behaviour because you are only making things much harder on yourself. Sarah 11:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

You have just been blocked indefinitely for evading the earlier 1 month block many times by using many sockpuppets. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)