User talk:Davidkevin/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Davidkevin/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 17:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Citations re Tony Attwood controversy section

You wrote in the Tony Attwood article: "Dr. Attwood has also been publicly quoted as saying that most science fiction and Star Trek fans exhibit personality deficits indicating a likelihood of Asperger's. This rather sweeping generalization is regarded by some as an offensive stereotype, reflecting cultural bigotry on Dr. Attwood's part."

Could you provide some citations/references please? (The link you posted in the Asperger syndrome article does not quite support your claims)  AvB ÷ talk 19:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


I'm comparatively new here and haven't participated in any debate here before, so if this isn't formatted right, I'm sorry.

I am becoming severely irritated at what I have added about the science-fiction/Asperger thing being removed as supposedly anti-Aspie. I am not, having both ADHD and a lesser case of AS myself, and with a son similarly afflicted.

I am anti-cultural bigotry. There is a long, established history of science fiction being regarded as "that crazy Buck Rogers stuff", with a similar lack of regard for those who read it. This whole "that explains the science fiction weirdos -- they all have a personality defecit disorder" attitude is a slam which stains anyone who is a fan of the genre, and it is NOT "neutral point of view" to let a bigotry, even one held by a professional in the field, go unremarked-upon. Try substituting some other group for Star Trek fans in Attwood's remark, like Jews or blacks or Democrats, and see if it still sounds harmless.

Davidkevin 23:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

See the compromise I proposed on the Asperger syndrome discussion page where you also posted the above. Please note, however, that you still need to quote your sources in order to keep the Attwood controversy section as it now stands.  AvB ÷ talk 03:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I must say your reasoning as presented on the Asperger Syndrome discussion page is very different from the one you originally added to SF Fandom, Asperger syndrome and here. Are you sure about the legal/rights/etc. ramifications? If so, your current reading could be the basis of a better controversy section for the Attwood article. Some tweaking would be required, if only because being diagnosed with AS as a child should have no bearing on one's "psychiatric status" as an adult. ("The overwhelming majority of available information on Asperger syndrome relates to children; there is currently more conjecture than hard evidence on how it affects adults" -- Asperger syndrome). FWIW, I hadn't figured in the legal angle as I believe things are different in the Netherlands (where I live) and possibly in Australia (Attwood's home base). I'm now looking up more info on this. If I find something useful I'll report back. Oh, and before I forget, if you haven't done so already, please check out some of the resources mentioned in the standard welcome notice inserted above. Wikipedia has some not-so-intuitive rules one needs to know.  AvB ÷ talk 14:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't find any confirmation of ramifications regarding someone's legal rights when diagnosed with Asperger syndrome. So unless someone comes up with external sources, this cannot be used in Wikipedia (see Neutral point of view). I also didn't find any reports on negative reponses to Attwoods Star Trek remark. How about you?  AvB ÷ talk 14:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
You have a lot of damned nerve telling me, posting from the Netherlands, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, that since you supposedly can't find a link to an account of employment discrimination that it can't be mentioned on Wikipedia when I have directly experienced it myself, here, in the United States, where I live and you do not.
Remember the adage, "Write about what you know"? Well, you *don't* know in this case, and it infuriates me that you presume that your supposition is superior to my direct experience.
Davidkevin 09:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I've asked for someone neutral to mediate. AvB ÷ talk 13:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

I have closed the RfC on Tony Attwood - see the discussion page.

Please accept this invitation to start over and grow some mutual respect. Just say the word here or on my talk page - or feel free to ignore. Your call. AvB ÷ talk 00:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False Invitation

