User talk:David r from meth productions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

David, I see that no one has "welcomed" you to Wikipedia yet. Let me be the first, and please feel free to leave me a message if you need advice about anything. Thanks! TheronJ 19:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello David r from meth productions! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Wikisigbutton.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! TheronJ 19:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

==Early comments==

You have been blocked for persisting with personal attacks at Talk:Johann Hari. The policy here against personal attacks will be enforced, against those who disregard it. You have been blocked for 24 hours.

Charles Matthews 20:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

jaco♫plane 14:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johan Hari image

Hi, I had a look at the site you linked to ([1]), but unfortunately I can't see under what license the image is there. There are several Creative Commons licenses, and we can only use the "Attribution" or "Attribution / Share alike" licenses. Images that have a "Noncommercial" or "No Derivative Works" can't be used (since they would not be allowed to be used on Wikipedia mirror sites like answers.com). Still, I agree that this is a much better image and would like to see it used in the article. Do you have confirmation that it is licensed under the proper CC license? That would be great so we can put this dispute behind us. Cheers, jaco♫plane 14:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, thank for your message. Unfortunately, the image on flickr is not licensed under a creative commons license. If you look on the right, under "Additional Information", it says "© All rights reserved". If that were a creative commons image, it would say "Some rights reserved.". See this image for an example. I see that he has tagged the image "Anyone who wants can use this", but that is not a real license. I'm sorry that this is proving so tricky, but it's really necessary. If I allow this image to be uploaded it will most certainly be deleted by another administrator within a few days, which is not exactly what we want. I've left a message on the image page explaining how he can remedy this situation. It should take all of two seconds for him to select the right license, and once this is done I'll upload the image immediately. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 18:37
Perhaps you could mail him again asking to take a look at the message I left. I've also removed the old image for now. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 18:45

[edit] Mediation

Have you initiated this, dave?Felix-felix 14:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Talk Page

Is for talking to me, dave. Other edits there will be erased, as I see fit.Felix-felix 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Warnings from your talk page

Generally frowned on, dave-especially block templates put there by admins. You probably didn't know that-but I'd probably restore them, if I were you.Felix-felix 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Hmm. Thanks, I'll put them back. I'll tell you something else that's generally frowned on in wikipedia: inserting lies into entries, blatantly trying to impose your POV on entries of people you hate, imposing your own political bias, insulting real people as sockpuppets... I could go on, and you probably did know not to do it. The way you are disregarding the wiki rules and authorities is appalling.

David r from meth productions 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As you like, dave. Usually form to reply on the other person's talk page-then they get a 'you have new messages' message when they log in.Felix-felix 10:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, it's not "how I like". When did your obsessive hatred of Johann Hari begin, Felix? David r from meth productions 12:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


He's wrong on both points. You are quite entitled to remove anything you like from here. And if someone puts a message on your talkpage you can reply either there or on their's. It's up to them to watch for a reply on yours.--Docg 14:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My warm fondness for Johann Hari

Began soon after the little tyke starting writing for the Independent. I know what he looks like from the telly, dave-as I imagine many others do too.Felix-felix 15:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Gilad Atzmon

I'm a jazz fan, dave. And he's jewish. Have you read any of his stuff, or do you just like quoting stuff of his out of context?Felix-felix 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Read so much of his stuff that you could only use the partial quote from the frozen WP page? Here's the quote in context; Since America currently enjoys the status of the world's only super power and since all the Jews listed above declare themselves as devoted Zionists, we must begin to take the accusation that Zionists are trying to control the world very seriously. It is beyond doubt that Zionists, the most radical, racist and nationalistic Jews around, have already managed to turn America into an Israeli mission force. The world's number one super power is there to support the Jewish state's wealth and security matters. The one-sided pro-Zionist take on the Israeli­Palestinian conflict, the American veto against every 'anti-Israeli' UN resolution, the war against Iraq and now the militant intentions against Syria, all prove beyond doubt that it is Zionist interests that America is serving. American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world.. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least. Whether the Americans enjoy the deterioration of their state's affairs will no doubt be revealed soon. [2] The emphasis is a little different, don't you think? (in fact, experience tells me that you won't) He's anti-zionist and anti US imperialism, and isn't afraid to use rough language in his arguments. But there again, he is Jewish. I wouldn't criticise a black person for using the term 'nigger' or somebody from Eire calling another Irishman a 'mick'-for example. But of course, this is all about his criticism of israel, not his language toward his fellow countrymen and diaspora Jews.Felix-felix 13:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You wrote This is another of your lies. Here is a direct quote from Atzmon:

