User talk:NCdave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:


Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkSoul 06:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3 revert rule

You have broken the 3 revert rule. Any further breaches will result in a block. If you find yourself in a simular situation in future the wikipedia disspute resolution process may prove useful.Geni 05:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terri Schiavo Page

Dave,

I am writing you this message in order to try to find some common ground on the Terri Schiavo affair. I respect that you have your point of view, and I respect and commend you for being so dedicated and committed to what you believe to be right. At the same time, I would like to apologise for perhaps saying a few harsh things which I might not have said had I had time to think about them properly first.

However, your recent changes to the article perplex me, and make me question whether you are indeed interested in writing a quality encyclopaedia, as you claim, or whether you just want to put forward a particular point of view. My complaints can be boiled down to:

  • A complete lack of regard for WikiStyle conventions. Your contributions look messy, straggled, and plain ugly. This particularly applies to the "External Links" section, which looks like a dog's breakfast after you've finished with it, covered in seemingly random links, chunks of italicised text, and grammatical abuse.
  • A refusal to accept community consensus with regards to bias. If you read the talk page, there is clear acceptance that the article has too much of a "pro-life" slant, and that slant has no place within an encyclopaedia. Yet, you continue to rail against this, filling the article with great masses of the Schindler family's claims, none of which have been backed up or proven.
  • I find your editing fo the Wikiquette page interesting. Might I ask with whom you conferred on the matter, before stating that talk pages are a place for deciding truth or falsehood, and altering longstanding Wikipolicy thusly? I don't doubt that this was a widely discussed consensus move, but I would be in your debt if you could point me towards the discussion.

That's all for now. I hope that we can get along and ensure that the Terri Schiavo article is a quality article without any significant POV.

Lankiveil 07:47, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC).

Sorry about the style issues -- I have no sense of style. The "grammatical abuse" is in your imagination, though.

When "community consensus with regards to bias" is that the article should be a Felos propaganda piece, riddled with false statements and blatant bias, then you are correct, I refuse to accept it.

When I see something that is poorly written or ambiguous, I try to help out by fixing it. My Wikequette edit was just that, as you can see: a clarification of ambiguity, in conformance with the obviously intended original meaning. You're welcome. NCdave 20:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh well, she's dead now. Go pray or something, just as long as you stop fagging up wikipedia. Yes I know this is a blatant personal attack, but I don't care because you have contributed nothing to this online encyclopedia. I cannot continue civil discussion with an individual such as yourself. Your blatant hypocrisy under the pretense of neutrality makes something inside me object, and I'm almost completely amoral. You are worse than a troll; at least trolls don't honestly believe the bullshit they spew. You reported TCOL for the 3RR violation only because he threatened to do the same to you. You make up facts and cite spurious sources such as the National Review or random "Save Terri" sites, then claim they are infallible mountains of truth. Your behavior has been nothing but immature, ignorant, and close-minded. In conclusion, go fuck yourself. AngryParsley 15:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for summing up what everybody was thinking. Personally I think you went easy on him. --Teknic 16:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you could have gone a little more extreme on him. Regardless, you've won a free internet. Thanks for summing up our feelings. Look at it this way, Dave. You still got hope hanging on a big toe. Ghost Freeman 16:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Dave obviously has strong and passionate feelings about this matter. Despite the fact that he's gotten a lot of "rough treatment" and dished some of it out himself, for the most part he's been a constructive editor and has contributed some interesting information along the way. I may take issue with some of what he posts, but I do admire his tenacity. Wjbean 03:22, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

[edit] Supporting edits

Hi Dave, I noticed that you've been making some edits to articles (such as Wikipedia:Wikiquette) to support your arguments on the Terri Schiavo talk page... It's always great to see more people getting involed in the wikipedia process, but it isn't approiate to go making edits just to support your position in an a debate, or at least it's not a great idea to go redefining chunks of wikipedia when you're a fairly new user involved in a hotly contested issue. ... It just doesn't give people the right impression of your intentions. I've reverted the changes that I thought were troublesome.Gmaxwell 09:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh. Gmaxwell, you know perfectly well that my edit was merely a clarification of an ambiguity, not a change of the intended meaning. The "before" uses the words "right and wrong" which can be interpreted in two ways: as value judgements (which was the intended meaning), and as synonyms for "true and false" (which was an obviously unintended interpretation). I edited it to make clear which meaning was intended, as you can see. NCdave 20:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BTW, here's an up to date link to NCdave's Wikiquette edits. NCdave 20:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment

Thanks, Cvaneg, for reverting 66.52.193.147's "call dave at work, here's the number" addition to my user profile. That explains why I got a harrassing anonymous phone call at work today (well, yesterday, now). (I also got a similar email.) This is the work of one of the partisans for Michael Schiavo, who don't like what I have to say on the Talk:Terri_Schiavo page. Sweet folks, eh? Unfortunately, he also put it in the history comments, which is unremovable. NCdave 09:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Someone vandalized your user page and I rolled it back for you. Mike H 05:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Vandalism is such a loaded term. I prefer to call what I did embellishment. --AStanhope 05:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Whatever you call it, it was not your place to edit his user page with what you edited. Mike H 05:38, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Your right, comedy is much more important than accuracy. I like NCdave's original page. Fucking hilarious. Teknic 15:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schiavo comment on my talk page

I already heard most of your comments from legitimate news sources, thanks for the input. Your comments, mostly insinuation and hypotheticals, were much too wordy so I really didn't read it word for word. Regardless of what type of bastard Michael Schiavo was, he was Terry's bastard, to her great fortune. I pray to God that my husband takes care of me in the same fashion as Terry, has the courage that maybe my parents wouldn't, if I am ever in her situation. Game over baby.... If I were a vegetable, I would be glad my husband would get on with his life and have many kids with any woman he wanted in my stead. If my life was over, his shouldn't be. Revmachine21 13:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • She's right! --AStanhope 21:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Revmachine21, do you hope that if you are disabled your husband will kill your pets so that he will not be encumbered by responsibility for caring for them when he wants to move in with his girlfriend? NCdave 04:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comfort and Consciousness

I noticed that on the talk page of Terri Schiavo you seem to think that the fact that Schiavo was given painkillers is proof that Terri really wasn't in a persistent vegetative state. I think you are missing something very important here.

Let me restate your argument:

  1. The hospice said Terri was in a PVS
  2. People in a PVS don't feel pain
  3. Therefore, rationally, Terri should not have been given painkillers if what the hospice said was true.
  4. Therefore, the hospice is lying.

But statement four needs another qualifier: "If the hospice is perfectly rational, then the hospice is lying." And that qualifier is obviously not true. Doctors and nurses are people, not robots. Most people (including myself) can't help but feel empathy for other humans. That means that people will instinctively perceive another human in a situation that would be uncomfortable to themself as "uncomfortable", "in pain", "suffering".

One thing to note is that many of the visible responses to pain are reflexive. So someone can react to pain without being aware of it. (Even amoebas are capable of reacting to stimuli, and only panpsychists would claim that microscopic organisms are conscious.)

As you said, Terri was given drugs to "quiet her". But that does not mean that she was conscious, or that the hospice thought she was conscious. It merely means that, despite their knowledge, the staff of the hospice could not (nor would they want to) throw off their empathy. So they made an effort to "make Terri comfortable", even though they knew it was more for the benefit of themselves (and anybody else in the room) than Terri.

Why do we "make comfortable" comatose patients? Why do we try to not be cruel to animals that we don't view as self-aware? Why do we lay the dead on cushions? We do so because we are human, not because we assume consciousness.

Now, some people might bring up the hard problem of consciousness in response to these actions. (How do we know if Terri is conscious or not? We medicate her on the off-chance that she is suffering even though we know that is impossible.) But I think that is merely because people have an easier time admitting the fallibility of their knowledge than the irrationality of their emotions.

Not that I'm saying that irrationality is bad. Perfect rationality leads to a world that is devoid of meaning (although excessive irrationality does the same thing). I certainly felt empathy for Terri Schiavo, even though I knew Schiavo felt nothing.

I hope we can discuss this in a calm and reasonable manner. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:55, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)


For most of 15 years Terri Schiavo had a standing order for analgesics to relieve menstrual pain. There's no way that her caregivers believed that she did not experience pain. She behaved as if she experienced pain, which is all, existentially speaking, we know for certain about anyone else's experience of pain. When someone behaves as if they are experiencing pain, the only rational conclusion is that they are experiencing pain, even though you can't prove it in an absolute sense.

Also, take at look at the Exit Protocol that her hospice doctor wrote up for her in 2001. Take special note of the instructions to use analgesics for symptoms of pain and discomfort: "Monitor symptoms of pain/discomfort. If noted, medicate with Naproxen rectal suppository 375 mg. Q8 prn." If you tell me that you don't think that means that he thought she could experience pain, I won't believe you. NCdave 04:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


That's standard procedure even for the comatose. Such procedures are not for the comfort of the unconscious, but for the comfort of those around them. One of the things it does is make the patient seem more comfortable. Even the unconscious can seem to be in pain. "Making them comfortable" makes them seem more comfortable, which comforts the families and loved ones of the patients (as well as the other patients and hospital staff).

It is intuitive to believe that someone who seems to be in pain is suffering. But sometimes intuition can run counter to fact. If, for example, that person is missing most of their brain.

I am new to this, and am not sure I am adding a comment in the correct or useful place, so excuse me if not. Pain is an extremely primal function. It isn't an intellectual activity. I don't think it can be assumed that Terri Shiavo could not experience pain. If a creature seems to be in pain, it probably is. The comment above "Even the unconscious can seem to be in pain." is interesting. I recall reading that even under general anaesthesia, the administration of local pain killers to suppress pain in an operation will significantly improve the outcome. I think it is inhumane to assume pain is not experienced just because a mentally damaged person, or any animal, is unable to verbalize it. Tropix 00:23, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

If you want to make some sort of panpsychic argument that the removal of the area of the brain responsible for consciousness might not have removed consciousness, then why would dying remove Terri's consciousness? (Certainly that's the religious belief...)

Why don't you call up a local hospice or hospital and ask them if is standard procedure to medicate terminal patients who are known to be comatose or in a persistent vegetative state? --L33tminion | (talk) 05:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)


L33minion, somebody has been lying to you. A patient who is unconscious does not react to pain stimulus, and so there are no "symptoms of pain/discomfort," and therefore no analgesics can be given in response to such symptoms. Nor are analgesics customarily given to comatose patients, simply because they cannot feel pain or react to pain. For example, see [1] which is a reference to a study of the use of analgesics and sedatives in terminal patients from whom life support has been withdrawn. The abstract notes that, "Patients who did not receive medication were comatose and considered incapable of benefiting from sedation and analgesia." In fact, sedation to unconsciousness is commonly used instead of analgesics, to give peace to patients who cannot be made comfortable with analgesics.

Also, the claim that Terri was missing most of her brain is untrue. Two of the neurologists that George Felos selected testified that that was the case, based on examination of her CT scans, but the two Felos-selected neurologists contradicted each other. One said that most of her brain had been replaced by "spinal fluid." The other said that most of her brain was "scar tissue." Obviously, at least one of them was talking nonsense: scar tissue and spinal fluid do not look remotely similar on a CT scan.[2]

In fact, neurologists aren't qualified to interpret CT scans, anyhow. That's a job for radiologists. The two radiologists three radiologists that I know of who looked at Terri's CT scans both all concluded that her brain was significantly atrophied, but not nearly as bad as Felos's handpicked neurologists claimed, and doubted that she was in a PVS. Radiologist Thomas Boyle, M.D. (host of the award-winning CodeBlueBlog web site), who has interpreted over 10,000 brain CT scans, wrote, "I have seen many walking, talking, fairly coherent people with worse cerebral/cortical atrophy. Therefore, this is in no way prima facie evidence that Terri Schiavo's mental abilities or/or capabilities are completely eradicated. I cannot believe such testimony has been given on the basis of this scan." NCdave 21:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requests For Comment

The guy who first nominated you hasn't bothered to inform you (not really good etiquette), but you have been put up for RFC. The page is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NCdave. Proto 11:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually would have. I had other things to do at the moment, and it's not good etiquette to pass judgment on others' etiquette skills, really. Mike H 11:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
You're right, and I apologise. Would it be poor etiquette to point out that your etiquette in complaining about my etiquette on judging your etiquette was not good etiquette either? Really? ;) Proto 12:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Now my head is just spinning :) Mike H 12:40, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

I noticed you flagged these edits: [3] [4] and as minor. In reality, only the 2nd one was minor, as it was tweaking a typo from the first edit. I personally have no opinion on the article and this is not about whether or not the article deserves those tags, and as you can see I have never editted it. Please see Wikipedia:Minor edits for further clarification. Cheers. Burgundavia 09:40, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A potential compromise

I'm willing to make a compromise with you because I don't particularly feel like running you off wikipedia, which some others feel this rfc may do. And, despite what you might think, I don't particularly want you as an enemy either. If you come back to the Terri Schiavo page, and if you make a collaborative effort with the other editors, I will withdraw my support for rfc. -Professor Ninja

That's what I've been doing all along, Ninja. NCdave 09:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The amount of evidence against you is lengthy enormous, ... -Ninja

It is non-existant. I'll tell you what, you pick one or two of what you think are the strongest examples of my supposed misconduct, from that list of over 100 at [5], and I'll rebut them. I don't have time to go through the entire list.
I've already pointed out that the 1st item in that list of supposed examples of my misconduct is actually an example of me working with someone of a different POV, to try to reach a concensus, by accepting a strong argument and politely rebutting a weak one. The supposed example of misconduct was given as simply this link, with no indication of what I was accused of doing wrong: POV warning.
I asked what can be the complaint about that? At that section I wrote only two short notes. This comment was one of them:
The only way to make a NPOV article about a controversial topic is to include factual information supporting all the POVs. If information that is cited by adherents to one POV as supportive of their POV is systematically deleted from the article, then the article becomes biased. That is why I have consistently ADDED missing information to the article, rather than deleting information that other people have contributed. Several of those here who support killing Terri take the opposite approach: they just DELETE the information that is inconsistent with their bias. NCdave 12:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What could possibly be wrong with that??
And this comment was the other:
Agreed that "world renowned" reflects POV; I've deleted it. The evidence for battery, however, is compelling. I've added much of it, with lots of supporting links. NCdave 12:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's it. That's all there is that I wrote in that section.
One of the doctors supporting the Schindlers was described in the article (by someone else, I think) as "world renowned." In my comment I noted the evidence that Terri had been battered, and I agreed with Fox1 that describing a Schindler doctor as "world renowned" reflected POV, and told him (Fox1) I had deleted that phrase from the article, because it was POV-biased in favor of the Schindler family. How could anyone supporting the M.Schiavo POV object to that? But some folks are sure that anyone who disagrees with them is not merely wrong, but evil. NCdave 09:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...and I suspect that that's only because in two months you've never had a disciplinary action taken against you; they're a slap in the face and they can serve to smarten anybody up. Consider this a peer disciplinary action. You have undoubtedly made excellent contributions in the past. However, that doesn't excuse your other behaviour, and you need to understand this. You've made everybody jumpy with your edits to the talk page and articles. Work with people to achieve consent; that's all anybody's ever asked. -Ninja

When I have carefully and laboriously discussed in advance what needs to be done to the article to make it accurate and npov, the result is that my edits are STILL instantly reverted, generally without comment, by people who did not bother to participate in the Talk page discussion. NCdave 09:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People call you out because of your history. Take it, and prove them wrong. I'm frankly tired of wading through the diffs to see what you've done, and I'd rather just achieve a compromise with you. -Ninja

I would love to achieve compromise. How about, as a first step, we agree to leave the "disputed" tags in the article, until some compromising actually happens? After all, there can't be any honest dispute about the fact that the accuracy and neutrality of the are article are disputed. Right? NCdave 09:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Try to remember a few things:

1. People aren't here to kill Terri or support her death. We're here to make a relevant article concerning her life.

I wish I could believe that. I understand that you have a very strong POV, and that you think the Schindlers and the doctors and nurses and priests who supported them are untrustworthy, and that Michael Schiavo just wanted what was best for his wife, and that Judge Greer was fair and impartial. But if the article is going to be accurate and npov, it must reflect BOTH sides of the dispute. Where the facts are disputed, it should tell BOTH the Schindlers' version and M.Schiavo's version. Otherwise it is biased at best, and as often as not just plain untruthful.
Ninja, you were not among those who simply deleted my comments from the Talk:Terri_Schiavo page, without even archiving them. But you are among those here who have repeatedly reverted my attempts to bring balance and accuracy to the article, and often posted comments on the Talk pabe about my dishonesty and/or evil intent.
If you are sincere about wanting to work together to reach concensus, then I'm willing to just let bygones be bygones, and work with you. NCdave 09:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. Recognize your own bias; you undoubtedly have your beliefs and that's fine. But beliefs and facts don't always mix, neither do speculation and facts. The speculation might be true, but it has to pass an evidence test. If you feel a conflict of interest coming on, ask another editor to look at the section and see what needs to be done.