What part of "quit stalking me and my edits" do you not understand?
Leave me and my work alone, or I will report you as a stalker.
Davidkevin 22:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I have posted a wikiquette alert over this.
Also, please do not alter the text of my invitation. I have reverted your edit to the original version posted by me. AvB ÷ talk 01:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Inasmuch as it is my considered opinion that your "invitation" is not genuine, but merely an attempt to create the appearance of reasonableness to third parties who might read it, I believe the word "False" better conveys the true meaning of your invasion of my User Talk page.
Yet again, I request that you leave me and my work alone.
Davidkevin 02:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not "your" work. See WP:OWN. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
David, I suggest next time you have an "edit" open, you scroll to the bottom of your browser page and consider the note: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Anything you feel strongly enough to regard as "my work" should not be submitted to the Wikipedia. The moment you click the "Save page" button, you lose control. There is no "my work" here. There's just "our work." It's just the nature of this beast. Mark K. Bilbo 16:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. I have been and continue to be aware of the ongoing editorial process which makes up Wikipedia. My request was specifically for **her** to leave my work alone, and to cease stalking me, not that nobody could touch my sacred prose.
Davidkevin 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False Warnings

This article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dealing_with_vandalism) says that removing warnings from one's User Talk page is considered vandalism as Wikipedia defines it. I didn't know that, so I have reverted these bullshit charges.

I find it enormously annoying, however, for my own User Talk page to be misused in this way, which is what I suspect the reason is for them being put there by her in the first place.

To which person in authority do I request the removal of these libels? Does anybody higher up even give a damn, or can any wikistalker just Warn, Ban, or Block me on her whim without my having any recourse?

I have posted a Wikiquette Alert of my own with regard to AvB, for what it's worth, in the hope of getting the attention of somebody who can do something about this.

I could use some help here!

Davidkevin 08:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] First warning

+ - Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. + - *diff - *diff + - AvB ÷ talk 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not an administrator. You have only been a Wikipedia user for less than three months. You have no authority to warn me in any way about anything.
Refrain from further threats, harrassment, wikistalking, manipulative postings, and abuse of Wikipedia process. Stay out of my Talk page. Don't write to me. Don't impose your agenda on my edits or articles. LEAVE ME ALONE.
Davidkevin 01:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Second warning

+ - Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. + - *diff + - *diff + - *See also the response to the first warning above, and specifically the explicit "Don't impose your agenda on my edits or articles" - this after I have taken Davidkevin through a mediation process and an RfC with a clear outcome. + :: AvB: - AvB ÷ talk 02:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Your false pretense to authority you do not possess will gain you nothing. Your actions -- this very posting on my User Talk page in violation of my express wish that you do not -- show that your intent with regard to Dr. Attwood is not truth but cover-up, not information but static, not truly neutral point of view but a desperate need to have your fan-subject not be criticized regardless of the legitimacy of that criticism, not proper Wikiquette but manipulation and abuse.
It's a sad thing to see.
I continue to request that you cease this behavior: stay out of my User Talk page entirely, stop stalking my edits, stop harrassing me, stop making false accusations aganst me.
Davidkevin 04:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information

Whoa! I suggest everybody just calm down. Take a deep breath. Relax.

Now, I don't have time now to dig through edits and figure out who is being harrassed here, who is being abusive, etc., so let me just inject some information, particularly answers to some of Davidkevin's questions here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings.

  • Anyone can use the warning templates. Users are expected to use them responsibly and appropriately.
  • Just because there's a warning placed on your page doesn't mean you will be blocked. The warnings attract attention from Administrators, who can block you. An Admin isn't going to block you without checking into the situation first, though. So, relax, don't panic. If the warning is false or unjustified ask someone else to remove it for you.
  • Do not remove warning messages from your talk page yourself. If the warning was appropriately placed, any Administrator can immediately block you for doing so. Don't risk it. Ask for help.
Okay, if I put the false accusations back, who do I ask to remove them? It is my firmly held opinion that they were placed there strictly for the purposes of intimidation and harrassment, as part of an increasingly strident campaign of abuse. I fully expect her to ban or block me any time now, if she does in fact have the ability to committ such an abusive act.
Davidkevin 07:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Personal attacks are not permitted. If someone is attacking someone else, the attacks are to be edited out, per WP:RPA. It's better, though, not to remove personal attacks against yourself. Stay calm and let someone else take care of it.

