User talk:Daycd/Archive4

——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. ————————————— Welcome. (Contributions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current Talk

Sam Spade RfC

Hey, I noticed you signed the RfC - currently, the statement is focusing specifically on his actions on Socialism, because that is where I have encountered him. Could you expand the statement so that it includes his actions on the other articles? Thanks. -- infinity0 18:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added some stuff for human. i can expand as needed. Just let me no what is needed to Sams attention. David D. (Talk) 18:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples, but let's not turn the RfC into a diff-spam. Better to summarise what Sam's done with a few diffs to support your summary. You can save all the diffs for later if they're needed - I don't want Sam to get the impression we're ganging up on him. That many diffs looks quite intimidating. -- infinity0 20:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

i made some changes. I would encourage you to format and make other changes that you like. i agree we do not want this to be a pile on. I made this edit in the hope that Sam will be open to the comments being made. David D. (Talk) 20:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

For those who have not come across Sam, he has a strange view on concensus. He has said; "I have edited longer than most, and I have learned that the majority is usually wrong. There is a reason the wikipedia is not a democracy, and why NPOV is non-negotiable." It is this view that seems to cause all the problems and is why he does nto seem to have a problem reverting to a non consensus version. For the context of this quote see the Human talk page. i have repordcued the approriate section below:

selective quotes from the human talk page. Source Talk:Human#No_to_editwarring This article made FA for one reason and one reason alone: constant correction. This is probably the hardest article to edit of any on the encyclopedia, because of the periodic interest of diverse persons (all of whom biased by being human). Some people here helped this article to FA status; others forced it from that position by their POV advocacy. Have a look at the article before I started editing it: [1] I had to edit war for what seemed like forever just to get a taxobox at the top of the page and out of the biology section! I have edited longer than most, and I have learned that the majority is usually wrong. There is a reason the wikipedia is not a democracy, and why NPOV is non-negotiable. Sam Spade 01:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Above Sam said to KillerChihuahua: "What you don't seem to understand is that in this case, the fringe group is you. Step outside the box, and try looking at things from the majority paradigm. ....... I get the impression your not a terribly philosophical guy, are you? " Sam Spade 16:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Yet above he says "I have learned that the majority is usually wrong.". Sam, I'm not trying to be a smart arse, but what an earth are you talking about? You seem to be arguing against yourself? Not to mention that in the archives you were arguing for a pro-biological stance. What I find even more ironic is that you also stated above: "I for one am not here for drama." Sam Spade 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Given all this are you trolling us here or serious? This is real question and I really am wondering because you seem to play devils advocate whatever the topic or opinion. David D. (Talk) 03:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Insisting on neutrality and policy adherence is not trolling. I've told you guys over and over this has nothing to do w my personal POV. Personally, spiritual evolution is a law of nature. That is however irrelevant when a spiritual POV dominates the article (as it did in the past), or a skeptic POV dominates (as it does today). Both are against the articles best interest, and thus I oppose them. As far as my seemingly contradictory statements regarding the majority, you are missing the subtleties. According to NPOV, minority views among the public (like secular humanism) should not be over emphasized. Again, according to policy; majority views among editors have no special status. My "the majority is usually wrong" was ment to apply to editors, but can apply to the general public as well. The truth is, wikipedia articles are not about absolute truth. They are about cataloging human knowledge in a neutral, verifiable manner. If that knowledge is wrong (and alot of it is), so be it. Sam Spade 13:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC) You seem to be justifying your current edits by saying that the majority is often wrong. Isn't this counter to the wikipedia philosophy of consensus building? For example, the precedent for spirit as a subsection of culture seems to be set in wikipedia (see silence below). You challenge this but why is your challenge the NPOV way to do it? You seem think that all your calls are objective while everyone elses are subjective. How can this be? And why is consensus not considered in this case? Your job as an editor is not to tell the majority that they are wrong but to persuade that majority that you are right. This is what consensus building is all about. It's hard work and you are not doing the leg work. Without the leg work the article will never be stable. David D. (Talk) 20:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam never responded to my final comments and suggestions. David D. (Talk) 20:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, same here. I discussed things with him for a little while on Talk:Socialism, but after a point he stopped and just carried on reverting without explaining - instead, replying "see earlier comments" which I had already replied to. -- infinity0 23:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No toc?