"I argue that once you strip Jewishness of its spiritual content you are left with mere racism. You see, I am neither a religious Jew nor a secular one. Thus, I cannot regard myself as a Jew."

So (a) your claim he is Jewish is false, and (b) your claim he is only critical of Zionism, not Jews, is false. - David R 86.129.145.38 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that you couldn't be bothered to sign in again, dave! As for Atzmon-i don't think that you can give up your ethnic identity just like that, and from his own bio; "Raised as a secular Israeli Jew in Jerusalem, Gilad Atzmon witnessed and empathised with the daily sufferings of Palestinians and spent 20 years trying to resolve for himself the tensions of his background." [3]. I couldn't find your quote, dave-where was it from?Felix-felix 16:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


You wrote; It's from here:

http://haloscan.com/tb/thecutter/113481030207466491

This link doesn't work-and moreover looks like a blog comments box-one of your specialities, dave.Felix-felix 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Go to altahrir.blogspot.com/2006/01/beauty-as-political-weapon-gilad.html and then apologise for your transparantly ludicrous claim that this man is not an anti-Semite. But don't do it to me, I don't want to hear any mrope of your lunatic racist ramblingsDavid r from meth productions 12:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, dave-it's an interesting and thoughtful interview-but how does it 'prove' he's a racist? In fact, he points out throughout that he's not. Have you read the interview through?Felix-felix 09:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

He is not Jewish. if you do not consider yourself to be part of a "race", a socially constructed concept, then you are not part of it.

That's an interesting position to take, however I think you'll find that it's an untenable one. Do you think you can opt out of hair or eye colour too?Felix-felix 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How revealing. You think 'race' is a category built into the body and the bone, like eye colour. Only one group of people now hold this view: racists. Everybody else acknowledges that race is a mutable social construct. He's a Jew according to the Nuremberg Laws but not according to him. I know which I believe. David r from meth productions 12:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, perhaps eye and hair colour are bad examples, being purely genetically determined-you can't opt out of being from Yorkshire or being a braying public schoolboy either.Felix-felix 09:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

He is not a Jew, and he is not criticising only Zionists but all Jews. (He has written articles entitled "the Protocols of the Edlers of Zion, part Two). It is hard to see how he could be more blatantly anti-Semitic.

Well, apart from the fact that he's Jewish, which, as I've pointed out before would make the liklihood of him being 'antisemitc' rather remote. And the fact that he says he's not an anti-jewish rascist.

- The Ku Klux Klan say they aren't anti-black racists. No doubt you would excuse them too, provided they said their hatred of Jews was criticism of Israel.David r from meth productions 12:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, no dave-as they aren't black.Felix-felix 09
56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
And Atzmon is not Jewish, except under the Nuremberg Laws. 81.129.158.74 17:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But he does seem to like to use provocative language, I wouldn't use it myself, but as I outlined above, I wouldn't criticise a black person for saying 'nigger', for example-I don't see how Atzmon is any different. Felix-felix 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

For you to posture about Johann Hari, accusing him of advocating "the destruction of untermenschen", while defending this blatant anti-Semite, is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. When did you last risk your life going to Congo, Gaza, the West Bank etc, as Hari does regularly? You are too busy defending racists. - Dave86.129.145.38 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand in awe of Hari's tourist jaunts to Iraq and Israel, dave. Standing for proper standards in WP isn't 'defending' anybody about anything, dave-not that I expect you to understand that.You seem to be in a bit of a bad mood today. Try and cheer up.:-)Felix-felix 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, lots of tourists head to Gaza as it's being bombed and interview Islamic Jihad suicide-bombers. Lots of tourists go to the worst war zones in Congo, where four million people have died, and interview the militiamen who are raping and murdering. Lots of tourists spend a fortnight in the rubbish dumps of Lima with the street-children, in a place the police don't dare to go to.