--Srleffler 07:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to echo that. Every editor has the right to use those warnings, and every editor can call on an admin to enforce them if there is a breach of policy. The way to handle controversy is to discuss it on the article's talk page, and remain calm and civil. Which is not always easy. I have had a stab at a compromise version of the text at Tony Attwood, please take a look. But also please be aware that personal attacks will result in blocks, and that when assessing whether or not to block the fact of your having been warned is what is imnportant, not who issues the warnings. We all live by the same rules here, there is no difference between admins and other editors apart from the additional buttons.
Note that I for one recognise the legitimacy of the warnings above. If you make any further personal attacks, I can and will block you. I see no evidence of malice on AvB's part, and plenty of evidence of strong opinions on your part. Consider the possibility that you may not be the best person to judge the neutrality of your own contributions. Beware of the tigers.
Also, Wikistalking is diifferent from what is happening here. You are not being "followed around" so much as being reverted when you add the same topic to more than one article. The text you are adding is contentious, and will be contentious wherever it goes. I see no evidence of AvB personalising this, but you do seem to be personalising it. You shouldn't. It's just a garden-variety edit war (or maybe edit skirmish in this case), we see them all the time when points of view clash. NPOV is usually somewhere between the two warring factions, but not always. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the public shaming and the threat. Nice to know that NPOV doesn't apply to *me*.
I have to disagree about the stalking, as she is now messing with the science fiction fan article, a topic about which I believe she knows nothing as she isn't an sf fan. I honestly believe she can't stand to see criticism of Dr. Attwood, period, regarless of how justified it might be.
As for contentiousness, I remain seriously concerned about Dr. Attwood's comments, regardless of how minor you personally perceive them to be. As an internationally known expert, his statements can be introduced into legal procedings which can destroy lives. People can lose security clearances, employment, child custody, or control over their own finances on the basis of false association between Star Trek and science fiction fandoms and Asperger Syndrome. Even if they are simply the *examples* of fixations you purport them to be, his casual use of them is careless, and his repeated use of them over the course of several years does lead one to think he believes they are significantly related. Science fiction has been referred to as "that crazy Buck Rogers stuff" for many decades, and here is a mental health professional who is saying, in effect, yes, interest in that genre is evidence of mental illness. It is not a small matter.
Davidkevin 17:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You are confusing NPOV with your POV. They are not the same. You have just reinserted "some have seent his as a form of inappropriate mass diagnosis" into two articles: you know that without a citation (Some? who? name them) this is unacceptable. I have read the original document, the supposed "mass diagnosis" looks to me very much like an illustration in readily understood terms - a single throwaway remark in a very long document. He is not saying that all trekkies have Aspergers, just that there is a significant correlation (correlation does not imply causation). And to be honest I don't think he'd have said it if he didn't think there was at least a grain of truth behind it: there is after all a world of difference between someone who collects Star Trek DVDs and someone who learns Klingon. So, take it to the Talk pages. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That's nice, since I don't do either of those.
Look at the edit record again. In the edit for Trekkies of 05:01, 28 January 2006 YOU put in
Asperger's syndrome expert Dr. Tony Attwood has commented that obsessive fandom may also be a sign of Asperger's syndrome, suggesting as an illustration that conventions of Star Trek fans or railfans might be thought of as "reunions for people with Asperger's". Some have seen this as a form of "mass diagnosis".
All I added was the word "inappropriate", which I only did to make the point more clear. Do Administrator's privileges include the right to make false accusations?
Since I evidently will have to jump through hoops to keep the undisputed fact that he said what he said from continually being censored, what, for you, is an acceptable citation of people objecting to it? Who qualifies? How many people? Where?
Those last are honest questions, not sarcasm. I am crossposting this reply to your User Talk page only to make certain that you see it so I can get the answers, since it is not clear to me whether you are Watching this page or not.
Davidkevin 11:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
And you put the same paragraph in science fiction fandom in the edit of 05:07, 28 January 2006, not me. Again, please don't falsely accuse me.
I did edit your phrasing into the Asperger syndrome article, but only out of frustration after getting no reply to my request that you do something similar since you didn't like my attempts.
Davidkevin 12:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
In your edit of Tony Attwood of 04:22, 28 January 2006, self-described as attempting to make it NPOV, you wrote:
== Asperger's and certain interests ==
Attwood notes a strong association between certain types of interests and Asperger's syndrome. In a talk in 2000 he illustrated what he describes as the "courtship" phase of Asperger's by reference to Star Trek conventions, calling them "reunions for people with Asperger's" - a classification he also extended to train spotters in the UK similarly characterised [1]. These statements have been repeated since.
Although clearly intended as illustrative of a class of readily-identified behaviours, these statements give to some the impression of being a mass diagnosis of thousands of people of having a pervasive developmental disorder merely because they are fans of a particular television program. Attwood is clear that it is focus on the interest itself over and above the people who share that interest which he considers as a marker; nonetheless, these remarks have proven unpopular with some "trekkers".
Do you still see what you yourself wrote as acceptable? If so, then why not just place it into the articles on Trekkies, science fiction fandom, and Asperger syndrome? It states my objection and yet minimizes it in a way which seems to fit your view of what Dr. Attwood said, leaving the reader to make her/his own determination.
Would that be acceptable consensus?
Davidkevin 12:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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 an article to a previous version 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.