That's why I include so many references, to support the information that I have contributed. NCdave 09:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3. Two wrongs don't make a right, or two POVs don't make an NPOV. When it comes to speculation and criticism, give everybody a fair share. When it comes to hard facts, deal only with the facts. Don't couch your own criticism in weasel words. If you feel there's valid criticism, cite it concisely and include it. -Ninja

I very much agree, except that an article which is about a contentious issue must fairly include both sides. Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views[6]. The current Terri_Schiavo article does not. NCdave 09:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

4. Apologize. People take being slighted amazingly well when a person admits they overstepped their bounds. They'll usually agree they helped escalate it. Only the most asinine of people really believe somebody's beyond redemption.

I agree.

5. Relax, don't jump around the talk page so much. State something cogently and move on. Acknowledge rebuttals. Offer up pieces of evidence or documents as such, not as absolutes that must be obeyed. Acknowledge conflict of interest even if it comes from a POV you agree with. It comes from all sides.

Please understand what a conflict of interest is. "Conflict of interest" is not the same thing as "prejudice" or "predisposition." A conflict of interest occurs when someone's own interests run counter to his obligations.[7]
Familial or comradely affection is not conflict of interest. There is no conflict of interest inherent in a person making medical decisions on behalf of a patient that he or she loves.
Nor is there a conflict of interest if, for example, an outspoken "right to die" advocate is the lawyer hired to argue for ending Terri's life, nor if an outspoken "right to life" advocate organizes protests in defense of her life, nor if a physician who is a practicing Christian gives a medical diagnosis, nor if a physician who is a new age spiritualist gives a medical diagnosis.
None of those are conflicts of interest. An example of a conflict of interest is when someone is responsible for medical decisions on behalf of a patient, but stands to realize a financial (or other) gain if the patient dies.

6. Don't misquote people or misattribute statements they've made. Be charitable; if somebody says something that can mean two things, take it the polite way instead of the condescending way.

To the best of my knowledge, I never have and never will misquote anyone here or misattribute any quotes. I have repeatedly been accused of misquoting or inaccurately paraphrasing, but every one of those accusations were false.
Contrast that with complaint #11 against me on the RFC page, about the edit I made in Wikiquette. That's CustomOfLife/Mike H.'s (unsigned) complaint. He accused me of editing Wikiquette to justify my POV, and said, "Only after much reverting and discussion on the talk [8] did he edit in something compliant with what Wikipedia is."
That's just plain untrue. What actually happened is that I read Wikiquette for the first time, and noticed an ambiguity. I could see what it was intended to say, but I also saw that it could be misinterpreted. So I fixed it, to make it clear and unambiguous, without changing the original intended meaning one whit. It was a very small change, just a clarification.
I was just trying to help. Some thanks I got.  :-(
Here's the history: [9], and here's the Talk page commentary: [10]
This was my first attempt (March 20) to fix it: [11]
It was reverted without comment by Gmaxwell.
Just for the record here: I left a message on your talk page at the same time I reverted it... so much for truth and accuracy. But I guess we shouldn't be shocked to see you trying to rewrite the history of rewriting policy. :) --Gmaxwell 00:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Just for the record, you reverted it without any comment on the Wikiquette Talk page, and your Edit summary said simply "rv." What you posted to my talk page was just a false accusation:[12] NCdave 18:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On March 28 I tried again, with almost the same wording, but this time with an "edit summary" comment that said what the purpose of my edit was: "clarify: right & wrong can mean good & bad, or can mean true & false. True v. false is, of course, entirely appropriate topic for discussion on Talk pgs"
TheCustomOfLife/Mike H. immediately re-reverted it.
So on March 29 I tried a different wording, hoping to achieve concensus: [13]
It was reverted, without comment, by an anon, and the next day TheCustomeOfLife/Mike put a comment on the Talk page wrongly accusing me of changing wikiquette to support my edits elsewhere, by making the wikiquette say that "you can talk on the talk page about things that are morally right or wrong without trying to link it to the article..."
Since Mike H.'s comment inverted the meaning of what I wrote, it seemed to me that he must have misread it. So on March 31 I replied on the Talk page, saying: "You completely reversed the meaning. ... The disambiguated version that I created said, 'The Talk pages are not a place to debate value judgements...' Did you overlook the word 'not'?"
Then I waited for his response. I was hoping he'd say, "oh, yeah, I misread it, sorry." But he didn't reply.
On April 4, SlimVirgin restored my version, but 11 minutes later TheCustomeOfLife/Mike reverted it again, still with no comment.
On April 6, I tried yet another wording: [14].
I also put a comment on the Talk page that said, TheCustomOfLife/Mike H. reverted it again. So here's a version that perhaps will meet with his approval."
Half an hour later Mike H. replied, "That version works just fine." And that's the wording that is there now.
Now some might say that my 4th version (which Mike accepted) was better than the others. But surely everyone can see that all four were clearer than the original text, and that none of them deviated from the original intended meaning. Making a tiny improvement to the wording really shouldn't have required all that trouble, and incurred all that abuse -- abuse that continues to this day, in the form of that false complaint on the RFC page. NCdave 09:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

7. Don't rag on people for things like "Pearson" when they clearly mean "Pearse". It's a simple little typo that anybody can make, and it makes you come off really condescending. -Ninja

It isn't a typo when he does it three times in a row, but I'd have let it go if it were not for the fact that he claimed that I'd been citing "Pearson." That was in a paragraph in which he falsely and outragously accused me "quoting out of context." After an accusation like that, I could have blasted him back. But, in spite of his attack, my reply just said, "Huh? Who's "Pearson?" I never said anything about anybody named Pearson." Really, I thought that was very restrained. I just left it to the reader to infer whatever they wished from the fact that he didn't even get the GAL's name right. NCdave 09:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

8. You don't have to repeat the same things over and over, it makes people not listen to you. Keep sections on topic, tangents really annoy people. Having a conversation about one thing when somebody jumps in the middle of it spouting off is annoying as hell.

If the points didn't keep getting deleted or archived, I wouldn't have to keep making them.
We still have people around here who don't know that Terri could swallow Jell-O and flavored slurries, and who don't know that it took Michael aproximately 8 years to "remember" what he now says Terri told him, and who don't know that for years Michael claimed that she had NOT told him that, and who don't know that when Michael first "remembered" what she had supposedly told him he stood to inherit 3/4 $million upon her death, and who don't know that that four dozen neurologists and numerous other doctors dispute the PVS diagnosis, and who don't know that the judge's final orders were not to remove Terri's feeding tube but rather to deprive her of food and water by any means, and who don't know that Florida statutes did not permit him to deprive her of food and water by natural means, etc..
When someone states, for example, that Terri "couldn't swallow," simple respect for the truth requires that it be corrected. NCdave 09:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

9. Don't go at things with such bombast, because it gets everybody in the mood. A guy walks into a gun store full of customers with a .45 drawn demanding cash, and pretty soon the whole place is riddle with bullet holes and blood. Make your points with gentle persuasion, not outbursts. -Ninja

I'm working on it. Really, I am. See, for example, my gentle rejoinder to FuelWagon about "Pearson" (above), after he accused me of quoting out of context.
But, Ninja, you have not been exactly gentle, yourself. I haven't called anyone here any names, ever. You've called me all kinds of terrible things. Let's call a truce, okay? NCdave 09:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

10. Take a deep breath, walk away. It's hard as hell, especially when you have a point to make. Fire up a random page and do a style or copy edit. Come back. Think about editing the article. Edit the article for style instead of POV. Let somebody else handle it.

etc...

I've never gotten anybody banned in my life, or deleted, suspended, or disciplined. Ever, because I don't believe in it, and I don't feel like starting now. You're already teetering dangerously close with your edit history, and most of that is from me, and I'd feel very responsible if a more drastic action was taken against you. Prove your worth in collaborations, not by turning wikipedia into a pulpit. Professor Ninja 18:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

My purpose is simply an accurate, balanced, npov article. The current article is a wreck. If folks here won't permit it to be accurate and npov/balanced, then at least I can keep disputing the accuracy and neutrality, so that unwary visitors to Wikipedia won't be misled into thinking that they are reading the undisputed truth.
Professor Ninja, just 18 hours before you posted this "potential compromise" item on my User_talk page, over on the Talk:Terri_Schiavo page you falsely accused me of "misquoting," "vandalism," "name-calling," a "campaign of misinformation," "outright lies," and of being "a troll" -- all in just one paragraph![15]
I truly hope that this olive leaf means that in that 18 hour interval you have had a true change of heart. Those attacks were both false and vicious, and (unfortunately) typical. I may be annoying, but I do not misquote, I do not vandalize, I do not engage in name-calling, and I do not lie.
I do sometimes make mistakes, but when I discover them I correct them (unlike Judge Greer).
For example, last month I dug around on the Nobel web site, and I found the page that describes who is qualified to nominate for the Prize in Medicine, and Congressmen aren't. So I wrote to Dr. Hammesfahr and informed him of that fact, and included a link to that web page in my email to him, to prove it, and on March 27-28 I posted comments on the Talk:Terri_Schiavo page[16] stating what I then believed to be the proven fact that Hammesfahr could not have been validly nominated:
Agreed, and Bilirakis is qualified to nominate for the Peace Prize -- but not the Prize for Medicine. So it was probably an honest mistake on both their parts. OTOH, that was six years ago, so Hammesfahr should have have figured it out and corrected his web site by now. NCdave 04:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, his web site says "Medicine," not "Peace." He probably didn't pay close enough attention to what Hannity said. Anyhow, I've emailed him and politely pointed out that the fellow who nominated him wasn't qualified to do so, and I included the link to prove it [17], and asked him to correct the erroneous information on his web site. I'll consider it a test of his integrity to see whether or not he does so. ... NCdave 23:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But then I got a reply email from Dr. Hammesfahr, with a plausible explanation (he said that the Nobel nomination rules had changed). So I posted a correction:
Oops, my bad. It appears that Hammesfahr's Nobel nomination was vaild. See below. NCdave 20:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Update: I've just received an email reply from Dr. Hammesfahr; here it is: ...
So, it appears that Dr. Hammesfahr's Nobel nomination was legitimate, after all. NCdave 20:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is at least certainly plausible. I've asked him for the documentation. Let's see what he comes up with.
I've also emailed the Nobel Foundation, and asked them what the nomination process was and who the qualified nominators were back in January, 1999. NCdave 21:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm still seeking documentation. NCdave 09:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The documentation for the Nobel Foundation is available directly at its website. [18] The process has remained unchanged since 1901. Despite whatever else Hammesfahr might or might not have accomplished, his Nobel Nomination is most invalid. As for the evidence, okay, I'll pick three of what I feel are your biggest breaches. 1) Comparing TCassedy to a Holocaust denier: [19] and 2) Asking the extremely loaded attack question about thinking it's okay to kill six month olds [20] in reference to somebody pointing out that, because the Schindlers agreed that Terri had the mental faculties of a six month old (I am not here to debate the veracity of this) her "ahhhhhhhhh waaaaaa" outburst (I am also not debating the veracity of this) cannot mean "I want to live" because 6-mo.-olds do not have the faculties to make such statements. Essentially, you dogded the argument offered up, and attacked him with a loaded question. 3) And, to be fair, I will give you a weak argument to defend against, a POV edit to the Terri Schiavo article; [21] citing this article [22]. That is one cardinal, not the Vatican. I similarly quoted a Jesuit bioethicist that had taken an oppossing stance in Newsweek which you dismissed because it was, of all things, in Newsweek. That's a fairly large characterization of the entire Vatican (I'm well aware of Catholic policies, too).
I can't comment on the other articles of evidence; they were not added by me and they are thus beyond my purview to argue for.
You understand that the factual accuracy of the article, too, is not disputed. The factual accuracy of all articles here can be taken to be lacking, or inaccurate. What is important is that, in the case of Tropix, Jdavidb, and Patsw, they are working towards improving the factual accuracy of the article instead of merely attempting to throw it into doubt. You undoubtedly have access to a lot of information, and this is important. But bits of evidence do not prove themselves one way or another. For example you offered the Encarta definition of PVS earlier; if this is to be considered accurate than we must assume that Dr. Cheshire's affidavit is inaccurate, since he comments:
There are many behaviors typical for patients in PVS that... could easily [be mistaken] as voluntary.... It is quite common for dedicated and caring family members, hoping desperately for a sing from their loved one, to misinterpret these reflexes as evidence of communication. Such behaviors can include involuntary arousal, eye opening, random eye movements (nystagmus and horizontal scanning), brief eye contact, reflexive withdrawal from a noxious stimulus, movement of the lips or mouth or turning of the head in response to oral stimulation (suck and rooting reflexes which also occur in newborn infants), spontaneous grimmacing [sic] orsmiling or displays of emotion (affective release, usually a momentary gesture), and certain other nonsustained behaviors...)
Both the encarta definition and Cheshire's definition cannot be true, either one is true or the other is. If the Encarta definition is true, then Cheshire is inherently wrong about PVS, and thus his diagnosis is flawed and incredible. If Cheshire's affidavit is true, then the Encarta definition is incorrect and too short. I would more than likely assume that the Encarta definition is untrue and Cheshire (as well as other neurologists) have given a consistent definition of the peculiarities of a persistent vegetative state. Today, however, you have offered the Encarta definition as proof that Michael is lying about pain, or swallowing (all defined as being "felt" or able to being responded to by the patient in a PVS by Cheshire and others). You see the problem? This is not the proper tack to take. Even if you get your way, you have essentially shot yourself in the foot. Imagine if you had all the other editors leave, and you subsequently edit the article to your definition. Another editor subsequently comes along and uses your Encarta definition of PVS, for example, to put in the article that Dr. Cheshire was lying on his affidavit. You see the problem that comes from attacking a position from all possible sides? You end up frequently attacking your own position, as well. All of this subsequent evidence cannot be true, they are in conflict with each other. Since the evidence is primarily being offered up with the Schindlers, they, not Michael, must resolve this conflict as to why evidence x says a but evidence y says b; Michael does not have to defend against this. Please keep that in mind. Professor Ninja 18:05, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three-day block

I blocked you for three days. I don't relish it and I regret that I was forced to do it, but it was necessary. Dave, look at your contribs. Every single one has been to Terri Schiavo or to its talk page, or to the RfC on you. Your edits are very clearly POV, and have come into unanimous opposition on talk. Reverting, talk page rants, and disruption—even in the face of dozens of users telling you otherwise—is unacceptable at Wikipedia. Take three days off and come back. With warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 20:32, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality, the ruthlessness of your POV-pushing astounds me. You mock Wikipedia NPOV standards.
As you well know, my edits to the Terri Schiavo article have been carefully and consistently npov, improving accuracy and balance, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. You, however, consistently work to make that article a propaganda piece for your POV, reverting attempts by me and other honest editors[23][24] to add balance, even to the extent of abusing your administrator privilages to block those with whom you disagree. You and your allied POV warriors won't even allow a "neutrality disputed" or "accuracy disputed" warning tag, even though you know perfectly well that the accuracy and neutrality of the article are certainly disputed.
For example, the fact is that Terri Schiavo's diagnosis was and is a source of enormous controversy The court ruled that she was in a vegetative state, but most of the doctors who weighed in on the issue said that diagnosis was questionable or incorrect (see[25] & [26] & [27]). You know that to be true, yet when I inserted balanced language evenhandledly noting the two competing diagnoses[28], and who supported each of them, you blocked me for three days.
Neutrality, you should be ashamed. NCdave 09:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Dude, when you don't have many friends on here, be nice to the ones you have. I wouldn't talk back to an admin that was trying to politely carry out policy. Ya there are POV problems, but a war isn't always won with harsh words. Saksjn (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Back in Spring 2005 I was very new on Wikipedia and I didn't even know that Neutrality had violated Wikipedia's rules when he sanctioned an editor with whom he was in dispute. Only disinterested admins are supposed to impose sanctions. NCdave (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I clarified some points and defended some of your edits.