Whatever are you thinking? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, i see i set a precedent. Can I expect changes soon? Good point though. On the other hand it might keep traffic down ;-) David D. (Talk) 03:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you are here. i noticed that you voted support for clowns RfA. i could not bring my self to do that due to practically no activity with respect to other wikipedia users as well as no significant editing, not even copy editing. Yet, I must be missing something as >200 do not support someone who is unknown. David D. (Talk) 03:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Hello David, thank you for commenting on my RFA. This morning I decided to take an introspective look at my edits and see how many of them are related to vandalism reduction, and how many were geared toward other aspects of the project. I've posted my results [2] in the event you wish to take them into consideration. I look forward to your response. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Can't sleep, clown will eat me, i blew it with respect to makijng further comment on your rfa. i didn't realise that it closed so soon. i hope you found the things i was saying constructive. Please don't take them personally, it really became an academic discussion about adminship in general, using yourself as an example.

What I would have liked to add to the rfa was that by coming here to my talk page and addressing the issues I was discussing, you have certainly demonstrated my fears were unfounded. I am especially impressed since you did not have to address any issues given the huge amount of support. Congratulations and I'll look out for you now i know your clown face!! David D. (Talk) 03:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please explain this

Hi David, Here is white washing about Bob Cornuke, but it has your username and it is signed by Syits.[3]. Arbusto 00:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. he put it on your user page. i pasted into your talk page. i should have used the edit summary to make it more obvious. David D. (Talk) 00:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just noticed that[4]. Sorry about it, but it looked weird. Arbusto 00:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

re Encouragement

You mean the message and the pic? Dunno. •Jim62sch• 21:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its very strange. Seems like someone is searching for swear words and then dumping the message and picture on the talk page of the one at the receiving end. i notice Spade got one too. Given the message is the same in every case it seems kind of pointless and insincere. David D. (Talk) 22:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

HM

I would ask you with respect to please not remove information from the Horace Mann School page without first discussing changes on the talk page. The clubs are indeed neccessary and central to the Horace Mann article. First of all, its eleaborate extracurricular activities is one of the main things that has made Horace Mann one of the top high schoolsin the entire country. Secondly, many of these clubs are notable in themselves in some sense. You won't find too many high school entrepreneurs clubs which have featured Mark Cuban and Kwame Jackson (among other notable entrepreneurs) and their conferences. If you're interested in finding more information, I would suggest that you contact Horace Mann and ask for a copy of our Club Directory, which will give you a description of each club and a Faculty Advisor contact. CherryPop 16:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)CherryPop

I don't think the idea of this article is to list all the clubs at HM and discuss them in detail. The article is about the school. Not who founded the clubs and whom their guests were any particlular year. i know you all think the clubs are important and especially the students who run the clubs but it is beyond the scope of this article to go into so much detail. Have you considered having a web page hosted by HM to write the type of article you seem to desire? David D. (Talk) 20:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit count tools

Hey David, do Kate's and interiot's tools always update right away? Because my edit count has been stuck on 873 for a long time but my contributions claim it's at least 1000. Thanks for your help. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 01:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too sure how it works. i am surprised you are stuck on the same number for so long. There is often a lag but that should still increase with time even if it is wrong. I wouldn't worry about it. Probably a bug and it is not that relevant. i'm sure i have tripled my edits just by not proof reading and having to go back to do minor edits. David D. (Talk) 04:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Legendary" Cornuke

Well, according to a couple of guys at CMPD whom I had the chance to briefly interview, the "legend" of Cornuke is much like Gastrich's, i.e., he's a "legend in his own mind." According to one of them, he's "all show and no go" (that's a direct quote). I guess we can expect no more from one whom "consciously models himself after 'Indiana Jones.'" - WarriorScribe 22:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