Right back at ya --DragonWR12LB 08:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok we're done, I removed what was on YOUR talk page but I kept what was on MY talk page. I refuse to remove what was on mine however you are right in my error of reposting what was on your page. --DragonWR12LB 08:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Eldrad must live!

Hey, David. I recently put a {{fact}} tag on your mention that "Eldrad must live" was an in-joke among midwestern Doctor Who fans in the '80s. It's not that I necessarily doubt that it was, it's just that I'm not sure that it's either verifiable or Wikipedia:Notability|notable]]. It would help if you could cite a source mentioning the joke — perhaps an old issue of the DWFCA newsletter (what was it called?) or an old USENET post? If we can't cite an external source, we risk violating the no original research rule. Again, I hope you understand that this isn't an attack on your truthfulness — it's just that we need to be able to verify anything in a Wikipedia article. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


I can't cite it, it was an oral joke, based on pronunciation, and as such never appeared in print, as the point of the joke would be lost in that medium.
I guess that means it gets chucked down the Memory Hole, even though it really happened.
Davidkevin 18:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The perfect martini

The edit summary about "not being notable in and of itself" wasn't referring to the martini, but to the "defabrication" note I removed. I removed the "too much vermouth" detail for different reasons: while there certainly is a lot of stuff about the perfect martini in Western culture (and considering my educational and cultural background, the suggestion that I'm culturally biased against that is a bit odd), it really doesn't relate to a plot summary in an episode of Doctor Who, and at best it's an unnecessary detail. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll accept that the "not...notable..." remark applied to something else, no problem, but just as Decker asked Kirk "How do you define 'unwarranted' ?" in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I ask you "How do you define 'unnecessary' ?" Possible personal bias on my own part notwithstanding, given the abundance of cultural lore, I think it adds a detail which would likely bring a smile to the average reader, just as the line of dialog itself presumably does for the viewer in the episode. I think it does add value in that way.
Davidkevin 09:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I just don't see how it's at all useful. To quote the Fourth Doctor in The Pirate Planet, "What's it for?" Is an encyclopedia supposed to bring a smile to a person's face or provide facual information? But enough rhetorical questions. That being said, I have no strong feelings about it either way, so I've restored it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Butterflies and kittens aren't useful, either, but they're nice to have around, he said with a smile. As for the either/or question you posit, why not both?
In any case, thank you both for your courtesy and for the re-revert.
Davidkevin 10:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My "Upsetting Intervention"…

Per the German userbox solution, {{User old and crusty}} was moved to {{User:shiny and new}}