See e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo&diff=13643269&oldid=13642978

where we say:

[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=13629402&oldid=13629325)

NCdave's version is described as the 'less POV version'. now THAT is whacky. FuelWagon 03:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The vandal has been reported here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#Current_alerts) FuelWagon 04:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You did not document your claim on that page as well as you did here; I clarified and affirmed some of your claim and overturned other of it here: [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#Current_alerts) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

and: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=0&oldid=13644183

where we say:

209.170.130.127 209.170.130.127 (talk · contributions) vandalizing the Terri Schiavo page multiple times. FuelWagon 03:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC) Fuel Wagon did not list the diff to back up his accusation; here is it: [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=13629402&oldid=13629325) --comments: While I believe it was NC Dave who did the "vandalism," as shown in this diff [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo&diff=13641661&oldid=13641611) by the author of the above, this may amount to less than vandalism. Closer analysis of (apparently) NCdave's edit shows that he got a little talkative -and may have inserted either repetitive or slightly biased comments. (Mention of MCS initially may not be necessary, hence it may be repetitive; also, the breaking of the marriage vows by Mike Schiavo may not have relevance and be slightly distractive or biased.) However, since both sides of the court-appointed doctors were mentioned (those for and against the PVS diagnosis), it would not be fair to only list some "Pro-PVS" doctors that were not court-appointed. In this sense, it would only be fair that some Anti-PVS doctors who were not court-appointed be mentioned to balance those that Mike Schiavo is said to have hired. In that sense, Dave's edit is more stylistic and less vandalism. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Sincerely, --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 05:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator's Announcement

You are invited to participate in the Mediation regarding the Terry Schiavo article. Initial discussion is beginning at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Terri Schiavo

Please stop deleting content from Talk:Terri Schiavo. --Viriditas | Talk 05:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was accidental, caused by a Wikipedia glitch, as I explained on Talk:Terri Schiavo as soon as I saw FuelWagon's message. I'd have restored the deleted material if I'd discovered it, but Fuelwagon got there first. NCdave 06:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, neither of you restored my content. --Viriditas | Talk 07:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, somebody got there first. Yes, I see that he restored some of it and you restored the rest. Less than five minutes after I noticed Fuelwagon's message (and about 30 minutes after my original accidental revert), I did version compares to see what was going on, and what needed to be restored. I could see where I had accidentally reverted messages from three people, including you; but all were restored by then. If they had not been already restored, then I would have restored them.
I've had my Talk page contributions intentionally deleted by M.Schiavo partisans (on a massive scale). However I don't believe in censorship (except of obscenity), and I don't do that sort of thing (not intentionally, anyhow). NCdave 18:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel that I should invite you to respond to this:

I have asked for disciplinary measures against NCDave on Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation#It's time to deal with the bully. I ask for your support.--ghost 20:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work

Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work'

  • Generic Updates Message to other participants: I have imitated Uncle Ed's Q & A method and tried to augment it, and I have declared a tentative (minor) success on the first of seven questions I've presented, thanks to teamwork of many of you in the past, some named in that question. Most of all of other six "Vote on these" items are valid concerns, shared by all, even if we don't agree to the answers. So, I'm asking you all to review and vote on the lingering issues. Also, Wagon has suggested we get both guidelines and examples (role model was the term he used). We all know the rules, but I found one example of a controversial topic that simply shared the facts in a cold, dry method: The Slavery article neither supports nor opposes slavery: It is "just the facts." Thus, I hope the answers I gave to the questions I proposed were correct and just the facts, without an appearance of POV. "Have faith in me," I say (imitating Uncle Ed's similar claim), and I haven't failed yet -the one time I tried: In the http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion, I brought peace, so I expect my method will work here too. So, get on over to The Mediation Voting Center, and vote, for Gordon's sake: I have voted, and so can you.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] southern ocean

Ok so there's non signing red users requiring eternal arguments - but even if it went by another name - the article does look poorer for the fact that the earlier stages of its life (under whatever name) is lacking ...SatuSuro 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit]  :)

--Theblog 02:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile, Theblog, and thanks for your careful and thoughtful work as an editor. NCdave 06:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HPV vaccine

I wrote some comments on the HPV vaccine talk page. Gynecology isn't really my thing-- so, I didn't really have that much to say. Any case, I hope the comments were of some use. Feel free to leave me other messages/questions on my talk-- and/or post to the doctor's mess. Nephron  T|C 05:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Nephron! NCdave 10:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1 week - 3RR - yandman 08:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
If you believe another editor has violated 3RR, file a complaint here. 1 was a revert as it reintroduced the tag you added at 23:16 (see "previous version"). And switching to a different tag (3: "totally disputed" instead of "disputed") does not change matters. Tags also come under the scope of the 3RR rule. Basically, it's clear that you believe this article to be inaccurate, and that's fine. However, edit warring by spamming the page with various tags isn't. I hope you understand, yandman 11:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Now how do you expect me to file a complaint here, Yandman, when you have blocked me from editing? NCdave 14:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I have not violated 3RR! I have been repeatedly reverted by other editors (esp. MastCell, JQ, and Yilloslime) on the Steven Milloy article, but have only done two reverts myself in the last week or more. Please unblock me. NCdave 09:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Referring to the 3RR Noticeboard...

  • rv #1 was NOT a revert, it was an original edit, most of which had been extensively discussed on the Talk page.
My mistake, you are correct, I had that one mixed up with my other un-revert, 23:16. (Those are the only two reverts that I've done in the last week or more.)
  • rv #2 WAS a revert (really, an un-revert), after my original edit was summarily reverted. I accompanied it by a plea asking, "If you have issue w/ something, please discuss it on the Talk page. These edits have been extensively discussed, & consensus achieved on at least most." (My plea was ignored.)
  • rv #3 was NOT a revert. It did not undo the referenced edit, nor any other. I tagged the article with a different tag, to reflect the fact that the article had been made much, much more inaccurate and POV-biased than when I had last seen it. It also amounted to an attempt at compromise, since my attempt to correct the inaccuracies in the article had been reverted. I have read the 3RR rule, and it does not support your interpretation, that inserting one tag is equivalent to inserting another. I read it carefully, and strove to conform with this rule and every other that I am aware of. The fact is that the article needs tags warning that the accuracy is disputed, and there really can be no honest argument about that fact that the accuracy is disputed. Really, yandman, according to WP:BLP, I should have just deleted the controversial sections, but I've been trying to edit conservatively and seek consensus.
  • rv #4 was NOT a revert. It did not undo the referenced edit, nor any other. It was another attempt to tag the article, but with a different tag. The article is full of inaccurate and controversial material about a living person, material which is in some cases poorly sourced, and in others entirely unsourced. Wikipedia WP:BLP rules require that such material be corrected or removed immediately, but MastCell, JQ et al immediately revert all such corrections. Several editors have noted the extreme inaccuracy and bias of this article, so it clearly deserves at least a warning tag. Again, this was NOT a revert.
  • rv #5 was NOT a revert. It did not undo the referenced edit, nor any other. It was another attempt to tag a blatantly inaccurate section of the article, with a DIFFERENT warning tag, after very thorough discussion on the Talk page. Again, this was NOT a revert.


My one and only 3RR violation was over two years ago, when I was new to Wikipedia and did not know the rules. OTOH, MastCell (the complainer in this case) was guilty of a 3RR violation on this same article just a few weeks ago -- June 18, to be precise -- and went unpunished.

The claim that I was warned is incorrect, too. JQ posted on the Talk page, "Note that a further reversion by you will violate WP:3RR." But that was incorrect, so I replied, "Actually, I've only done two reverts," a fact which was not contested. In fact, I've only done two reverts in the past week, anywhere on Wikipedia, and both of those were actually un-reverts. Moreover, I did no other reverts after that. I am not a revert warrior! There are very few occasions on Wikipedia when I have reverted someone else's work, and not without thorough discussion on the Talk page. The two reverts that I did yesterday were both un-reverts, accompanied by Talk page comments, in response to total, massive reverts of work in which I had invested a lot of time.

A majority of the corrections that I tried to make had been very thoroughly discussed on the Talk page. In the case of the DDT section, we'd gone through a very lengthy discussion, and I'd incorporated changes in the proposed section to address every issue raised, and weeks had without disagreement. I noted on the Talk page that it appeared we had finally achieved consensus on it, and then I put it in the article. Six minutes later MastCell reverted it, with no Talk page discussion at all.

Reflexive deleting of material he doesn't agree with is a pattern of behavior for MastCell. Not only did he commit a 3RR violation on June 18, 2007, just two days later, on June 20, he archived numerous "long-inactive threads" (his words) from the Steven Milloy talk page, quite a few of which had had activity as recently as 16 June or later. Typing "Ctrl-F" on the archive page and searching for "June 2007" finds eight comments. Some of them were less than 48 hours old. In each case, the most recent comments were comments that I had made.

The claim that "there is consensus against his [my] proposed edits" is false, as well. I am certainly not the only one to have noticed how awful this article is, and to have tried to fix it. Peroxisome, "Uncle Ed" Poor, Theblog, 66.75.3.244, 88.105.242.190, 202.61.229.85, 147.114.226.172, and others have all remarked that this article is either biased or inaccurate or both. Sections on the Talk page (which I did not create) were entitled things like, "Article is biased against Milloy"[29], "This article is awful"[30], and "NPOV"[31], etc..

What's more, MastCell's fellow revert-warrior, Yilloslime, just DID commit a 3RR violation, today. Each of his four edits were exact reverts, not questionable cases, and that's all he did, just revert:

  • rv #1: [32] exactly and entirely reverted this immediately preceding edit: [33]
  • rv #2: [34] exactly and entirely reverted the combination of these two preceding edits: [35] and [36]
  • rv #3: [37] exactly and entirely reverted this immediately preceding edit: [38]
  • rv #4: [39] exactly and entirely reverted this immediately preceding edit: [40]


Thanks to MastCell, Yilloslime, JQ, and a few others, the Steven Milloy article is an extreme example of violation of WP:BLP, and Wikipedia policy demands that it not be left in that condition. Here's a quote from an editorial critical of Milloy which is reproduced in the Steven Milloy article. I copy it here to show you how blatant the WP:BLP violations are in this biography:

"In the world according to Milloy, any scientific study that does not support the world view where all chemicals are safe is 'junk science', all environmentalists are alarmist, and pollution and second hand smoke are harmless."

Now that is obviously not an accurate, NPOV summary of Milloy's views. It is a vicious caricature, a straw man, and possibly defamatory. It has no place in a Wikipedia biography. Milloy is a respected journalist for FoxNews.com, with advanced degrees in biostatistics and law, who has made a career out of puncturing faulty scientific reports. He does not deserve to have this sort of falsehood told about him in Wikipedia. Nobody does.

JQ (who chimed in on my false 3RR charge) defended that vicious caricature, by pointing out that it was an accurate quote of someone else. That's the main source of all that criticism in the article: quotes and paraphrases from unsupported statements by Milloy's most virulent critics. Here's another example:

The American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation says Milloy's campaign against what he calls "junk science" is a carefully-crafted facade on behalf of the tobacco industry and other elements of big business to mislead the public in order to protect their profits...

Here's another example:

Milloy has been accused by his critics of making misleading and false claims, and of misrepresenting himself as an impartial journalist on health and environmental matters while accepting funding and editorial input from tobacco and oil companies. Critics claim that, in practice, Milloy regularly criticises research suggesting that corporate activities harm the environment or public health as "junk science," while praising scientific analysis that supports his preferred positions.
(the citation for that one is the same editorial that falsely claimed Milloy thins "all chemicals are safe" and "pollution is harmless.")

I can give you many, many other examples of WP:BLP violations and inaccuracies in the Steven Milloy article, but I think you get the idea.

There was, at one time, a "praise" section and a "criticism" section, though there was also a lot of criticism outside the criticism section. The praise section (before it was banished to a footnote in the "books" section) was less than 1/15 the length of the criticism section. I'm not kidding. (I copy-pasted them each and used a character-counter.) Yet, even so, another editor asked, pointedly, "Why is there a criticism section here? The whole article is critical."[41] Which is true.

I've tried my best to help clean up this mess, and I've been very careful not to violate any WP rules (at least, any that I am aware of), but for my trouble all I got was instant reverts, a false 3RR charge, and a 1 week ban. Tanj.
Please unblock me.

NCdave 12:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "You have consistently been caught revert warring and POV pushing. You should use this time to read up on WP:EW and WP:3rr — GDonato (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

GDonato, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE! I have never been a POV-pusher. Never! Rather I have consistently pushed to make Wikipedia articles NPOV, factual, and balanced. I rarely revert -- only twice anywhere in the last week or two, and both were just restoring reverted/deleted material that someone else had reverted. I am by no stretch of the imagination a "revert warrior." In my two years on Wikipedia, with 500 contributions to 75 articles, I have always striven for balance, accuracy, and NPOV. (And I am not silly enough to start a revert war with 4 or 5 reflexive reverters who are pushing their POV in an article and only 2 or 3 trying, like me, to make the article balanced and NPOV.) If you don't believe me, just look at my edits, and the copious documentation that I gave on the Talk page to justify them.
Moreover, the simple fact is that I have only done two reverts, in total, in the last week. "A revert... means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors." I have only done that twice (and both were just undoing other editors' reverts). Adding a tag that has never before appeared at the top of a section to that section is certainly not "undoing the actions of another editor," unless you consider that any change to an article is undoing the actions of another editor -- which, of course, is not what the definition is intended to be. The tags that I added were not reverts, because they did not undo other editors' changes. That's the definition of "revert." The accusation that I violated 3RR is false.
Please unblock me! NCdave 14:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Are there any Wiki administrators out there who actually care about following Wikipedia's rules??
It is a fact that I did not violate 3RR. I did only two reverts, not four.
It is also a fact that MastCell, the editor who filed the false 3RR complaint, has repeatedly inserted WP:BLP violations into the article, and that he violated 3RR on this same article a few weeks ago. The complaint noted that:
"MastCell has a long history of reverting on the steven_milloy page; this includes acting in concert with others to suppress cited information, put in wrong information, all with perfunctory attention to giving reason in edits. See the discussion page for numerous examples of MastCell refusing to communicate. MastCell has made at least 6 reverts on the 18th [June, 2007]... Peroxisome 01:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
MastCell's reverts were for the purpose of maintaining poorly-sourced, controversial attacks on the subject of the biography in the article. The "remedy" applied by admistrator jossi was that the article was frozen for a week, with MastCell's reverts intact, and the WP:BLP violations still in the article.