List of schools in Hampshire area template and pages

Hey, I've just stumbled acroos List of schools in Hampshire areaS and it's friends. I think theat they could all do with pagemoves to List of schools in Hampshire area (Southampton) etc. to make the pagename a bit more descriptive. Since you seem to be the major contributor to those pages, I thought I'd run it past you first. Any objections? SeventyThree^(Talk) 08:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections. I set up the pages as an experiment on how to organise the schools in a area (such as Hampsire) where there are too many for one page, and never really got it finished. Thanks for you consideration and asking for my imput before improving this project. David D. (Talk) 14:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

All done. SeventyThree^(Talk) 12:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi--- I notice that your last changes weren't discussed on the talk page. Would you please do so in the future so we can work for concensus? Thanks, CherryPop 16:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)CherryPop

The edit summaries had a limited discussion, i feel in the spirit of being bold that is sufficient to start. If someone wishes to revert and start a discussion on the talk page that is fine. Hopefully you will have noticed i am not in the habit of edit warring. David D. (Talk) 16:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Spam to multiple users (13 of them)

Hi. From comments on Sam Spade's RfC, I got the impression that quite a few users, including you, were in favor of an RFAr on Sam, though no one liked, or perhaps had the time, to be the one to post it. If I were to start a request on the RFAr page, would you be interested in signing as an involved party, and/or write a short statement there? I'm asking because if people have lost interest, there's obviously not much point in my doing it; it would merely distress and aggravate Sam unproductively, which I've certainly no wish to do. I wouldn't supply any examples of my own, as I haven't edited any of "Sam's articles" for a long time (couldn't stand it, that's why I stopped), but would basically simply refer to the RfC. It seems to me that anybody who wanted to endorse such an RFAr could more or less do the same, as the RfC is so complete. It's full of evidence, and its talkpage gives a view of Sam's attitude. I believe that it's important for the encyclopedia and the community that the old dog should learn new tricks, but please don't think I want to put the least pressure on you or anybody else to take part in an RFAr if you'd rather not. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, I'm amazed that you have gone ahead and started this for the sake of the community despite being on the periphery of the whole affair. Thank you for saving us from our own apathy and I will be happy to be involved (despite the fact i hate these RfC and RFAr time sinks). I have not been able to edit as much here recently but just point me and i will go to it. David D. (Talk) 21:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, well, I fully expect other people to do any actual work involved. But there shouldn't be much of it, the job is really finished, by people (such as yourself) who started and shaped the RfC. I understand that that was a time sink all right, but now all you have to do should be point to it; the arbitrators will surely be delighted to get a concise request for once. Anyway, arbitration has been requested, and people are starting to add comments and signatures. Feel free to do the same any time! Bishonen | talk 22:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

Date proposal

Hello David,

I'm not sure if you're still following Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I have made a proposal to completely rewrite the Dates section in the Manual of Style, with the hope that people from both sides of the debate can agree on a text. I noticed you contributed a lot in the previous discussions on this topic, but I don't think you've commented on my proposal yet (unless I just missed it!). Please do come along and discuss it if you're interested. I would like as many people as possible to comment, so that we can truly say we've reached a consensus.

Thanks,

Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look and comment ASAP. Thanks for bringing your proposal to my attention. David D. (Talk) 21:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

Hi. The request for arbitration/Sam Spade has been accepted. This is the evidence sub-page, and this the workshop sub-page. Bishonen | talk 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

"Bold" edit on my user page.

LOL. Thanks. It's fine with me. :-) --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 18:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich's back

He's back: calling himself a doctor and posting again.[5] It's pretty funny how many times "Dr." (albeit incorrectly and fraudulently) is used. Also I started a RfC concerning the edits made at the Hyles' articles Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi. Arbusto 06:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Asafa Powell

Yep, good catch. I've fixed the page to your version. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My tutorial page

Thanks, David. As yet, I've asked only two WPians for feedback, so your unintended visit and comment is welcome. I guess, privately, that I'd like to refer non-WPians to the page, if the circumstances suit; that's why I was willing to put a lot of work into establishing the question/answer process.

Cheers

Tony 08:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)