I am busy fixing userboxes which have been moved according to The German Solution. If you check your user-page before the change, you will notice a couple of userboxes which look like the example here, which have been fixed after the change. The other stuff is an artefact of the tool I am using to effect the changes, which removes all unnecessary white-space and should actually have zero effect on the display. I have tried without success to distinguish any significant changes other than the updated userboxes, and other colleagues report the same. If you can point out to me exactly what I have "broken", that would be a kindness and I could avoid doing it to anybody else's page. TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 08:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LJ PoV

I removed content that I asked for citation on. We do not include all criticism of a site, corporation, or otherwise unless it can be properly cited. If you noticed what I removed, you also noticed what I added which was a blog post by a verifiable employee of six apart in the breast feeding issue that occured. If people want to draw conclusions about how people reacted to that, they can do so from reading that blog. We don't draw conclusions, put for theories or use weasel words to place PoV in articles on Wikipedia. --Crossmr 05:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, it appears (with the exception I mentioned) that all the content you've removed is critical of LJ management. The blog post by an employee of Six Apart promotes the "company line".
The idea that only Six Apart employees can post content which may be cited is inherently biased. It appears to me that whether you realize it or not, you are engaging in a pattern of POV reverts and deletions, and again I respectfully request that you examine your pattern.
Davidkevin 05:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:SOAPBOX#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and see the other comments I left on the LJ talkpage. I'm well aware of my pattern. Wikipedia is not a platform for a group with an agenda to air its grievances. If those grievances ever draw enough attention to be sourced in a credible fashion they can be added to the article. Wikipedia has standards, and if what you want to include, or think should be included can not meet those standards, that's unfortunate. I've done this on all articles I edit, any unsourced opinion/comments/theories/conclusions/etc are given a reasonable amount of time for someone to provide a source on it, and its removed/cleaned up to meet wikipedia standards. We don't toss the policies out the window because we think someone's criticism of the company/website/theory/etc is valid. --Crossmr 06:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
And you'd like to talk about pattern of behaviour. We're engaged in a debate regarding proper citation on the article talk page, and an unassociated 3rd party removed the text from the article citing reason. You re-added it without providing a valid source or addressing those points. I'll assume good faith, but many would interpret that as your attempt to ignore reaching any kind of concensus regarding the material and push it on the article regardless. --Crossmr 06:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] npa

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. You may also wish to read WP:CIVIL. The rejection of the material you want to include is nothing personal. As myself and Mdwh said if you can find a proper source it can be included. --Crossmr 14:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your claim

I find your accusation that I'm abusing the rules a bit of a personal attack. Just because you want to include material you can't source properly is no reason to start accusing me of abusing the rules. Perhaps you need to re-read WP:OR, WP:V and several of the other policies on including content in wikipedia again, but we don't relax the rules just because you think the content should be included, especially on policies that are the cornerstone of wikipedia. Schmucky was able to go out and find sources for the breastfeeding material, as such, it remains. Its not a complicated process. If you want to include a theory, put forth an original idea, define a term, introduce an argument (like a criticism), or several of the other things on this list WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F You need to bring a citation. If you cannot, its original research and cannot be kept in the article. The policy cannot be misinterpreted as it clearly states These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. So while you, or I, or a dozen of us may agree that some term means something, without a citation it fails the original research test and must be excluded. The complimentary policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth also has a very clear definition of what may be included. This is also a non-negotiable policy. The first paragraph very clearly defines the goal of this encyclopedia and what you wanted to include flew in the face of that. This spells it out very clearly The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth. These are not just good ideas, these are binding policies for inclusion of content.--Crossmr 00:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I would be more inclined to believe you if these policies were enforced as stringently elsewhere as you enforce them in this one particular article, and if it didn't appear that your pattern of these deletions enforce a particular point of view.
Rather than make the mistake of claiming my perception is an objective fact, I have asked for an Administrator's review.
If you want to personalize this review request into a personal attack upon you I cannot stop you from doing so, but that is not my intent. My intent is that facts not be disincluded for capricious, arbitrary, or rules-abusive reasons. An unbiased administrative review will help in this regard, I believe.
I also request that you please cease making unverifiable accusations in my User Talk page.
Davidkevin 01:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I enforce these policies stringently in any article I visit. I can't visit them all. There are also well over a milion articles out there, I'm sure you haven't visited them all to see how stringently it is applied across the board. There are some articles where people get away without citing anything, but any article I've been to as traffic picks up on them, content starts being questioned. Also if it wasn't your intent to dig to me with an attack, you simply could have written "using" not "(ab)using". I also have no idea what you're talking about unverified accusations. --Crossmr 01:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