You are not defending the truth about Atzmon; you are lying about him to minimize his blatant racism. he is not Jewish, and as my quote from him showed, he is not attacking Israelis, but all Jews. Confronted with hard evidence, yet again you go silent.

While Hari is out there reporting from some of the most suffering places in the world, you are defending people who write articles called "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Mark II)."

This is not a bad day, Felix. I have simply discovered what kind of person you are. Before, I thought we simply disagreed. But I am not polite to people who defend racists while accusing consistent anti-racists like Hari of being in favour of "the destruction of untermenschen."

Do not contact me again. If I did not think you were a pitiful nutcase, you would disgust me. David r from meth productions 12:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, dave, strong language indeed!Felix-felix 13:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of us take the issue of defending racists, and inserting libels into wikipedia, seriously. You evidently wouldn't understand. Do not reply. Do not contact me. David r from meth productions 22:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider it done, dave!Felix-felix 09:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Play nice

Hi David. Given that you mention "disregarding the wiki-rules", you'll be aware that those rules involve not using terms such as "pitiful nutcase" to refer to other editors. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are crucial to maintaining harmonious community relations, and contravening them can lead to a block from editing. I'm not interested in the nature of your dispute with Felix-felix, just reminding you there are ways to do things and ways not to do things. It also appears you recently removed warning and block notices from your talkpage without good reason, and these will be restored. You are of course welcome to archive your talk page if and when it becomes unmanageable, and provide a link to that archive. Note that archives should not be used solely for storing warning messages. Thanks, Deizio talk 08:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Deiz - thanks for your message, I take your point. It's frustrating when another user defends racists and inserts libels into an article, but you're right, the correct response is not to talk to this person but to contact the wiki authorities and wait. David r from meth productions 19:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request regarding Johann Hari

Felix, David,

I would be happy to sign on as the mediator in response to the pending request for mediation, but since I've commented a couple times regarding your dispute, I wanted to check whether you had any objections to me doing so. (If you would prefer a mediator with no prior involvement, please feel free to say so -- I won't take offense.) Thanks, TheronJ 17:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I'm open to any mediation, it's very kind of you to volunteer...David r from meth productions 17:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

David, sorry for not updating you. Felix has agreed to mediation, and I have made some initial suggestions on the mediation page, here. My initial suggestions would be that you (1) take a look at that page and tell me what you think; (2) add the page to your watchlist so that you can see if Felix or I add something, and (3) that you cut back a little on the Johann Hari talk page until we've had a little time to try to sort things out. I appreciate that there has been a lot of history, and that the page has been protected for weeks, but think that we should all try to start from scratch and see if we can identify and resolve the problem. Thanks! TheronJ 19:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of disputed points regarding Johann Hari

Hi David, I have put some input into the list of disputed points on Hari's talk page. I have tried to be as balanced as possible, but I am new to disputes and may have added input in a not entirely helpful way. Anyway, I hope it is of use. Mr-Thomas 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I knew I'd get something about it wrong... I've posted on the mediation page now, cheers. Mr-Thomas 20:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Spiked

Hi David. Thanks for you support on the Spiked talk page. The agenda-pushing, accompanied with wild and baseless accusations and attacks on whomever attempts to fix the article (which is frankly beginning to resemble cult-like behaviour) has been going on for many months now, and reverting the user(s)'s edits and vandalism and explaining it on the talk page is getting to be hard work, and is eating up most of the time I am able to dedicate to this encyclopaedia.

I would therefore be grateful if you could help keep an eye on the page, and revert or reword any of the nNPOV additions you will inevitably find. As for the talk page, it has become clear that the user in question is unable or unwilling to understand either basic English or elementary trains of logic, and I have already clearly dealt with the "issues" surrounding George Monbiot several times so from now on I am only going to address specific concerns raised. The user in question looks to be accusing us of sock puppetry, so keep an eye on WP:SSP just in case he figures out the process and get beyond his monomaniacal obsession with editing the Spiked page. Please also see the Suspected sock puppets page I created regarding the user(s) in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Peterthepedant

Additionally, are you aware of anything I can do about this, beyond continuing to edit this page? I've already reported him/they for Suck Puppetry, but the admins don't seem to be paying attention to sock puppetry concerns any more. I am also worried about the effect the accusations will have on my reputation amongst those who just read the talk page and do not follow up my invitation to compare our contributions.

Best regards, FrFintonStack 18:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolving Hari copyright

Hi Dave,

It looks to me that the absolute rock-solid way to resolve the copyright issue is for Mr. Hari to send an e-mail stating:

I own the copyright to the image found at http://www.ourmedia.org/user/120455.
I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify that image under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, no Back-Cover Texts, and subject to disclaimers found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL.

Mr. Hari can send it either to you and "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" or just to you, in which case you can forward it to the permissions-en e-mail address. Mr. Hari should understand that this license will grant the right for anyone to use or modify the image. At that point, we can upload it and tag it as GDFL licensed, and we're done.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.

Thanks, and I hope that helps, TheronJ 15:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! i have sent an e-mail to Johann now... David r from meth productions 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

Dave, would you be willing to activate your e-mail? You can do it by entering an e-mail address in preferences. No one (except maybe Wiki staff) can see the e-mail address unless you respond to e-mail people send you, but if you prefer, you can preserve anonymity by creating a yahoo or hotmail account and using that. Thanks, TheronJ 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, my e-mail is <in page history> David r from meth productions 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Dave - I've removed your e-mail from the lead page to hopefully keep your spam down. TheronJ 13:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature hint

Hi. I'm guessing from a comment you made at Talk:Mark Steyn that you'd like to sign as "DavidR", not "David r from meth productions". If so, the software has a way to do that automatically. You can click on "my preferences" (probably at the top of this page), put
[[User talk:David r from meth productions|DavidR]]
in the input field labelled "signature" and make sure the "raw signature" checkbox is ticked. Then, whenever you type "~~~~", it will be translated to
[[User talk:David r from meth productions|DavidR]] 12:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC) using the current date and time. Of course, you vary the text as desired. Hope this helps, CWC 12:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johann Hari

Yes, I agree - which is why I'm OK with a "was criticized by" approach - it seems to address the notability of the source without getting into the question of quality. Phil Sandifer 23:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But Phil, I think there's two problems with that argument.

(a) These sources fail NOTE, as several wiki administrators have said. 'Private Eye attacks journalist' is a bit like 'Dog Bites Man', it happens all the time

(b) The section is, by Felix's own admission, designed to create the impression Hari's journalistic standards have been seriously questioned. But he doesn't have BLP or NOTE standard sources to make the allegation. So the section fails wiki standards; it creates an impression for which he doesn't have adequate sources.David r from meth productions 10:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

I just wanted to drop by an apologize for misreading your comments. Thank you for your patience. Shell babelfish 10:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johann Hari image

I'm happy to add the image, but I don't see any evidence on the page that it's a public domain image. I've put the old image back in for now - if you can show me proof I'll be happy to upload what I agree is a better image over that one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good good - I was just looking at the discussion, and I remain puzzled - [4] seems to be Johann Hari's Flickr page, but it says the image is copyright (all rights reserved), not public domain. If you have him e-mail info-en@wikimedia.org and let me know when he's done so I'll have a look there and get it sorted out. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll call him in a minute and get him to e-mail straight awya if he can; I think he might be out of the coutnry but I'm not sure and he has an i-phone anyway so should be able to.David r from meth productions (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Uploading images

John Nevard (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)