MastCell also blatantly lied in his false 3RR complaint against me, by saying that there was Talk page consensus against my edits. In fact, there was not consensus against any of the changes I made to the article, and the major part of the material I added had been previously proposed and discussed and had achieved apparent consensus w/o any objection raised for two weeks on the talk page! Before putting that material in the article, I noted on the Talk page that there was apparent consensus, and said that I intended to ahead and put the material in the article.[42] MastCell did not respond to that (and still has not). He not only failed to get consensus on the talk page against any of my edits, he reverted them all after just 6 minutes, without any Talk page comment at all.
Please unblock me! NCdave 16:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I wish to contest this block. Adding a tag that has never before appeared at the top of a section to that section is certainly not "undoing the actions of another editor," which means that I did not violate 3RR. Please unblock me! NCdave 20:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I will address only the WP:BLP issue, which has been opportunistically raised here by NCdave to justify his edit-warring. The BLP issue was raised here, and I responded to it at length, the bottom line being that reliably sourced criticism of a public figure acting in his public role does not violate BLP. As no one else shared NCdave's BLP concerns, I suggested he go to the BLP noticeboard to solicit outside opinions if he still felt that violations were being ignored. He chose, instead, to drop the BLP line in favor of other lines of attack (e.g. accusing other editors of vandalism during what was clearly a content dispute). I'm not going to respond further here or be drawn into an argument, but as the BLP issue has suddenly been re-raised to justify edit-warring, I've addressed it. MastCell Talk 18:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Shame on you, MastCell, for saying what you know perfectly well is untrue. As I and several other editors have repeatedly pointed out, the Steven Milloy article is riddled controversial, poorly sourced and unsourced attacks on Mr. Milloy. Some of the allegations against him are provably false, some are just unsupported or poorly supported. I quoted three examples above, of obvious WP:BLP violations. You can't possibly believe, for instance, that blatantly dishonest editorials, utterly lacking in any supporting citations, and written by political extremists with axes to grind, are "reliable sources" for telling Wikipedia readers what Mr. Milloy truly believes, in contrast to what he says he believes. You know perfectly well that such content is impermissible per WP:BLP. Yet you persist in inserting it into the article. NCdave 22:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think MastCell's point was that 1) you think the article violates WP:BLP. 2) You couldn't get other editors to take up your side, so 3) your next step should have been either a) to drop it or b) to take the issue to BLP noticeboard and have fresh eyes take a look. You chose neither. Yilloslime 22:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as you know, many other editors have expressed similar concerns. The fact that this article contains WP:BLP violations is not a matter of mere opinion, because some of the violations are so blatant that nobody could honestly contest them (such as the claim that Milloy believes "all chemicals are safe" and "pollution [is] harmless.")
As for me, thanks to the impositions of the real world, I was away for 13 days. Upon my return, I noticed that some of the content I'd proposed on the Talk page and which had been thoroughly vetted, appeared to have no further objections from any other editors, so I went ahead and put it into the article, along with a few other minor changes and organizational improvements. Six minutes later MastCell reverted the whole thing, and within 10 hours I had been falsely accused of 3RR violation and then blocked for a week. So I obviously cannot take up the issue of the BLP violations at the BLP noticeboard or anywhere else. NCdave 23:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue arguing with you here. I merely wanted to address the BLP issue, as it was being raised as an ex post facto justification. I won't be posting further here. MastCell Talk 23:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually think NCdave has some valid WP:BLP points regarding the article, I've expressed them in talk as well, but apparently I don't count. The problem is, even things he is right about and has decent sources backing him up, he has to constantly fight for due to the heavy bias at the article in question. I do not think I've seen him POV pushing, he has been more responsive to the requests of other editors regarding their comments than most other. The ban seems excessive, especially since most of it was NPOV tags that were removed without discussion on the talk page, in fact, he didn't even get time enough to create the discussion on talk before they were reverted. --Theblog 03:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Theblog. Peroxisome, "Uncle Ed" Poor, 66.75.3.244, 88.105.242.190, 202.61.229.85, and 147.114.226.172 apparently don't count, either. NCdave 16:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I forgot that I had declined a previous unblock request, so I have unblocked you since it posed a COI. Don't do it again.

Request handled by: GDonato (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Note, too, that:

  • I and several other fair-minded editors have extensively documented the problems in this article on the Talk page. Some of the needed corrections to the article which I and other fair-minded editors have attempted were accepted, but many more have been reverted, often without discussion, by MastCell and his buddies. Yet each of my attempts to flag this article as "disputed" was immediately reverted by those who insist on making this biography a "hit piece" overflowing with (often false) criticism of the subject of the biography.
  • Some of the falsehoods in the article are very fundamental. The subject of this biography, Mr. Steven Milloy, is a man who has dedicated his career to (according to no less than National Medal of Science winner and longtime editor of Science Magazine Philip Abelson) "the defense of the truth of science." Yet this outrageously biased Wikipedia article repeatedly and falsely claims that Milloy attacks science. Actually what Milloy attacks is faulty science.
  • What's more, contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, none of the four reverts of my attempts to tag the article were discussed first on the Talk page, and two of them were accompanied by disingenuous and hypocritical edit summary comments asking that I discuss the article's problems on the Talk page, as if I had not already very extensively done just that. (If you don't believe me, just go to Talk:Steven Milloy, type ctrl-F, and search for NCdave.)
  • What's more, MastCell is a persistent revert warrior who was recently (June 18) caught violating 3RR on this very article, but received full forgiveness. Having himself just been forgiven for a clear 3RR violation, he now demands draconian punishment for much less clearcut violations. I am reminded of Matthew 18:23-33.

Please unblock me. NCdave 11:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GDonato

Peroxisome 22:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CSN thread

I have proposed that you be banned from the Steven Milloy article for long-term tendentious editing. The relevant thread is on the community sanction noticeboard. MastCell Talk 22:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption accepted

I have accepted your request to be mentored. Please see my talk page. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, JodyB! I've never had a mentor before!  :-) NCdave 17:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your email

Dave, first of all let me say that I am impressed that you are going down the mentorship path. It shows moral courage. I'm going to reply to your last email here so that your mentor can chime in and correct me if I'm wrong about anything. (Apologies in advance for the long post) You asked me to to explain what behaviour was unacceptable and why here are a few of the diffs and links to relevant policy:

First of all, let me say that I am humbled and grateful that you took so much time to put this together for my benefit, Cailil. You are very generous with your time, and I thank you for it. NCdave 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. [43] - here you speculated on the reasons behind other editors' contributions - this is a breach of "assume good faith". This sounds minor but it is in fact the single largest problem on Wikipedia, unless it can be cogently and comprehensively shown that an editor is behaving in bad faith (rather than following policies such as the biographies of living persons or policy about verification, reliable sources, notability, no original research or [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view) then you must assume that other editors are working to improve the encyclopedia.

    You are right, Cailil. All I can say in my defense is that it was 2.5 years ago, and I'd only been on Wikipedia for just over a week, and was still learning the ropes. NCdave 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    Hmmm... the above comment   [when inserted with a "::" prefix]   messed up the numbering of Cailil's nicely numbered list. How does one go about inserting an indented comment in a numbered list, without resetting the number counter? NCdave 23:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

    I guess by using the <blockquote></blockquote> HTML constructs? I've changed my "::"-prefixed and ":::"-prefixed comments to use nested <blockquote></blockquote> tags. That restored the numbering, but it seems less than ideal, because it causes successive comments to be rendered in successively smaller fonts. Is there a better way? NCdave 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  2. [44] - this is last wordiness. I'm going to own-up to a major personal dislike of this behaviour. In other parts of the internet it could be called thread necromancy and is just bad internet-etiquette. Sometimes its best to let sleeping conversations lie - especially ones over a year old. Otherwise it seems that the necromancer "has to have the last word" - this isn't a policy violation but again people find it irritating
  3. Here you called this edit by Raymond arritt "vandalism" - it is not vandalism. Raymond is correctly removing synthesized material. What is synthesized material? An essay, a piece of original research, a group of points reference to primary sources that are linked together to form an argument. Wikipedia's rules on original research mean that you need to find a secondary source, one independent of the subject (i.e the biography of WB Yeats by RF Forster) and summarize a notable point from that source about the subject. What Raymond removed was a synethsis of points backed-up by primary sources (the junk science website). What he did is in fact the opposite of vandalism. I am an expert in dealing with complex vandalism and Raymond's edit isn't vandalism.

    Cailil, would you please identify what you think is WP:SYN in that section?
    Raymond Arritt was repeatedly asked that question, by multiple editors, but declined to answer. I truly would like to know. I can't see anything there that looks like synthesis to me. Raymond blanked the section just 10 minutes after I added it, and his edit summary was just "(rm WP:SYN, WP:OR per Talk)." Yet (despite his "per Talk" reference) he did not attempt to justify doing so on the Talk page. In fact, he never did. Immediately after he blanked the section, he was asked by multiple editors what was the alleged SYN and OR.[45][46][47] But he refused to answer, saying, "There was no point in adding to what was plainly stated in my edit summary". I pointed out the great lengths to which I had gone before adding the section, to answer all objections and achieve consensus. Another editor asked what was the supposed SYN and OR. I agreed and asked again, "where is the WP:OR and WP:SYN ... Please be specific."[48][49]. No answer. A week later I asked again. Finally, after two weeks w/ no answer, I gave up. So I really would like to know what you think was WP:SYN in that section. NCdave 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  4. [50] This diff shows two things, first you didn't understand WP:3RR and second you were wiki-lawyering (something I personally detest and something that very quickly annoys the community).
    1. First. 3RR means that if you alter a page tendentiously (it doesn't have to be 3 times in 24 hours) you will be blocked. "Tendentious reverts" are any changes (not just pressing revert) that bring the page back to what is (or what looks like) your preferred version of it, in the face of other editors who dispute this version of the page.
    2. Second wiki-lawyering is an attempt to game the system using legalistic argument. It doesn't work. It annoys people. And it wastes time.

      I agree, but I wasn't wiki-lawyering. I just read the rules and tried to follow them. A straightforward reading of the rules indicates that I was not in violation of 3RR, since I did not bring the page back to what it looked like 4 (or even 3) times in a 24-hour period. NCdave 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  5. Talk:Steven_Milloy#Archiving_active_threads - this is tendentious. For instance in this diff it shows a conversation that took place in Jan 06 and ended in July 2006 which you commented on in June 2007. You should have left that comment alone if the topic is that interesting you could have started a new conversation at the bottom of the page. But if you commented just to rebut or argue with the other editor don't bother - the conversation is over.

    That diff just shows a punctuation improvement. It was not a rebuttal or argument with someone. NCdave 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  6. With respect to your own beliefs and perspective I have to say that comments like this are unconstructive - wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum. we are NOT here to debate the rights and wrongs of any issue or subject but to record the "mainstream" reliably sourced and verified points about subjects. - This is hard because it requires editors to be cold, and maybe cold-hearted about edits. There is an essay called WP:TIGERS and it summarizes wikipedia's attitude to strong held points of view. In its terms we admire editors with strong opinions in the way curator's admire stuffed Tigers.

    We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. [...] But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem.

    If you feel passionate about a subject its probably best to stay far away from its Wikipedia article. Passion for subject is a wonderful thing but wikipedia requires editors to be dispassionate about the subjects they edit.
  7. [51] - Never, ever add new comments to an archived discussion. These discussions are closed and preserved "as is" for record.

    Why not? Is there a policy somewhere on this?
    And do you truly mean to say that a temporarily blocked user should never be permitted to answer accusations made against him? That's the result of forbidding comments in archives, when (as in this case) the accused is blocked before he learns of the complaint, and the discussion is archived before the block ends. That doesn't seem right, to me. Does it to you? NCdave 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  8. [52] You say that Mastcell made "defamatory" edits - as yet and I've look through a few months I can find none. It is also a quasi-legal threat to call edits defamatory and legal threats are an indef blocking offence. Site policy is clear on this - don't make legal threats, don't make veiled legal threats, don't make any threats. That said, your remarks are only slightly threatening but in future make sure they have zero threat in them.
  9. [53] This diff shows incivility. Ask yourself what does "Please cease your hateful POV-pushing." add to the conversation? For others it adds nothing constructive and besides being incivil it doesn't help improve the article.
  10. A last point. There are editors on Steven Milloy who are not working constructively on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a battleground any one working to create a group that fight another one is being disruptive. My advice is stay away from them. There are also those like Raul654 who knows exactly what wikipedia is about. Have a look at Raul's laws - esp. No. 13: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie." I know you feel angry at Raul but you should try to get passed this, his is most often a good example.

    That's interesting. I'd not seen Raul's laws. Does No. 13 seem as ironic to you as it does to me, since Raul (who banned me) certainly left no doubt where his sympathies lie? NCdave 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Consider these points Dave. But please don't rush to rebut what I'm saying here. I've been careful in considering the diffs MastCell provided and what I found in your contribs. I'm what Durova calls a wikisleuth, I track down the most difficult to catch vandals. I never consider a WP:CSN case on face value, I've as often refused to support action as I have supported it because I try to conduct as thorough an investigation as possible into the situation.

Dave, you could make valuable contributions to wikipedia when you get to grips with these problems, take a look at the 5 pillars of WikiPedia or WP:EQ to gain a fuller understanding of the site's code of conduct. It is my most sincere hope that you can become a great wikipedian, but I must place this caveat, if you don't turn away from the above sort of bad behaviour more sanctions will come and they would be justified. This is your second chance, grab it with both hands--Cailil talk 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Afterword: just so you know, I think the way you have behaved at Talk:HPV vaccine is an example of constructive editing.--Cailil talk 00:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for the future

I think Cailil has done a pretty good job in summing up the issues that have brought us to this point. The only point that I differ with is the comment about passion. Passion can be a great asset to an editor. In theory you will be have a greater knowledge about the things you are most passionate about. The problem is that our greatest strengths are often our greatest weaknesses. When passion moves beyond knowledge of a subject and enters the realm of emotion only trouble can follow. So I would simply say to use extreme caution when editing something you feel strongly about and be particularly aware of any reverts, challenges or edits that seem to offend you. That could be a sign that you are too involved emotionally.

JodyB, I want to thank you for volunteering so generously to take your time mentoring me on Wikipedia. Even though I've been here for 2.5 years, and have edited many articles, I still get surprised at times by the rules and expectations. For example, I was very surprised when I was blocked for a week for a supposed 3RR violation, when the obvious reading of the Wikipedia rules and definitions would indicate that (most of) the reverts in question were not reverts at all, not even partial reverts. Likewise, I was surprised to read Calil's objection to editing archived material, since I've never seen a policy against that. NCdave 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, let's talk about a couple of hard and fast rules I suggest you adopt. This is only a suggestion and it is designed to avoid any trouble at all. I don't expect you to agree with all of them but I can assure you that if you follow them you will have less friction in the future.

  1. It doesn't matter who was right and who was wrong. You are now topic banned and there is nothing to be done about it. Let it alone and move on. While there may have been some issues involving other people; their conduct does not absolve you of any wrongdoing. In other words, the cry "He did it first" does not work here. As a practical matter there is no way to undo the ban except by spending the next several months compiling a strong record of good and solid work. Only then can we ask that the ban be lifted. It will also appear in your history; but time will cause it to fade.

    Why? Note that the editor who banned me had a clear conflict of interest. Should that not be grounds for lifting the ban which he imposed? NCdave 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  2. Stay away from those who angered you. I noticed this morning that you commented on a checkuser case filed by User:MastCell. Your comments there may not be a violation of the CSN topic ban but it does represent a spillover of that case onto other areas. It's pretty clear to me that a big chunk of what you had to say there was an effort to stick it to Mastcell. Don't do that. When you go after the people who angered you in other forums you show that the topic ban isn't working, that you remain troublesome and you invite further sanction. I would strongly recommend that you discuss with me any interaction you might have with any of the editors you were in conflict with.
  3. Avoid controversial articles for now. There's a certain excitement about editing articles that are controversial - we all know that. It's more fun to talk about the Nazi's and Kluxers than a small town near your home or some State or National park/monument/museum. But for now, I would take a break from controversy and work on polishing your writing skills with less explosive articles.
  4. Be Gentle. There is an administrator here name Phaedriel who is a picture of gentle conduct and behavior. She still blocks, deletes, warns and discusses but she does so with a demeanor that is difficult to oppose. She uses kindness in all her interactions and finds great success in dealing with people because of it. I am sure she gets frustrated and angry but she controls what she says and how she says it. WP:CIVIL is an important document here and I would encourage you to read it slowly and carefully.
  5. Walk Away from trouble. As singer Kenny Rogers sang, "Now it don't mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek..." Sometimes it is best to walk away from an argument that is getting too hot. Any idiot can argue - but it takes a wise man to know when to leave the discussion. You need to be aware of your own feelings and know when someone is pushing your buttons. There is no value in pressing beyond reasoned discourse. Rise above and do not feel like you must respond to every little comment that is made.
  6. Talk to me. I am here to assist you in regaining the respect of the community. Please talk with me anytime there is a tiny question in your mind about whether something is wise or appropriate. I cannot help you if you do not let me. I will watchlist your page here and I will be checking your contributions from time to time.

Now, these things are suggestions. I have no power to force you to do anything. I will enforce our policies here and work to make this the best encyclopedia possible. Work with me and you will soon be back in better or good standing. Good luck! --JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC) [[Category:]]

You are most kind, Jody, and I am most grateful. NCdave 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MastCell

As your mentor, I would suggest you cease any contact with User:MastCell. That includes the checkuser case and your CSN discussion. That's over lets move on ok? --JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blaylock

Blaylock's Wellness Report and his website [54] are published by NewsMax Media Inc. [55].

According to [56] the website blaylockreport.com was created 26 May 2004. The website material was probably written by a NewsMax HTML editor from a bunch of papers supplied by Blaylock's secretary and not written by Blaylock himself.

If you were to read my "latest" Resume written in the 1980's it would seem to claim that I am now working at my old Seattle job, which I have not had for many years after I retired. When Dr. Blaylock retired in 2003, he probably did not update his CV.

Yes, that hurts his credibility and he should correct this problem. I don't want to spend any more time on it, but if you want to ask him for more credible information, you could write to:

Advanced Nutritional Concepts

9 Lakeland Sq

Flowood, MS 39232

(601) 982-1175

I got those from a blog dated Sept 25, 2004 and may no longer be his current address. Greensburger 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Blaylock's Lakeland Square address seems to have changed to (or from ?) 1000 Lakeland Square Extension in Flowood, MS 39232-7650. This address is shared by several companies and individuals including Lakeland Family Clinic, Specialty Pharmacy, Cahoots Party World, etc.

Here are two web pages that gives his middle name as Lane and the year 1971 that he received his MD degree: [57] [58] The second page gives his PO Box address in Ridgeland, MS.

I suggest that we avoid giving his full middle name in the Wiki article so that we can continue to distinguish secondary sources from primary sources.

Here is a chatty note from Blaylock (scroll down to "71") that gives his email address. http://www.medschool.lsuhsc.edu/alumni_affairs/tigerlines I am not going to email him. Greensburger 00:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

On the web site for the Louisiana State University School of Medicine there is this page: http://www.medschool.lsuhsc.edu/alumni_affairs

that invites graduated students to order copies of their transcripts. "Requests cannot be made by 2nd parties." But maybe they will verify Russell L. Blaylock's claim to have received an MD degree from the LSU School of Medicine in New Orleans in 1971. I have not asked them. Greensburger 13:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe my edit to the article Talk page addressed your concerns. Greensburger 18:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for tracking down all this information!
On Sept. 7th I wrote to him at the email address which you found (and at another email address, but that one bounced). I asked, "Dear Dr. Blaylock, I understand from your vita that you were a practicing neurosurgeon for about 25 years, prior to your retirement from neurosurgery. May I ask at what institution you practiced neurosurgery most recently?" So far I've not received a reply, but if I do I'll note it on the Talk:Russell Blaylock page. NCdave 11:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:Christopher russo

Thanks for the critical comments regarding that block. First thing, I want to draw your attention to WP:LINKSPAM: Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. What this means is that links that are not "spam" (noun) in the sense of blatant advertising can still be "spammed" (verb) across wikipedia. Christopher russo clearly was "spamming" the single link, in violation of these guidelines. Next, a third party had warned the user using standard warning templates up to the final warning. This was an unambiguous case of a user being in violation of a blockable offense. The purpose of blocks is not to punish, but to prevent disruptive editing from occurring. In retrospect, I could have kept my nose clean by asking for another admin to do the deed. However, at the time, I felt that I was not blocking due to a content dispute or 3RR or something that I was personally involved with. The spam warnings all came from another user, and Christopher russo was unambiguously in violation. However, in the future, I may want to avoid blocking anyone I have argued with to avoid the public shame of the warning you left on my user page ;) -Andrew c [talk] 15:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I agree with your advice to Christopher Russo, to discuss his edits on the article Talk page. However, the link that he added does not appear to be "for the purpose of promoting a website or a product," and it was pertinent to the article. So it wasn't spam, and he shouldn't have been blocked for adding it, even repeatedly.
But that was not my point. My point was that, as an active editor of the article, you have a conflict of interest when it comes to administrative oversight of the article. What's more, you had been "tag-team" reverting Mr. Russo along with that "third party" that you referred to, just before you imposed the block. So, regardless of whether or not he committed an offense, you, of all people, should not have blocked him.
Ironically, it appears that you also twice[59][60] reverted Mr. Russo without discussion on the article Talk page, even though you put multiple requests on his talk page asking for him to discuss his edits on the article Talk page. Am I mistaken? I've not been involved in this article, so perhaps I missed it. But I see no mention by you on the Talk page of Mr. Russo's edits, which you reverted.
My momma used to tell me, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." Your advice to Mr. Russo, to discuss his edits on the Talk page, was good, and you've often followed that advice yourself w/r/t other parts of the article -- but not w/r/t Mr. Russo's edits. You would do well to reinforce your excellent advice to him by setting the example of following that advice, yourself, w/r/t your disagreements with his edits. NCdave 16:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think your point about the block from two weeks ago is made and Andrew c received your comments quite nicely. Perhaps we should move along don't you think? --JodyB yak, yak, yak 17:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles_for_deletion/List of conductors

How did you reach the conclusion that "the result was delete," for List of conductors? At the time you declared the result, the head count 5-4, which sounds like "no consensus" to me. The 9th person voted "delete." If you'd waited a little less time it would have been a 4-4 tie. If you'd waited a little more time it might have been a 5-5 tie. NCdave 01:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Counting the nominator it was 6-4 at closing, and the delete arguments were more convincing than the keep arguments. AFD isn't a vote. Also, if I'd waited a little more time it might have been a 10-4 result; that argument goes both ways. You're welcome to refer the matter to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you disagree with my call on the debate. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse Helms unsupported claims of Bigotry?

Sen. Helms instances of Bigotry are well documented during his tenure in office. Read the article under controversies and that alone is enough to warrant a label of Bigot. Stop writing half-truths and covering it with the title of encyclopedic literature.


Alvin Harris Grandextrav —Preceding unsigned comment added by GRANDEXTRAV (talk • contribs) 19:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Alvin, the fact that he was accused of bigotry is undisputed. However, I've lived in NC for nearly a quarter century, and I've never observed bigoted behavior by Sen. Helms. The allegations of bigoted behavior in the "controversies" section of the article are all unsourced or poorly sourced, from unreliable leftist sources. NCdave (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dave,

Common sense should tell you that just because Sen. Helms racist policies did not directly affect you personally, does not mean his racist rhetoric and actions toward others were non- exsistant.

Alvin A. Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by GRANDEXTRAV (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Alvin, I have been a careful observer of NC politics for over 24 years, and I'm never observed any racist rhetoric or actions from Sen. Helms. If you think he's such a racist, then why do you suppose he led the effort in Congress to drastically increase the United States' efforts to combat AIDS in Africa? Clinton had no interest, but Helms & Bush made it a high priority.
Also, I see that you have violated WP:3RR to re-insert your "bigotry" charge into the article yet again. Please undo it immediately.
Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). NCdave (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dave,

Increasing efforts to combat AIDS in Africa??? Serouisly Dave, if you think that single effort on the part of Sen. Helms outwheighs his blatant racist rhetoric and lopsided policies towards minorities in his own country during his tenure then you are delusional and i do not care to conversate with you any further on this point.

Alvin A. Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.232.153.118 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Alvin, I do indeed think that the fact of his crusade to save millions of African babies from AIDS greatly outweighs the slanders against him, the imaginary racist rhetoric & policies which you wrongly attribute to him. NCdave (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stickler of truth and accuracy?

In your support of not telling people the entire truth of Sen. Jesse Helms instances of Bigotry , I seriously question your desire for truth and accuracy. Unless of course you share the same racist veiws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GRANDEXTRAV (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse Helms examples of Bigotry

1.In columns, commentaries and pronouncements from the Senate floor, Helms sowed hatred and called names: The University of North Carolina was "the University of Negroes and Communists." (Capital Times, 11/22/94) Black civil rights activists were "Communists and sex perverts." (Copley News Service, 8/23/01)


2.Of civil rights protests Helms wrote, "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights." (WRAL-TV commentary, 1963)


3.He also wrote, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced." (New York Times, 2/8/81)


4.when a caller to CNN's Larry King Live show praised guest Jesse Helms for "everything you've done to help keep down the niggers," Helms' response was to salute the camera and say, "Well, thank you, I think." (Wilmington Star-News, 9/16/95)


Dave,

those examples alone warrant the label of Bigot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.232.153.118 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If the examples were truthful they would be. They aren't. Just repeating every bit of undocumented slander you can find doesn't prove a thing. If there were provable examples of bigotry on his part, why do you suppose that Hunt & Gantt didn't trot out some examples during their multi-million dollar campaigns against him?
If you want to rail against a real bigot, instead of smearing a decent gentleman with false charges, why don't you pick on the Senate's very own Klan recruiter? Oh, well that's awkward, isn't it... because he's a Democrat. NCdave (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse Helms examples of bigotry pt. 2

1.Helms opposed the Martin Luther King holiday bill in 1983

2.After a protest during his 1986 visit to Mexico, Sen. Helms was quoted: "All Latins are volatile people": end quote


and lastly, i write in disgust!

3.As an aide to the 1950 Senate campaign of North Carolina Republican candidate Willis Smith, Sen. Helms helped create attack ads against Smith's opponent Frank Graham, including one which read: "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races." :end quote


Dave,

is this enough? or should i continue to post more?


Alvin A. Harris 144.232.153.118 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)  : )

1. I, too, opposed the MLK Jr. holiday bill. I am no racist. The irony of MLK day is that if MLK Jr. & Washington were judged by the standard that MLK Jr. himself advocated -- i.e., by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin -- then there would be no question about the fact that President Washington was more deserving of a holiday than was MLK Jr.
2. Helms was quoted saying many things that he never said.
3. In 1950 Helms was a 28 year old Democrat. Now, don't you feel a little bit embarrassed? When you just ingest every bit of unproven slander you find, to stoke the fires of your hatred, you end up believing (and repeating) silly nonsense. NCdave (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:American Medical News

Hey, thanks for pointing that out for me, I didn't see the reference there. I removed the no references temp and fixed up the reference link so it appears in a reference list at the bottom of the page. Happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! NCdave (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crisis pregnancy center

Thank you, Dave - This is going to be a controversial topic, and I hope and expect we'll find common ground quickly. It would be, I think, appropriate for that link or something like it to be somewhere in Wikipedia. I do appreciate your support! Simesa (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am contacting you here because I don't want to take up and more space on the article talk page with interpersonal issues. I have admitted to making 1 edit without an accompanying talk page discussion. That would be the 21:21, 18 February 2008 edit. However, like I explained, I thought this was a case of link spam. And editor had gone to 4 or so articles and added the exact same external link, and I also left a message for the editor on the first article I encountered the link. My next edit was roughly 14 hours later. Within 30 minutes of this edit, I posted my talk page explanation. I had started typing it right after I made the edit. But the delay in the post was due to me scouring the internet for sources. I was trying to find information to advance the position that CPCs offer adoption grants and only found that one source in my search. This is explained in that edit. I did receive an edit conflict when I hit "save page" because you had posted your two word "Good call" reply while I was composing my post. Immediately after that, I started writing a response to your post explaining my edit. This was posted minutes after my first reply. After I had finished explaining why I made my edit, I looked at the article to see that you had already reverted some of my changes without having read my replies and this is why I posted my "ACK!" comment (and I can see now that the reason was because you did your reverting while I was still typing up my reply). So I can see your perspective. You were impatient and were unaware that a talk page explanation was forthcoming. Now, can you see my perspective that my first edit of today DID in fact have not one, but two accompanying talk page explanations directed to the corresponding editors whose edits I modified. I apologize that research takes time and that I didn't type faster, but I do take offense at your claims that I edited without discussing. So hopefully we can clear up this stuff, and focus on the meat of the article! -Andrew c [talk] 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Andrew. I see how it happened.
But my momma used to say, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." Please recall that YOU were the one who complained that I edited without discussing, not vice-versa. My complaint to which you take offense was a paraphrase of yours: you complained ("ACK!") that I edited without discussing, when I'd actually been discussing for hours, and YOU were the one who had edited without (yet) discussing.
You complain that I was "impatient and unaware that a talk page explanation was forthcoming." But your "ACK!" complaint came just 5 minutes after my 2nd edit, while I was typing ANOTHER addition to the discussion page. My 2nd edit was 19 minutes after your edit, when you had yet to type your FIRST comment about it on the discussion page -- and you call me "impatient" for that, because I'd not waited long enough for your Talk page comment. How is it that 19 minutes is "impatient" for me, but 5 minutes is not for you?
In fact, I'd been discussing my edit of the mischaracterized and repetiously summarized Waxman report for hours BEFORE doing any edits to the article, and you just hadn't noticed it.
Here's a suggestion. You might have noticed that in some cases my Talk page comments have been almost simultaneous with the corresponding article edits, which say "see Talk" in the edit comment. That's to (try to) prevent someone from missing the Talk page discussion, or jumping in before I get a chance to finish typing. I do it by editing both at the same time, in two browser windows. Rather than editing the article and then posting comments on the Talk page article explaining it a half hour later, why not post them at the same time? NCdave (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion and Mental Health

Thanks for participating in the discussion at abortion and mental health. I have added additional notes on the discussion page regarding materials that have consistently been purged. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.--Strider12 (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note of encouragement. You may be interested that MastCell has developed a list of complaints against me and has opened a request for comments against me.--Strider12 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I

Hello, NCdave. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. MastCell Talk 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, the "accusation" against Strider12

Sorry for omitting "Why don't you" in front of my comment which probably resulted in the misunderstanding. It's an analogy. James Dobson to homosexuality is almost like David Reardon, a source that she likes very much, to abortion. That was at least my opinion and that's why I said it. Please do not take my comments out of context in the future. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See the longer reply at my talk page. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3R

After reading your arguments on the 3R page, I am not sure if I did violate 3R. It was certainly not my intention, as there was much going back-and-forth between us both. At the time, I didn't think that I did violate 3R, and you didn't post the links on my talk page. I have been waiting for your response to my long post on the talk page of the article. I hope that consensus can still be built.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I struck out the comment I made on the 3R notice board. While I continue to believe that the text you inserted about Psalm 39 is an advertisement, this fact may not be relevant to the issue at hand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:IronAngelAlice_reported_by_User:NCdave_.28Result:_.29 --IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, you didn't list the links to the problem edits on my talk page. And we had both been editing the David Reardon page where there were reverts as well. However, confusion on my part is not an adequate excuse, so I self-reverted the revert I did at 21:46 even though you have only listed three contentious reverts.
I made changes to the crisis pregnancy center page last night that I believe will be consensus building. Please look at what was done, and we can discuss them on the talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
What complete nonsense!
Alice, you did three very deliberate full reverts in less than five hours, in each case by clicking on "undo." I then warned you, on your talk page, that you had done three reverts, so that you would not accidentally run afoul of WP:3RR. You replied (five minutes later) "...please stop spamming my talk page." Just one minute after that you defiantly did revert #4, followed over the next hour by many additional reverts (including blanking over 40% of the references in the article).
It is hard to imagine a more blatant and deliberate 3RR violation.
After I filed a 3RR violation report, you then claimed to have self-reverted, when actually you'd self-reverted only a negligible portion of your 3RR-violating reverts. For instance, you restored none of the 14 references that you had blanked. What's more, after you ignored several subsequent requests to please self-revert your 3RR-violating reverts, I did it for you -- and you immediately reverted me again!
You then accused me of misbehavior, saying, "you reverted without any discussion on the talk page - and in some cases in defiance of consensus," which was wildly untrue. The truth was that I'd posted about twenty comments on the article Talk page about it, including several appeals for you to self-revert, and that you had gotten consensus for none of your 3RR-violating edits. NCdave (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Dave, this was over two weeks ago. Maybe it's best for all concerned to drop the issue and move on to other things. Advice to both you and Alice is that admins tend to roll their eyes at 3RR reports that degenerate into looooong back-and-forth matches. Just state your case, let the other person respond if necessary, and don't feel compelled to get in the last word. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks and inflammatory language

Accusing other editors "tendentious edit-warring and POV-pushing"[61] in the absence of overwhelming evidence for such a characterization is beyond the pale and constitutes a personal attack. Please state your case in a more constructive manner. Let's all show the courtesy for others that we would expect for ourselves. Thanks Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken, Raymond, and thank you. It was hypocritical of me to commit the same offense that I've been complaining about others committing against Strider12. I apologize. NCdave (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
NC, I just noticed your comment on Strider's Comments page:[[62]] I, too, should have been more communicative as to why I reverted the statement about Koop, and I will endeavor to be a better communicator in the future. There is a thread about this revert on the [David Reardon Talk page] if you are interested.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for comment/Strider12

When you edited Requests for comment/Strider12 you accidentally deleted massive amounts of unrelated text. I have reverted. Please reinsert (correctly) your edit. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Thank you! I don't know how I did that. Wikipedia usually flags edit conflicts. Not this time, I guess. NCdave (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tone and civility warning

I'm writing to make it clear that some of your most recent comments to IAA on Talk:Crisis pregnancy center have been clearly unproductive and even uncivil at times. I understand that you are frustrated with that user, but please do not let your personal negative feelings come through on talk pages where content, not editors, should be the focus of discussion. It was appropriate to take your concerns and frustration to 3RR. There are also a number of other options you have here on wikipedia when dealing with difficult users. But verbal abuse simply is not one of the options. Saying things like Who are you kidding?? and Alice, it is plain that you have never darkened the door of a CPC. Why are you editing here? You are SO confused about them!... it is really obvious that you know very little about CPCs. and That's ridiculous. all build to have an antagonist tone. How would you respond to someone saying similar things to you? And then bringing up a 3RR report in 3 different comments will only work to bring about off topic discussion and interpersonal disputes. If you make personal accusations against editors on talk pages (like bringing up that they "inserting the false claim"s in the past), they are often inclined to defend themselves, and thus waste even more space which should be used to discuss article content. Please read through your comments while ignoring all the negative criticism directed towards IAA and see if the overall point is reduced.

Finally, a number of your comments have mentioned things from your personal experiences and anecdotes. I just want you to keep in mind that that sort of content is not appropriate in articles, and thus those lines or reasoning on talk pages are ultimately unproductive. We cannot cite your personal experience with the UCC or the Raleigh CPC or Project Rachel. I am not saying that you need to completely suppress your personal feelings and experiences on the matter, it just seems to me that large portions of some of your replies are unnecessary because those lines of reasoning cannot be translated to article content. Keep in mind that wikipedia talk pages are not simply a discussion forums, and that WP:SOAP applies there as well. And I honestly am not trying to be harsh here. I just don't want you to in essence "waste" time writing about personal anecdotes.

Thanks for listening and taking these things into consideration. Hope this helps and good luck!-Andrew c [talk] 16:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Fetus is not the place to go to complain about an editor with whom you have been in a dispute. Period. Regarding your comment WP:3RR only applies to some editors, and not to others. that is not true. You may disagree with the admin decisions, but that doesn't mean WP:3RR is broken. I do not know exactly why the admin decided not to take action on your report, but I think accusations of bias or favoritism from admins is unsound. I'm sure there was a reason why IAA was not blocked. Perhaps they felt that 3RR wasn't broken, or that the report had gone stale, or that you were equally as guilty as IAA of edit warring, or any number of other reasons. Keep in mind that blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. If a user is not currently edit warring, there isn't really a reason to block. The intention of a block is to stop the conflict. That said, since you have reported IAA once before, if the edit warring continues, the next time around (if there is a next time), the admins most likely not be so light in there decision. Slow edit wars can also lead to admin actions. My point is, those edits by IAA are in the past. There is no sense to dwell on them and continuously bring them up. We cannot retroactively block IAA as "punishment" because that isn't why we block here on wikipedia. I'd kindly ask that you stick to the topic of the article on talk pages, and try to make amends with IAA and work together, instead of following her around to bring up negative things from her past. Any other outstanding issues between you two should not be aired through article talk pages, but some other means. -Andrew c [talk] 20:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, I didn't start that conversational thread. I was responding specifically to your suggestion to Ferrylodge to use the 3RR noticeboard to address problems w/ IAA. My point was that there seems to be no point in doing so, because WP:3RR does not apply to some editors.
The admins did not go "light" on IAA in their "decision" regarding IAA's most recent 3RR violation. They just ignored it. They did not rule there was no violation. (They could not very well do that, because the violation was about as blatant and deliberate as it is possible for a 3RR violation to be.) They did not let her off with a warning. They simply ignored the violation, and the report. You say it is untrue that WP:3RR only applies to some editors, and not to others. I ask you, what other interpretation is possible?
Also, I don't know why you're talking about blocks. I did not request a block. I did not request any specific remedy. A block is the usual remedy for 3RR, but many other remedies are also available to admins. The problem is not that the admins made a decision I disagreed with, the problem is that no admin made any decision at all. NCdave (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for input

For some time I have thought that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas article is not neutral, mainly because it gives undue weight to human emissions, and neglects to mention virtually any information about natural sources of GHGs. I attempted some edits, which are as expected being resisted by the articles authors. The problem is that I am stuck in a ridiculous situation where the authors refuse to acknowledge that the dispute about neutrality even exists, repeatedly removing the POV tag from the article despite the fact that I am obviously disputing it.

Repeatedly linking to wiki policy on NPOV disputes and quoting sections about not removing the POV tag simply because you disagree with it hasn't helped. I am being threatened with the 3RR if I add the tag again. I am not asking for you to put the tag back up for me (unless you also think that the article is not neutral) but I would welcome your input to the discussion. I am trying to keep the argument about the addition/removal of the POV tag, rather than being drawn into arguments about global warming. Restepc (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I've restored the tag. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. NCdave (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greenhouse gases

Please read the rules on tagging. You do not spuriously tag a page, just because you do not like the current version, or because there is an ongoing discussion. That would make the POV tag appear on just about all articles, with a reasonable modicum of differing opinions.

If you believe that the page is exhibiting POV problems - then engage in Talk. That is a requirement for putting that tag on a page. That means: Specific descriptions of what you believe is POV, what can be done about it - and an active engagement in Talk.

I eagerly await your input on Talk, with specifics for your concern. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, when posted my latest Talk:Greenhouse_gas page message, there was the "new messages" flag, alerting me to your request for me to post on the Talk:Greenhouse_gas page. How's that for a quick response?  :-) NCdave (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Material Hrafn copied to my Talk page

Hrafn inserted on my Talk page a big block of text consisting of comments by about 5 different editors, from an article Talk page, thus making it appear that those editors had commented here. I asked him to delete it, but he refused, and suggested that I delete it myself. Click on the links to see the material. NCdave (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging

'"if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."'

Guy, the only one having the "ongoing dispute" is you, the Junior-league attorney. Consensus is -- well, not on your side. --Calton | Talk 13:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

But a quick reminder, from above:

Please read the rules on tagging. You do not spuriously tag a page, just because you do not like the current version, or because there is an ongoing discussion. That would make the POV tag appear on just about all articles, with a reasonable modicum of differing opinions.
If you believe that the page is exhibiting POV problems - then engage in Talk. That is a requirement for putting that tag on a page. That means: Specific descriptions of what you believe is POV, what can be done about it - and an active engagement in Talk.
I eagerly await your input on Talk, with specifics for your concern. --Calton | Talk 13:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Calton, I guess you overlooked the Talk page discussion in which three different editors (including me) supported adding the tag, before I added it. NCdave (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carlton's reply to NCdave's 3RR warning

"This is just a friendly note to let you know that you have reverted Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed three times is less than 24 hours, so that you don't accidentally violate WP:3RR by reverting it a 4th time"

And this is a friendly reminder that:

  • Edit-warring against consensus -- as you are doing -- won't get you far.
  • Insincerity doesn't make you friends.

--Calton | Talk 13:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Several have brought your recent behavior to my attention, and looking over your participation at the Expelled article and several user talk pages over the last 24 hours, I'm issuing you a warning about WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and edit warring. If you continue as you have I will seek a topic ban for you at that and any related articles and a block for distruption if necessary. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you please point out the examples of incivility and failure to assume good faith which concerned you, FeloniousMonk? Most recently I've been accused of "insincerity" for being too friendly. Sometimes ya just can't win. NCdave (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, will you please tell me what edits or comments I've made which you believe were uncivil or uncharitable? NCdave (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
When FeloniousMonk didn't answer the question here, I asked again, on his Talk page: what edits of mine concerned him? He refused to answer, and instead accused me of insincerity for asking. Then, three minutes later, he archived the section.
His accusations were not accurate. I have certainly made mistakes from time to time, but FeloniousMonk could not identify any examples of incivility and failure to AGF on my part during that 24 hour period because there were none. NCdave (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 04:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you, WarthogDemon! NCdave (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Luck on WP:Civility

I already tried to bring it up, if you have any more luck than I did, good for you. The easiest way to promote civilty is to "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." Saksjn (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About reverts and clouds.

Had you followed my replies to your comment on my talk-page you'd have noticed that i said that i reverted 2 times - not 3. Thats because one of the reverts is marked "RVV" which means "revert vandalism". the WP:3RR rule states:

reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking – this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. (For other, less obvious forms of vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents);

So i have not breached 3RR. You on the other hand seem to want to ignore other peoples comments. Since you seem to be (almost) alone on your take about clouds.

Now let me try to explain my stance on clouds (outside of the guidelines for article talk pages).

Water vapor is only one aspect of cloud creation. Aerosols are another necessary requirement, since droplets cannot form without something to "seed" them - as well as short term changes in temperature (and pressure). There is no reason to think that because there is more water vapor in the atmosphere - that you'd then get more clouds. Its the relative humidity which is a factor - not the absolute humidity. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like vandalism to me, Kim. It wasn't graffiti, and it wasn't "the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit." I didn't agree with the edit, but it appears to have been made in good faith. That means it does count as one of your four reverts[63][64][65][66] today.
However, I will take you at your word that you believed it was vandalism, so I will consider it a good-faith error, and you'll notice that I've not reported you on the noticeboard for 3RR violation. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if, from now on, you would discuss on the article Talk page the improvements that I (try to) make to the article, rather than just instantly reverting all of them. Will you do that, please? Can't you find anything to like in my work, or at least that you can live with in a spirit of compromise? It really is disheartening to be immediately reverted whenever I try to make an improvement to the article, as you did in all three of your other reverts.
Remember, 3RR is not a license to revert three times in any 24hr period. Immediately and repeatedly stomping on the good-faith efforts of other editors is edit-warring, and is just as prohibited as 3RR.
Regarding water: first, I thank you for being willing to discuss this. You are correct that water vapor is not the only requirement for cloud formation, but it is generally the limiting requirement. Aerosols for cloud seeding are not usually in short supply, which is why man-made cloud seeding has been a bust. There are good reasons to think that increased ocean temperatures might result in greater cloud cover. As ground-level temperatures increase, upper atmosphere temperatures are expected to increase less (in part because greater water vapor concentration traps IR closer to the surface). That would increase the temperature differential between atmospheric layers. An increased temperature differential is associated with increased cloud formation, for the obvious reason that as warm, moist air cools it becomes super-saturated with water vapor, which condenses out at the first opportunity. NCdave (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ground level temperatures are expected to warm slightly less than the lower troposphere (and observation confirms this). That is the greenhouse effect of GHG's. If your assumptions are correct - then the cloud feedback would be positive - since the temperature differential moves upwards - as the optical depth increase. And that would generate high clouds which is a positive feedback.
If you take a bit to actually read whats on Sampson's page - you will find that
  1. There is no assumption of more clouds (or less)
  2. There is speculation that it could change the distribution.
  3. Most of the uncertainty comes from not knowing what (if any) effect a warming will have on clouds. (is it more? is it less? will it be high? or low?).
But as you i'm only a layman here - as opposed to WMC, Dragonsflight and RA - who are all researchers on climate issues (or former in WMC's case). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Kim, I did read Samson's page, and quoted it, including most of the points you made. Your are entirely correct about the general certainty surrounding cloud feedback: it comes from both uncertainty over the effects of the clouds on temperatures, and uncertainty over the effect of temperature on clouds. The belief that increased temperatures will lead to increased clouds is widespread, but certainly not a consensus. It is that uncertainty which the article needs to accurately reflect, but does not, since you reverted my edit. NCdave (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There might indeed be a "belief" that clouds will increase - but its not something that the models or the IPCC is saying - IPCC AR4 chapter 8 (page 633) says:
To a first approximation, GCM simulations indeed maintain a roughly unchanged distribution of RH (ed: relative humidity) under greenhouse gas forcing. More precisely , a small but widespread RH decrease in GCM simulations typically reduces feedback strength slightly compared with a constant RH response (Colman, 2004; Soden and Held, 2006; Figure 8.14).
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final warning

Your participation on the expelled article is unhelpful and counterproductive. You have received several warnings, but these have apparently not dissuaded you. Consider this your final warning. If you continue to disrupt the article, I'm going to block you. Raul654 (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Raul, since you are involved in the Expelled article yourself, my understanding is that you are supposed to refrain from using your admin powers in disputes there. Am I mistaken?
Nevertheless, I am anxious to know what you think I've done at that article which has been "disruptive" or otherwise contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I've been working hard to apply the Golden Rule to all my Wikipedia edits, so if I've slipped up then I'd really like to know where and how.
Thanks in advance. NCdave (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The rules prohibit me from blocking someone I am currently in a dispute with. You do not qualify.
As to what you are doing wrong, the most obvious is your repeated insistence on tagging the article with a POV tag, despite the fact that your examples of POV writing have been rejected by all the other editors on that page. In addition, there are other reasons I'm sure the other more regular contributors to that page could go on at length about. Raul654 (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
To tell the truth, there are several other editors on that page who have expressed their opinions that the article is not neutral. In fact, if you look at the box at the top of the talk page, you will find a comment left by the quality and importance raters. It states:
I was dissapointed in the blatant anti ID bias of this article. I just want to know what the movie is about; I really don't care if the author feels that evolution is fact because there is a "consensus" among scientists. If evolutionists are so secure in their understanding of the origins of life they should welcome debate.
JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. The quote I just gave you was apparently written back last fall. But there are a number of editors who believe thea article is not NPOV. NCdave is not the only one. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll throw in my two cents that I've also been calling the article POV for some time now. It isn't neutral, and the talk page is EXPLODING while for some reason, the article can't be tagged. The rapid growth of the discussion page alone seems proof enough that there's no consensus on the bias, and as such, we should err on the side of tagging the page at least until such consensus can be reached. Dolewhite (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm standing with NCdave here. He has some things to learn about involvement in discussions, but he keeps the discussion on getting the article balanced. Is the artical POV... HECK YA!!!! Hopefully he'll learn to be a little less confrontational (something I am prone to being as well) but we don't have a reason to block him. If he ever is blocked it needs to be by an admin not related to the article. Raul, I respect you as an admin but don't think you should be involved in blocking him. Saksjn (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know wherever you are editing for two reasons. 1. I'm often on your side. 2. I want to help keep you out of trouble. If you get in any major disputes try to cool off and let me and some of my friends argue for you. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Saksjn (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Saksjn. NCdave (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You Want This?

This user believes in Intelligent Design

Saksjn (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding excessive gunk

The Expelled article is already too big and Sternberg already has his own page (two, actually), where it's well-referenced. We don't need a discussion of the controversy on the film's page as well. KarlM (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about, Karl. NCdave (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Karl was referring to these two pages: Richard Sternberg and Sternberg peer review controversy. I'm not quite sure why he posted this on your page though. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Since you have choosen to continue your disruptive editing on the Expelled article despite my final warning above, I have blocked you for one week. Raul654 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul, since you and I are in conflict on the Expelled article, Wikipedia's rules prohibit you from taking administrative action against me. I am disappointed that you have nevertheless chosen to block me for 7 days.
I am also disappointed that you took administrative action against me without ever identifying any specific examples of misbehavior on my part, other than "repeated insistence on tagging the article with a POV tag." As many editors have noted, the article richly deserves a POV tag; yet, seeking to avoid conflict, I've not added one again. But you blocked me anyhow.
Recounting, you first accused me of "unhelpful and counterproductive" editing and "disruption" of the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article, though you've not identified what edits you considered problematic. You also asserted that that you can block me because "The rules prohibit me from blocking someone I am currently in a dispute with. You do not qualify." You also announced on the article talk page that you had issued a "final warning" (which was actually a first warning) to me.
But, as I told you on your Talk page, you and I certainly are in dispute at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. You are actively involved with editing the article and talk page, and you have sided against me repeatedly. For example:
You are not a neutral admin, Raul, so I asked you to recuse yourself as an administrator.
However, I also asked you, "if you are aware of any comments that I've made which are impolite or violate Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, I would be grateful if you would point them out to me." I want to learn from my mistakes. But you declined to identify any specific edits which you believe were discourteous or disruptive (except for your disagreement with the POV tag). In fact, you still have not.
I don't claim to be perfect, but I've striven to be polite and constructive in my editing. If I've fallen short of that goal, I'd really like to know about it. Blocking me without identifying specific mistakes on my part is not helpful.
Please reconsider your action. NCdave (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Yes, when I did give you that warning, you tried to claim I was involved in a dispute with you by collecting every edit I had ever made there - none of which involved you - and then claiming I was in a dispute. I informed you then that you were incorrect. As to what specifically you did wrong, there was a long talk page thread on just that topic. And I know you were aware of it because you participated in it. Raul654 (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Raul, essentially all of your edits to the article were edits in opposition to my stated points of view. That is a clear conflict. But setting aside the issue of our disagreements about the article and the film, what about my other question?
I've asked you several times what edits I made that you think were contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Why won't you answer?
You have said that my edits were unhelpful, counterproductive, and disruptive. FeloneousMonk accused me of incivility, failure to AGF, and edit warring (and all in just one 24 hour period). That is quite a list of offenses! Yet neither one of you have identified any examples (except for your disagreement with me about the need for a POV tag on the article).
Please tell me what edits I have made which were unhelpful, counterproductive, disruptive, uncivil, failed to assume good faith, etc.. The only edits I've made which you have identified as ill-advised were my attempts to tag the article with a neutrality-disputed tag. So, seeking to avoid conflict, I have refrained from re-tagging the article, even though several other editors also agree that the tag is needed.
So the only thing which you specifically complained about, I've refrained from doing. Yet you blocked me anyhow!
Please unblock me. NCdave (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unblock request

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "The admin who blocked me was in conflict with me at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and so should have recused himself as an admin. Also, despite my repeated requests, he will not identify any of my "disruptive" edits.

Raul654 is actively involved with editing the article and talk page, and he sided against me repeatedly. For example:

Raul654 is not a neutral admin, so I asked him to recuse himself. Instead, he blocked me for a week.

I also asked him, several times, to identify the edits that he objected to. But, like FeloneousMonk, he has ignored all such requests.

I asked him:

Nevertheless, I am anxious to know what you think I've done at that article which has been "disruptive" or otherwise contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I've been working hard to apply the Golden Rule to all my Wikipedia edits, so if I've slipped up then I'd really like to know where and how. Thanks in advance.

The only objectionable edits on my part which Raul654 has identified were "repeated insistence on tagging the article with a POV tag." In deference to Raul654's complaint, I've not added the POV tag again, though several other editors agree with me that the article certainly needs one.

I try hard to edit with a spirit of compromise and consensus-building. That doesn't mean I never err, but if you review my edits and talk page comments I think you will see that I've obviously been trying to work politely with all editors, not just those whose POV I share.

It doesn't always work. For example, I was accused of "insincerity" for being too friendly, and of "playing the WP:CIVIL game" for being too polite.

But sometimes the patience pays off. For instance, on the Greenhouse gas article's talk page you can see how I managed, after a LONG, patient negotiation, to reach a compromise with editors with whom I disagree, to fix significant inaccuracies in the article.[67] The discussion culminated with this comment:

I've just made the changes to the article. Thank you, everyone, for working together on this! NCdave (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So I've been blocked for a week for an offense that has not been identified, by an admin who was editing in conflict with me on the article.

Here are some additional relevant links:

Raul's "final warning" to me (really, his only warning) & his block notification[68][69]
The edits which apparently provoked Raul's block (my only edits to the article since 28 March 2008)[70]
My Talk page comment, associated with that edit[71]
All my edits for the last few weeks[72]
Related noticeboard incident[73]
Please unblock me. NCdave (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "I did a lot of digging into this situation and here's what I have concluded. First, Raul654 has edited the article but that doesn't mean that he's in a dispute with you: he's just one of many editors that supports the mainstream version. Even if he was, though, it wouldn't mean that his block should be overturned -- the question is whether your behavior merits the block or not.

Second, your contributions to the article talk page have been mostly irrelevant, inflammatory, and unhelpful. Most of your discussion comments are not actually about the article at all, but are rather about The Truth about Intelligent Design, the motivations of those who push for it and against it, the US Constitution, the Kitzmiller case, et cetera. Although you haven't readded the POV tag since Raul warned you not to, you have continued to push and push to try to get others to believe the way you do about the topic.

This is fundamentally not compatible with Wikipedia editing. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss the article: you claim it is POV but hardly ever talk about the specifics of any text within the article, except as a launching-off point for arguments you want to make about intelligent design. You've been violating WP:SOAPBOX at the article talk page. It has become disruptive because of its sheer volume and because it is irrelevant, distracting, and tends to escalate the already difficult situation at the article; I notice you even de-archived comments of this sort when others had archived inappropriate threads in order to try to bring focus back to the article. Another problem with your comments is your apparent high level of emotional involvement, which leads you to violate WP:AGF and make pointed if not overtly incivil comments.

Not all of your comments are like this. I did see a few where you had brought in new source material, or spent a little time directly discussing article text. However, even in those cases it is clear you were trying to push your point of view. Neutrality is not achieved via stalemate between two sides at war, but rather by finding common ground and setting personal opinion aside. Certainly not all your comments towards others are incivil. But I really don't think you've done the article any good at all, and you've made things difficult for a lot of other editors for a long time, so this block is justified.

Now, Raul was not very specific about this in his warning to you. But many other users have commented about exactly these kinds of issues to you before and you've simply ignored them and continued. While your Terri Schiavo RFC is old news, it shows the exact same type of problem. And while you didn't readd the POV tag you have persisted in exactly the same types of comments since the warning. So people have certainly pointed out this problem to you repeatedly, but you persist in this. Mangojuicetalk 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I've dropped Raul654 a note. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm supporting you. JBFrenchhorn and I are fighting for you at the talk page and at the notice board. Good luck, and know that we agree with you that Raul took this too far. Saksjn (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that any Admin contemplating an unblock read NCDave's blocklog & Neutrality's reason for blocking him nearly three years ago: "Consistent POV pushing, long talk page rants, and reverts.." It would seem that very little has changed in the intervening years. HrafnTalkStalk 13:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I also think an unblock would be fair here, and question the breezy summation of three years of editing above. Mackan79 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The summation is spot-on accurate. NCdave has a long history of tendentious editing across a broad range of articles. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If that's true, shouldn't a resulting block come through discussion on AN/I? Otherwise it's hard for others to evaluate. Mackan79 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Rlevse, Saksjn & Mackan79, thank you.
Hrafn & Raymond, I'm asking you the same thing that I fruitlessly asked Raul & FeloneousMonk: Please tell me what edits of mine you believe were disruptive, uncivil, failed to assume good faith, &tc.? Which edits of mine violated Wikipedia's policies & guidelines? (From this year, please.)
Hrafn, I'd also like to ask you again to please refrain from personal attacks, such as calling people "paranoid" or suggesting that they have tinfoil hats, accusing them of "anti-intellectualism", sarcasm suggesting they are foolish and their opinions are "unsubstantiated, illogical hyperbole," and demands that they "learn to read." Also, please do not delete[74] or hide[75][76][77] other people's comments on the article Talk page. How can we hope to achieve consensus if you will not allow other editors to discuss the article and its problems? NCdave (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
NCdave: I'll stop calling your comments "paranoid" when you stop making unsubstantiated accusations of persecution. I'll tell editors to "learn to read" when they repeatedly attribute to me something that somebody else said, and I'll keep on deleting your repetitive, unproductive and often off-topic rants per WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". HrafnTalkStalk 16:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Irrespective of this user's previous disruption, I think it's fair to ask the blocking admin what specific edits he objects to. I can't immediately find any disruption in this user's recent edits. As to the recusal issue, the burden of proof is on the blocked user to clearly establish – with succinctly presented diffs – that he is in a current content dispute with the blocking admin. The assertions in the unblock request do not meet that standard. Sandstein (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm on his side! Unblock him! George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 18:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
NCdave has a long history of disruption and tendentious editing as a review of his block log, this request for comment, this thread on WP:CSN, and his current editing on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed‎ attest. He's been given countless second chances, and still hasn't learned. I see no reason why he deserves another one. The current block is certainly justified. A separate, unrelated question is whether it was appropriate for User:Raul654 to be the one to impose the block. If Raul was too involved to block NCdave himself, then he should be sanctioned for his breach of policy. But that shouldn't let NCdave off the hook. Yilloslime (t) 18:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree some of the comments there seem tendentious, at least from where I sit. I do have to wonder if more constructive criticism might not help, though. For instance, if someone told him to please AGF and follow the behavioral policies. Unfortunately, several editors on these pages seem to take somewhat of a principled stance against those policies. Otherwise, endless arguing may be an issue as well, it just doesn't appear to be what he was blocked for here. Mackan79 (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
He's been advised of policies over and over and over and over again and again and again and again and again. You ought to read through the RfC linked above -- just for a start. If there's any case where WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies it's this one. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, we've all been advised of the policies; my point is that it's hard to advise him not to call something a lie and such when much of the accepted commentary is outwardly hostile. The RfC was from 2005. As I said, it appears he's made mistakes, but the edit he was blocked for by Raul doesn't actually appear to have been a repeat of those mistakes, which bothers me a little when people then just focus on the history. Mackan79 (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Raymond, if my edits have offended "again and again," will you please point out a couple of examples (from this year)?
Hrafn, will you please identify the "unsubstantiated accusations of persecution" to which you are referring? Also, thank you for the interesting link to WP:TALK#Others' comments, but it doesn't seem to apply because the discussion you deleted on the Talk page was about improving the article (correcting a specific inaccuracy). I began that discussion saying, "The article says, '{...blah, blah...}.' That is not really accurate..." So, even if you disagree with my contention that what the article said was inaccurate, the conversation you deleted was nevertheless about improving the article. Please don't delete such conversations. When they get stale, they can be archived, but not just deleted.
Yilloslime, which of my edit(s) do you believe were in breach of policy (this year), and what policy did they violate? Are you still mad about this, from last summer?
Mackan79, if I've been tendentious, I'm sorry. I guess I'm starting to sound tendentious to myself, with my repeated requests for Raul, Raymond, FeloneousMonk, Hrafn & now Yilloslime to please identify even one or two of the edits that violated Wikipedia policy. But I truly don't think it is an unreasonable request. Do you?
Mind you, I certainly do not claim to be perfect. I make many mistakess. (That's why I sought adoption; unfortunately, my mentor is away right now.) The path to improvement runs through the valley of correction, but if nobody will identify which of my edits were problematic, how am I to make improvements? NCdave (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hafrn, many of your "tin foil hat" and "Paronioa" comments have been rather attacking. Don't try to come up with an excuse. As the Bible advises, "Don't worry about the speck in your brother's eye, when you have a log in your own." Now, you may not have a log in your eye, but its still good advice. Saksjn (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mangojuice, will you please point out some examples of my edits or comments which you believe were disruptive (Raul's complaint) or otherwise violated Wikipedia guidelines or policy (you mentioned AGF)? I'd also like to know what comments you thought were "inflammatory" or otherwise "unhelpful," because I've certainly tried to be gentle and constructive in my comments and edits.
Also, where have I used text within the article "as a launching-off point for arguments you want to make about intelligent design?" The only argument that I can think of that I have made about ID is that ID is not the same thing as Creationism (I cited sources to show it). That was relevant to the article because the article said the opposite. (Even now, one of the footnotes in the article refers to "intelligent design and other forms of creationism," and I counted about 45 references to creationism & creationist in the article & footnotes a few minutes ago.)
I've been accused of a rather wide variety of misbehaviors, but nobody here has identified any specific examples of any of those misbehaviors. Raul has been editing this evening, but he's still ignoring my several requests to identify the edits which he thinks were disruptive. NCdave (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC), 01:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I was reluctant to cite specific edits because it is not the individual edits so much as the massive quantity of them and your general approach that is a problem. However, I believe the following talk page edits are examples of what I was talking about: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84]. Et cetera. Some of this is pure off-topic, inflammatory behavior only tangentially related to any part of the article. Some of it is POV pushing over extremely minor points. Mangojuicetalk 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I'll disagree, for what it's worth. If you look at the talk page, you'll see endless political commentary from all sides, with NCdave hardly out of line with the rest. In terms of minor issues or major, I disagree with many of NCdave's comments, but I think they do reflect real issues with the article that haven't been adequately addressed. The fact also remains that the edit he was blocked for was reasonable. I wouldn't insist on an unblock, but if NCdave promises to make an effort, I think a reduction in the block would be fair. Mackan79 (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Mackan79.
Thank you, Mangojuice, for the diffs. I agree that some of them show parts of conversations which had drifted from the topic of how to improve the article, and one was a joke (did you notice the "wink" emoticon?). Also, agree that it could be considered inflammatory to stick up for Conservapedia after someone bashed it here, and I apologize for that.
But I honestly don't see how any of those talk page edits violated any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I'm obviously not unbiased, but none of your diffs look at all to me like the definition of disruption, or POV-pushing (which is a component of disruption), or failure to assume good faith, or incivility. Will you please identify which Wikipedia policy you think each comment violated?
Moreover, those are all talk page comments. I was blocked for "disruptive editing on the Expelled article" immediately after I made these two single-word edits, which were the only edits I've made to that article this month. Do you think they were disruptive?
I really would be grateful if someone (You? Raul?) would tell me which of my edits they think were WP:disruption, since that's what I got blocked for. The definition of disruption says that it, "concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree," and which "continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time," and "cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability," and "rejects community input."
Note that the definition of "disruption" pertains to editing articles, not Talk pages. Please tell me what gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies I'm guilty of.
By far the longest of my comments which you identified is the one you indicated with your last diff, which is part of this thread, discussing this sentence from the article: "The film also discusses the consequences of the Kitzmiller trial, which forbids the teaching of intelligent design in American public schools, as promotion of religion by the government violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
Will you please tell me what you found objectionable in my comment? The first paragraph was a very gentle reply to a comment by User:Filll (an editor who share's Raul654's POV), in which Filll had characterized supporters of Intelligent Design (which he calls Creationism) like me (& Ben Stein) as seeking "the right to force other people's children to be indoctrinated into the beliefs of their particular narrow miniscule minority religious sects, in public secular schools, using public funds, in science classes, and to force teachers to do it using the power of the state (police, jails, fines, etc)."
That was, of course, a pretty nasty insult, to me and to my religion, but I did not reply in kind. Instead I simply denied any such evil intent, and tried to return the conversation to how to improve the article. The remaining 3 paragraphs of my comment discussed significant errors in the article's description of the Kitzmiller case, agreed with another editor's summary of the law in that case, proposed a new wording for the erroneous sentence in the article, and asked other editors to suggest improvements. What was wrong with that? NCdave (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Mangojuice will you please tell me what you found objectionable in my comment? NCdave (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have one of these

The Original Barnstar
For your efforts to bring a netural point of view to articles, especially the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article, I award you this barnstar. While blocked, just remember, you've been expelled because you're intelligent. Meanwhile, if you're bored, take a look at The Age of the Machine. You've been expelled from Wikipedia because there is clique that controls these articles. There is a consensus version because those who do not support the consensus are blocked. Good luck. Fight the Clique (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)}}

[edit] An edit war on my Talk page??!?

Good grief, there's an edit war been going on here on my own talk page, and I didn't even notice it!

Fight_the_Clique, thank you for the Barnstar, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with your use the word "mafia." Would you mind if I edit that out? I'm not sure what the etiquette is w/r/t such things.

Hmmm... I see that you are blocked and -- Yikes! -- you are blocked for being a sockpuppet of me! Hey, Krimpet, Metros, Mangojuice, et al, I have no idea who Fight the Clique is, but he certainly is not me! Will someone please do a checkuser and verify that? NCdave (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fight_the_Clique, since you are blocked, you can't reply here to my request for consent to edit out your "mafia" remark, but you can email me to give me permission. Just click on "E-mail this user" while viewing my user page or user talk page. Or if the Wikipedia email system won't let you do that, there's an email address on my user page (but the "E-mail this user" link goes to a better address). Thanks. NCdave (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd unblock request

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

You're not currently blocked, so far as I can tell: [85] An autoblock may still be in place, if so, please see Template:Autoblock.

Request handled by: Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've not evaded my block at all, Blueboy96. I am not Fight_the_Clique (and it is my understanding that someone did a checkuser and cleared me of that accusation), and I don't even know what the other incident is that you are referring to, but whoever it is it wasn't me. If you doubt that, please do another checkuser. NCdave (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
ANI resolved that NCdave was not evading his block. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I was the one who reset his block to its previous expiration date after it was changed. Per ANI and Raul654, who ran a CU, it is very unlikely that Dave and Fight the Clique are the same person. So there has been no block evasion. However, I support letting the block stand, and agree wholeheartedly with the reasons given in the first decline of the unblock request above. Which shouldn't come as a surprise to Dave, as I told him this in an email. Dave, I encourage you to take the advice in my email. Also, note that we are now approaching the area of unblock request abuse, so be careful. KnightLago (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I would be grateful if somebody (anybody!) would identify the "disruption" for which I was blocked. Please? Or else unblock me. NCdave (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Umn, that would be intellectual honesty. Not allowed in clique articles. Sorry. But you'll just have to remain blocked. 06:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.144.63 (talk)
193.34.144.63, I'm sure you mean well, but it really doesn't help to deliberately push the buttons of the folks you're in dispute with. "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." -Prov 15:1 NCdave (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If it has been resolved that User:Fighttheclique is not a sock puppet of NCdave than why are there people still acting like it! This is not block request abuse! I have never seen this many people support the innocence of a single editor in my whole wikipedia life! If this many people continue to support him I'm pretty sure its safe to say he has a right to keep fighting. Even if he can't fight we'll keep fighting for him! Saksjn (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've sent two emails to Blueboy96, and he's been editing on Wikipedia, but he's not answering my emails. I'm looking for advice here. His reason for declining my unblock request is plainly mistaken, but he's apparently unwilling to undo his action. My obvious recourse would seem to be to make a 3rd unblock request, but this that seems ridiculous, and I'm afraid to do one because (though I'm not 100% sure) I think I've been threatened with further sanctions if I make a 3rd unblock request: KnightLago wrote, "we are now approaching the area of unblock request abuse, so be careful."
KnightLago, is that what you meant?
Inasmuch as nobody has identified even one example of the supposed article disruption for which Raul654 blocked me, or the incivility & failure to AGF of which FeloniousMonk accused me; and as (I think) I've been exonerated of the sockpuppetry/block-evasion of which Blueboy96 & Aunt Entropy accused me; isn't it time to lift this erroneous block?
Does anyone have any advice about what I should do next? NCdave (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Blueboy96, for unblocking me. NCdave (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yikes! Raul654 has blocked me AGAIN for "disruption," without mentioning it on my Talk page, and still without citing any edits which he found objectionable, much less any "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies" (the definition of disruption).
Raul, will you PLEASE tell me what edits you believe were disruptive? NCdave (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Raul654 didn't re-block you (see your block log); I think what happened is that Blueboy96 lifted the block but the autoblock is still in place and kicked in when you logged in to edit. It's a function of the MediaWiki software (which often has unintended results like this one), and not a new action by Raul654. I think I've succeeded in removing the autoblock, so you should now be able to edit - if you can't, then you can paste the {{unblock-auto}} template here on your talk page and a more technically savvy admin will fix it for you. MastCell Talk 21:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, MastCell & Hersfold, for re-unblocking me. I can't say I understand all that, but I'm glad you do.  :-) NCdave (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [86] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't, because I'm blocked. NCdave (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/193.34.144.63 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Aunt Entropy (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Aunt Entropy. The "notes for the suspect" say, "If the accuser has listed evidence against you, you should respond to the allegations, unless they are obviously frivolous. You are allowed to respond to each and every accusation on the evidence page but are not allowed to remove accusations." But I can't edit at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/193.34.144.63 because I'm blocked. I also can't email you, because you have no email address set up. So would you please be so kind as to copy my reply here to the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/193.34.144.63 page?
The report you filed against me says:
Evidence
1st post, restores own barnstar, and also admits it here: ::http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NCdave&diff=prev&oldid=205499744
Will you (or someone else) please copy my reply to the "evidence" section of the report, since I cannot? Here it is:

I am not 193.34.144.63. I assume that 193.34.144.63 is User:Fight_the_Clique, but I don't know who that is.
I have not restored my own barnstar. Your statement that I admitted doing so is mistaken. I think that your mistake probably results from a misinterpretation of 193.34.144.63's edit summary, which was apparently in answer to a question I had asked.
When Fight_the_Clique awarded me the barnstar, he used what I thought was unnecessarily harsh language. I particularly cringed when I read the word "mafia," so I asked him:
Fight_the_Clique, thank you for the Barnstar, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with your use the word "mafia." Would you mind if I edit that out? I'm not sure what the etiquette is w/r/t such things.
and then:
Fight_the_Clique, since you are blocked, you can't reply here to my request for consent to edit out your "mafia" remark, but you can email me to give me permission. Just click on "E-mail this user" while viewing my user page or user talk page. Or if the Wikipedia email system won't let you do that, there's an email address on my user page (but the "E-mail this user" link goes to a better address). Thanks.
It was my intent to edit the barnstar language after receiving his emailed permission. But Fight_the_Clique didn't email me. Instead, 193.34.144.63 (who is presumably Fight_the_Clique) edited the Barnstar directly, and changed "mafia" to "clique," and in his edit summary he wrote, "No permission is needed to edit your own talk page." That was clearly a reply to my question, which had asked Fight_the_Clique for his consent to tone down the language in the barnstar award. It was not an admission that I was the one doing the editing.
I can understand how that confused you, Aunt Entropy. But will you please withdraw your accusation of sockpuppetry, or else promptly request a checkuser, so that I can get this blot removed from my talk page?
For the record, I always strive to follow all the rules here on Wikipedia of which I'm aware, even those with which I disagree, and also this rule. I am aware of the rules against disruption, sockpuppetry and block evasions, and I don't do those things. NCdave (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the "admitting" edit was by all indications a response to NCdave's request,[87] after which the IP said that his request wasn't necessary. An issue that might have been better addressed with a question, perhaps. I don't think we need another checkuser, but I imagine Raul could confirm the IP is in the same range as Fight the Clique. Mackan79 (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NCdave has much too long of an edit history to be a sock puppet. A sock puppet wouldn't have been around this long, or have fought this long. Saksjn (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I see Mackan79 removed the template before I could. I agree I placed it in error, I apologise for that. I am adding a note to the Suspected Sock page, but I don't know how to withdraw it. If anyonw can help, let me know.

However, you may claim you do not know Fight the Clique, but it seems he knows you.

And Saksjn, your assertion isn't logical. There is no reason an established user cannot form a sock. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks AE, I don't think it gets withdrawn, you can just leave a comment if you like and then it fades away... You didn't request a CU so there's nothing pending. NCdave may want to archive his talk page after all this, but that's probably better left to him. Otherwise we could remove this section for his benefit; I think that's NCdave's call regardless since it's his talk page, but just so he knows it's an option. Mackan79 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Aunt_Entropy, I think Saksjn was pointing out that your accusation was that I am a sockpuppet and 193.34.144.63 is the sockpuppeteer, when you really meant it to be the other way around. But, either way, I am not 193.34.144.63 and he is not me, and I truly have no idea who he is, and I did not use a sock to evade my block.
Anyhow, thanks for your withdrawal of the socking accusation. Would you mind dropping a note to Blueboy96, to ask him to undo his unblock-decline decision, which was based on the mistaken belief that I'd been using socks to evade my block? Thanks. NCdave (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My fault. I read the tag as asserting that NCdave was a sock puppet, not a puppeteer. My bad. Saksjn (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not either one. NCdave (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and unblocked you ... I was under the impression that since another admin cut the block down that the issue was completed. Looks like I was wrong. Blueboy96 20:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Would you please also fix the template? Thanks again. NCdave (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. HrafnTalkStalk 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What did he do this time? I can't seem to find what warrented another warning. Saksjn (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
While I saw the forumesque discussion, and agree that it's not appropriate, it appears that NCdave was the only one of numerous editors involved to be warned Consider my objection withdrawn due to reopeningRestepc (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
To which edit(s) do you object, and why, Hrafn? NCdave (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I was responding to NCDave's violation of WP:FORUM on a thread he himself had illegitimately reopened for this purpose. That he lured others into responding to his soapboxing isn't really relevant -- he was clearly the instigator. It is exactly this sort of disruptive editing that earned NCDave his latest in a long line of well-deserved blocks. HrafnTalkStalk 04:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that comment was soapboxing. Who else was warned? Saksjn (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If people don't want off topic posts on the page, everyone should stop making them. It would probably be beneficial, but it's obviously not being enforced or even attempted. I don't think the warning here was warranted by anything NCdave said. Mackan79 (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
And "I don't think" that your comment has any basis in reality. Do you think it is acceptable to remove archive templates from an off-topic thread in order to make further off-topic comments in an attempt to provoke more (and equally off-topic) responses? This would seem to be simply more "Consistent POV pushing, long talk page rants, and reverts". I am getting tired of your ludicrous defences of his thoroughly objectionable behaviour. HrafnTalkStalk 15:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not ok with people constantly making off-topic comments, but only criticizing the other side for it. I could come up with a very long list of off topic and unnecessary comments on that talk page, only a very small fraction of which would be from NCdave. Isn't this something everyone should try to improve? I also find it objectionable when people bold and italicize half their words, as if this is any way for people to talk to each other, though you can be assured I won't place a template on your talk page about it. Why the sharp tone? It doesn't seem necessary. Mackan79 (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn, please read WP:DE. Disruptive editing has a fairly clear definition, and arguably-off-topic Talk page discussion is not disruptive editing. Disruptive editing is editing of articles (not talk pages) which constitutes "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies," and which also fails WP:V. Your forcefully-expressed POV is that ID is not scientific, or perhaps that ID is less scientific than chemical evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. I disagree with that POV, and in the thread that you kept deleting and hiding I discussed why. I have not objected to you expressing your POV w/r/t this issue, and I would respectfully request that you permit me to express mine. The passion with which you hold your opinion does not render other opinions "illegitimate." NCdave (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
NCDave: your talkpage edits were: "tendentious"; "fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research"; and "Rejects community input" -- therefore they were textbook WP:DE. HrafnTalkStalk 16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd personally recommend that everyone avoid expressing personal views, and stick to ways of improving the article. This would help things stay a lot more focused per WP:Talk. However, I think it's more likely to happen through reasonable requests and attempts from all sides to do the same. Mackan79 (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Then by all means keep your unsubstantiated, totally-contradicted-by-the-facts, "personal view" that "the warning here was warranted by anything NCdave said" to yourself. WP:POT. I would also point out that your repeated attempts to equate NCDave's WP:TE&WP:DE with others' behaviour completely robs you of any moral high-ground. HrafnTalkStalk 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Mackan79: Do you think it is acceptable to remove archive templates from an off-topic thread in order to make further off-topic comments in an attempt to provoke more (and equally off-topic) responses? NCDave is the only one engaging in this, particularly egregious and disruptive, form of behaviour. By disabling the archive-templates he is effectively admitting -- "I know that this is considered off-topic, but I want to continue ranting on about this". This makes his abuse of WP:FORUM both flagrant and wilful. HrafnTalkStalk 16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure he was admitting that, but as I said above I think everyone should try staying more on topic. Mackan79 (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, given that you are unwilling to answer my question, I think it not unreasonable to ignore your further protestations regarding NCDave. HrafnTalkStalk 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to address your concern that everyone should stay on topic on the page. You're asking if NCdave removing a template was particularly egregious, and I'm saying no, and I'm not willing to single him out when there are a lot of off topic comments on the page. I do agree with you that off topic comments should be avoided, and it seems that you generally follow this rule to your credit. But to the extent you seem to think it's necessary to give NCdave stern warnings about this, I don't think it is the best approach. Mackan79 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn, the article talk page is for discussing the article. As long as the article makes assertions regarding how scientific or unscientific ID is, relative to chemical evolution and the hypothesized abiotic origin of life, discussion of the merits of those assertions is perfectly on-topic for the article talk page.
Now, I will readily agree that such assertions are off-topic for an article about this movie. But, unless I am mistaken, you are opposed to removing them from the article. Am I mistaken?
If you want to remove those assertions from this article, then I will support you. Will you?
If not, then your protests about discussion of those parts of the article are misplaced. You've shown no shyness about asserting your POV that ID is less scientific than chemical evolution, so it is inappropriate of you to delete discussions, misuse archive templates, issue "warnings" on user talk pages, etc., to prevent the opposite POV from being presented. NCdave (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions covers this already (WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience may also be applicable). "Chemical evolution and the hypothesized abiotic origin of life" is in any case a complete non sequitor as it is neither required by the Theory of Evolution, nor contradicted by the core claim of ID. The article does not state any scientific hypotheses on the matter to be proven (quite the opposite in fact), but merely points out the film's illegitimate ridiculing of them. HrafnTalkStalk 05:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you chime in with your thoughts here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I cannot edit evolution articles, do you know why?

Hello, I noticed that you have participated at Intelligent desgin. What is going on? I just watched an excellent documentary tonight, just got back, and I wanted to insert some information that was presented in this film. But low and behold, the article is locked down. It's like the Berlin Wall. The documentary must be true. Please unlock this article and allow academic freedom. Yhvh777 (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Yhvh777. Welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry, I'm not an "admin" so I can't unlock the article.
I've replied at greater length on your Talk page.[88][89]
You can also email me if you want to talk about this or anything else. NCdave (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spurious civility warning (return to sender)

[edit] Treaty of Paris (1783)

Thanks for your comments. Yes, the First Amendment was the odd-one-out in the Bill of Rights, the only clause aimed solely at restricting Federal legislators. Federal nations aren't easy to govern... David Trochos (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I've been warned =0

Looks like Raul picked his next victim: me. I wouldn't mind a little help if he actually blocks me. By the way, where ya been? Saksjn (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Strider12

I removed your comment from Strider12's user page. It is not your user page, so it is not the place to express your opinion. KnightLago (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Present Evil

Hi, NCdave,

I'm wondering if we can come to some agreement here on your talk page about the quoting of Darwin out of context, because it is my opinion, and you're welcome to prove me wrong, that you are misreading Darwin's writings, and this has some impact on how you interpret the secondary source as well.

In particular, I believe the sentence if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil hinges on the contrast between the words "contingent" and "present"; where the word present doesn't mean that there is some other evil present to overwhelm the benefits of eugenics. He seems to be saying that if we neglect the weak it would be for some potential theoretical ephemeral benefit which is grossly outweighed by a real and actual evil: the immorality of us neglecting the weak.

What do you think? Merzul (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the "overwhelming present evil" he refers to is what he says would be required to justify neglecting the weak and helpless. A "contingent" benefit is a possible future benefit (of the anticipated policy). The word "with," in this context, means "19. As a result or consequence of" (per this dictionary), as in these examples:
  • She is trembling with fear.
She is trembling as a result or consequence of fear.
  • He's sick with the flu.
He's sick as a result or consequence of the flu.
  • We will launch our missiles only with severe provocation.
We will launch our missiles only as a result or consequence of severe provocation.
  • If we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
If we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, as a result or consequence of an overwhelming present evil.
No other interpretation makes sense, because a result cannot antedate its cause. A present (already existing) thing cannot be the consequence of an anticipated (future) thing. So Darwin cannot have meant that the "present evil" would be a result of an anticipated policy.
Darwin was profoundly ambivalent about our civilized protection of the weak and helpless. One one hand, he believed that for the "weak members of civilized societies [to] propagate their kind... must be highly injurious to the race of man."
But, on the other hand, despite "the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind," he recognized that to "check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason [would carry the cost of] deterioration in the noblest part of our nature."
So, should civilized societies protect and coddle the weak and helpless, or neglect them? On this question, Darwin comes down squarely on the fence. He doesn't unambiguously reject neglecting the weak and helpless, but he says that it could only be for a contingent (anticipated) benefit (to the race), and as a result or consequence of a great already-existing evil.
Most of the eugenicists who followed Darwin were very much in agreement with him, about both the problem and the humanitarian concern. They most often resolved that dilemma in the obvious way, the same way that ethical dog breeders treat poorer specimens of purebred dogs: by taking good care of them, but forcibly sterilizing them to prevent them from propagating their kind. In the United States, tens of thousands of people were forcibly sterilized, and in NAZI Germany even more were.
The NAZIs, however, were not as concerned with the "deterioration in the noblest part of [their] nature." The National Socialist movement was grounded in racial resentment and hatred, anyhow. Their concern was with "the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind." As Stein demonstrated with an ample selection of NAZI quotes in the movie, they were very much convinced of the correctness of Darwin's belief about the danger of allowing inferior people to breed, but lacked his squeamishness about radical ("final") solutions.
For reference, here is the pair of paragraphs under discussion,with the parts Stein quoted shown in a non-bold font, and the sentences numbered in green:
[1.1]Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations. — [1.2]In the last and present chapters I have considered the advancement of man from a former semi-human condition to his present state as a barbarian. [1.3]But some remarks on the agency of natural selection on civilised nations may be here worth adding. [1.4]This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg, and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton. [1.5]Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. [1.6]With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. [1.7]We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. [1.8]We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. [1.9]There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. [1.10]Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. [1.11]No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. [1.12]It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
[2.1]The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. [2.2]Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. [2.3]The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. [2.4]Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.
You can use the [green sentence numbers] when referring to Darwin's sentences. NCdave (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC), 08:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)