There's a somewhat similar issue in your 08:20, 21 June 2006 addition to List_of_fictional_expletives. I wouldn't mention this if you hadn't tried to reprimand me in my Talk page, since my check-in comment sufficed, and I omitted any mention of your error in the article itself, and didn't mention you by name in the comment. But it does show that you need to learn the importance of proper sourcing: There's no way you could have made your claim in good faith if you'd examined the source before posting.
FlashSheridan 16:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
People like you strike me as why Wikipedia has a bad reputation in some quarters. I've read that book a dozen times, and wrote what I wrote in my entry entirely in good faith based on a reasonable reading in context and some idea of what Heinlein was intending. If you had just rewritten it, fine. But you were compelled to rewrite it further just ninety minutes later, and had to stick in a bad faith jab at me to boot. This kind of Obsessive-Compulsive action drives good writers out of Wikipedia as other editors like you, to paraphrase Heinlein speaking through Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land, "pee in it. then like the flavor."
Davidkevin 04:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing in the original text (which I cited and you should have) to verify your claim. If you had checked the passage before posting, you could not possibly have made it in good faith. Even if you sincerely believed that your memory was correct and you had "some idea if [sic] what Heinlein was intending," your unverified conjectures have no place in an encyclopedia; a supposedly "good writer" who cannot understand the distinction between his ideas and verifiable facts should be "driven out" of the Wikipedia.
(If any bystander is concerned with this issue, e.g., for disciplinary reasons, let me know; if you don't have access to The Door into Summer, I'll email enough of the text in dispute to settle the matter conclusively, without violating fair use.)
This sort of completely unsupported but supposedly sincere reliance on vague recollections was discussed at the BayCon Wikipedia session, and I stand by my claim there that it poses more of a threat to Wikipedia's reliability than vandalism and violations of NPOV, which can be readily detected.
FlashSheridan 06:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


A vague recollection of a conversation back in May at a rump session held at a convention 1500 miles from my home which I did not attend is adequate evedence of nothing.
Davidkevin 07:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Minor edits

Please don't mark an edit where you remove a tag as minor. A minor edit is strictly an edit such as correcting a typo, etc. Mackan 02:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As the tag was inappropriate in the first place, removing it seemed minor to me...and still does. To each his own.
Davidkevin 04:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No, "to each his own" is not a Wikipedia policy. Please read [2].Mackan 06:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Please don't edit war. See the three revert rule. In general, in is preferable that there not be any external links in the body of the article, and cited information should not be removed. Thanks. Ekajati 22:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the three revert rule, and I respectfully suggest that you take care to not violate it yourself. Also please note WP:CIV, as it is incredibly rude to put an insult into an Edit summary field.
Davidkevin 22:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't put any comments intended as insults into the edit comment field. Perhaps you'd care to point it out? Ekajati 01:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism on your User Page

Hi, I just reverted your User Page due to vandalism by User:67.189.93.116. You can check your history to see the changes.

Hdt83 05:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, your courtesy is greatly appreciated. If ever I can do you a service, please let me know.
Davidkevin 18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Mattisse/Timmy12

Hello. Just letting you know that an RfC has been opened on Mattisse, here. As it provides strong circumstantial evidence that Timmy12 is a sockpuppet of Mattisse intentionally using two computers to evade checkuser, I thought you might want to comment. I don't really care what side you weigh in on, but I know you've been in a position to observe at least part of the situation and any view would be helpful. —Hanuman Das 11:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hello!

Please read my response to your post on the Donald Trump talk page -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 07:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC).