User talk:DaveApter/Archive 1

Request for edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Style tip
Hi. I have a small note on style conventions. Per WP:MoS, one should not use capitals in section headings, so

==Conic Sections and Gravitational theory==

should be

==Conic sections and gravitational theory==

That's a small thing, but I thought I'd let you know. Happy holidays. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ya Beat Me
Looks like we both had the same idea, but you beat me to it by about 30 minutes. I posted on both users' pages also. My biggest objection so far was the reverting to old versions instead of editing going forward. Hopefully with the page protected everyone will get serious about compromise and come to the table to work this out.

Btw, howdy, I'm John. Lsi john 23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded to the MedCab - actually had to deal with an edit conflict from you :P Lsi john 14:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Anthropic Frayn
Hi Dave, thanks for adding the Frayn book to anthropic principle. I've been trying to reduce the number of "orphan" references in this article by citing them at appropriate points in the text. Any chance you could do this with Frayn (havn't read it myself so I have no idea which bit of the article is relevant). PaddyLeahy 22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! PaddyLeahy 09:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruption
Distraction is used to derail and disrupt the process. Stick to the subject and don't take the bait that is being chummed out. Disruptive editors will be seen for what they are. Lsi john 12:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I love skiing!! Lsi john 15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

French comments
Thanks for your comments on the mediation (and the thank you on my talk page). Could you draft a couple of sentences, or one, about the French description, along the lines of what you already suggest? Then if anyone wants to argue, at least we're discussing text. Chrislintott 18:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

LML
Greetings. I just made another change to LML, you might want to look at. I didn't mean to save the change, I was going forward to double check something and it saved. I'm comfortable with the edit, but you might want to double check it. Thanks. Peace. Lsi john 14:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ken's Article
I appreciate your candor on the edit help page. I don't disagree with any of your personal perceptions of Ken. I do not know him at all - never met him. However, without intending to provoke a negative reaction, there are relevant facts surrounding his involvement with the internet, his investigative journalism and viewpoints. This is essential to present a complete picture of an individual, biographically. Wikipedia is not a PR site. I appreciate your loyalty and believe your personal viewpoint about Ken. From his writings, I sense he is a deeply committed, passionate individual.

Having said that, it appears that Ken is reading the article as well. He has modified his BrasscheckTV.com site to convert to a proxy ownership from the previous AMACORD, he included a disclaimer on the site and also temporarily removed his entire Brasscheck.com site from the web. It appears to me that Ken would rather not publicize this aspect of his life - but as we all know - the internet is forever. I suggest we consider deleting this article as I would NOT want a person to feel they must conceal their life's passion simply becuase it is public. What do you think? Thanks. Jettparmer (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for being in communication.
 * I'd like to say several things, all with the greatest of respect, and without any animosity or antagonism:
 * 1) You seem to have a tendency to perceive conspiracies yourself even where there are none (see the next few points)
 * 2) You see some malign significance in the fact that brasscheck.com was down for a short time yesterday. I checked and it is funcioning normally now. Websites go offline temporarily for all sorts of reasons.
 * 3) You claim that the registration of these two sites has been made anonymous in response to your activity on wikipedia in the last two months. I just checked here http://whois.domaintools.com/brasscheck.com, and the most recent update was 17th July 2007. Many website registrants prefer to keep their details private for all sorts of legitimate reasons.
 * 4) You say that Ken is trying to keep his involvement in these sites hidden, but if that were the case why would he publicly announce it in the alteri interview and elsewhere?
 * 5) You say - as though it were somehow devious - that "it appears that Ken is reading the article as well". I'd be staggered if he were not. I certainly would be if there was a biography of me here, wouldn't you?
 * 6) You make particular play of the fact that the disclaimer on brasscheckTV.com has recently been added. So what? Perhaps up until now he would have thought it obvious that he did not necessarily give 100% endorsement of every single piece of material linked, that had been published and put into the public domain elsewhere.
 * 7) You have said several times that the article should be deleted unless it can be made to conform to your personal perspectives, but this is to confuse several distinct issues: a) should Ken wish not to have a biographical article here, he only has to request that and wikipedia would remove it; b) if you wish to suggest it under the AfD process, you know how to do that, and the consensus will be duly established - however there is no doubt at all that he qualifies readily on grounds of notability; and, c) whether or not specific points get the prominence you wish is resolved by collaborative editing, in alignment with the policies regarding verifiability, citing of reliable sources, undue weight, and no original research.


 * May I ask you now the straight question as to what it is that prompts you to embark on this energetic crusade here over the last two months (and counting)? DaveApter (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. Let me cover the top few questions quickly and then move to the last.
 * 1-2) The changes made seemed coincidental and the domain registry change all were within a few days. I jumped to conclusions when the Brasscheck site went dark - I would submit that page failures are not that common anymore.  No conspiracy, just coincidence.
 * 3) Registration of the TV site was changed from AMACORD recently. Concur most people would like to keep some things separate, however, the operation of BrasscheckTV is significant and much better known than any of Ken's other sites.
 * As you've researched it, you'll know that it went private around September 9th, 2008 - well before the current flurry of activity on wikipedia; so why continue making the misleading claim that they are connected? DaveApter (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I did not say he was keeping his involvement hidden, the Alterati interview obviously contradicts this, however, the anonymity behind BrasscheckTV is notable.
 * 5) As to Ken reading the article, I don't mean this in a negative way, simply as a "what does he think?" sort of way.
 * 6) The disclaimer issue is two fold. Prior to the addition of the sites, it was pretty clear that he endorsed many of these views - evidence by his positive reviews of the videos and selection for inclusion / promotion on the TV site.  Issuing the disclaimer (on one level) seems like a weak attempt to claim neutrality - when there seems clear evidence that there is a bias.  Secondly, if it was an endorsement issue, why now?  Perhaps the article simply brought this to his attention.
 * 7) This is a mischaracterization. If the article is overly skewed (i.e. individual is only presented in one aspect), then it doesn't meet the encyclopediac definition of a good biography and devolves into either a PR or hit piece.  There is no original research here, all the sites are Ken's sites and the writings are his.  Nothing has yet arisn to dispute that.  In the case of undue weight, which would you balance?  The TV site is orders of magnitude more popular than his business site.  The internet libel lawsuit was mentioned in several major news publications and is considered part of beginning internet case law.  Is this more or less relevant than being program director at the Princeton College FM station?


 * To the last point about my interest. I have stated it clearly, I have received numerous forwarded e-mails from firends and relations from Ken's BrasscheckTV site.  After viewing a few I began to wonder where all this was originating.  There was no information whatsoever on the BrasscheckTV site, so I began to research it.  Once I realized it was the work of one person, I was further interested.  Finding his beginning bio on WP I was surprised to find no mention of this work at all.  I began to edit the bio, perhaps with too much of a counter to a bias I felt was almost purely PR.  I am a sporadic Wikipedian.  I noodle around what intertests me and generally enjoy a little research challenge.  I am a little sensitive to being labeled a "crusader" and assigned attributes that are not warranted WP:CIV.  I have worked to create a more complete view of Ken McCarthy the whole person, not simply the internet marketer.  Jettparmer (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am comparing the current state of the article to its pre-December state. I think by any standard it is now objectively better referenced and more complete. The pursuit of truth can be a passionate endeavor, especially for the sincere. I'm certainly not a power user myself and am sure I've made mistakes in procedure and tone along the way and for that I apologize. If things have been messy to this point, we seem to be arriving a good place in terms of this particular article. I sense fundamental good will in all the parties who've taken an interest in this.


 * In that spirit, I'd like to encourage Jettparmer to take a look at the most recent comments relating to the Rick Boyce article. There are some clarifications and significant new references that may well address some of the concerns he's expressed about that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolatime (talk • contribs) 21:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

LE & Cirt
What is the previous username/account of Cirt? You can reply here, I'll come back. Thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant to give you a straight answer because I've been threatened for doing exactly that previously. Have you asked him/her this as a straight question? DaveApter (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A straight answer has come on my page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Help Locating Complaint re LE edits
I appreciate your alert of a complaint against me back in September. I have not been able to edit in some time due to family emergency. Now I am back, and have not been able to locate the specific complaint you referenced. Can you help me track it down? Aclayartist (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on my Talk Page. Aclayartist (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding unreliable source at article Landmark Education
Your recent edit to the article Landmark Education removed sourced info to secondary sources, and added info cited to www.keepandshare.com. This is not a WP:RS source. Please do not do this again. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is totally unnecessary wikilawering. Anyone can easily establish from the public record that these cases were dismissed, and the keepandshare.com link is simply a convenience to enable readers to view copies of the documents.  This is typical of the double standards you apply to sources according to whether they support your POV or not.  You have frequently used court papers as refs for your edits, and frequently referred to them via reprints on various websites. DaveApter (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edit just provided a link to a collection of various documents at www.keepandshare.com. The edit did not reference a specific document. That is poor sourcing practices. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I take your point entirely and apologise for that. You will see that I already referenced to the actual court documents in the refs in the article to avoid contention over using the reprint site, and for convenience, I provided links to the actual pdf reprints of the specific items (rather than the catalog listing) on the discussion page.  Again, my apologies.  DaveApter (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cirt (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Incentive sites
The deletion debate has been closed as a merge to Incentive program; please help extract content from the page history of Incentive sites and merge it to the other article. Deryck C. 17:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

caic.org.au discussion
Hello! As someone who has edited the Landmark Worldwide article in the past few weeks, I am notifying you of a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding the use of the website caic.org.au as a reliable source in that article. Please feel free to review or participate in that discussion.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Please refrain from making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA as you did here. Also, under the circumstances, I believe it entirely appropriate and in accord with conduct guidelines if you were to clearly indicate any biases toward or against any organizations which you might yourself have on your user page and in any relevant discussion on article talk pages. I also believe that you will find that the histories of the pages, including the discussion pages, rather clearly reveals that the statement I made is defensible, which would make it reasonably appropriate. However, there is nothing I can think of which would indicate that the implicit threat in your own comment linked to above could be considered or appropriate by anyone. Should such misconduct continue, in this case I believe even once, I believe it would be entirely appropriate for me to raise that matter for appropriate administrative review. John Carter (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how you or any reasonable person could construe my remarks as a personal attack.
 * I cannot see anything in my remarks that could possibly be interpreted as a threat, implicit or explicit.
 * I have been open and candid in making my own "bias" in relation to Landmark quite clear on my user page, and also in my recent peer review request. DaveApter (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right and I apologize, having done a quick scan of the I saw the ending comments, which in the quick read seemed to be threatening de-sysoping, and I apologize for the overquick response. My comments, however, stand regarding how I believe it reasonable for all parties to not only disclose their existing biases, if any, but also to perhaps better adhere to talk page guidelines. I can honestly say that I find your comments on the list of NRM talk page in the current bottom section of the talk page indicating numbers of opinions expressed as being the decider as being, honestly, well, counterproductive, and honestly tendentious. I believe it would be also be reasonable for you to indicate your existing opinions on the article talk page so that the closer of the RfC, if there is one, will be aware that some editors might have, at some level, a reason other than encyclopedic development for some of their comments, particularly if those comments seem to not be based clearly on policies and guidelines. And, yes, honestly, the argument that NRM is a term that shouldn't be used because it isn't clearly defined, based on the words included in the term rather than in the term taken as a whole, despite the fact that it is regularly used in the academic world, clearly seems to be to be disruptive and counterproductive. But I do wish to express my apologies for my having responded based on a quick scan of the statement and before I had read your comment out in full, which led to my overreacting to the loaded language in the end. John Carter (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you - apology accepted. DaveApter (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Fiddle  Faddle  09:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment
Hi - just a quick note - after the RFC closure you said I was an admin but I'm actually not - feel free to correct for clarity- best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've corrected that now. DaveApter (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Homeostasis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cell, Tissue and Organ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Analog and Bandwidth. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide
So far as I can see I've just reverted two instances of wild accusations from inappropriate sources. If somebody's concerned about an article having "guardians" in a way that's proving a problem, ask them to name usernames. --McGeddon (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Negative feedback, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exponential. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, &bull; Astynax talk 01:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Dawn Bard (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Negative feedback
 * added links pointing to Audio, Integration, Differentiation, Supply, Position and FM

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William J. Donovan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George H. White. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Arb case
DaveApter, the usual limits on evidence are 1000 words for named parties, and you are just over 1300. Not everyone realizes the limit applies to responses as well as direct evidence. Some leeway is often given, although this is a bit on the high side of leeway. On a positive note, your evidence and responses are well-organized, which helps.

If you think that you might need to add more, we absolutely must discuss how to do some trimming. If you think you are done, we can probably leave it as is (unless I get a note from an arb) but if you see any way to trim a bit, that would help.

If you think you need to add more, and see no possibility of trimming, then I can inquire with the arbs for an exception, which may be granted.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it isn't totally obvious, and not the thing you want to learn by being an active participant :) -- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Goldsmith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Aspinall. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Goldsmith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Union. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sorcerer's Apprentice. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Response
I have responded to your rather laughable attempt at misdirection, and I hope you can understand that I am raising concerns about your own ongoing abusive behavior toward others under the circumstances of possibly seeing yourself lose your apparently biased version of the article at ARCA, as a indication of your ongoing misconduct to preserve your favored version of the article. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion re accusations of COI
DaveApter, I'm going to give you some one-time free advice (you know what that's worth) about this diff. Don't you find it strange that you are constantly being accused of having a COI yet no one has filed an incident report at WP:COIN? The reason is quite simple; it is to isolate you and continue to undermine your reputation as an editor. This is the three step process of isolate, intimidate, and eliminate that is explained at WP:POV railroad. You may want to check out that essay, and also have a chat with about additional examples. Imo, the worst thing you can do is get into tit-for-tat exchanges with other editors over why you don't have a COI. Simply put, you can't prove a negative, and it allows your opponents to pile up more diffs that they can use against you later. I suggest you consider taking yourself to COIN for an independent review. They will determine whether you do or don't have a conflict of interest, and that should be the end of the matter. (It won't be, but it should be.) Ignocrates (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request closed
This is a courtesy message to inform you that the clarification request you filed has been closed and archived with a motion being enacted which authorises standard discretionary sanctions for the topic of Landmark Worldwide, broadly construed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. &bull; Astynax talk 20:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Negative feedback, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Audio. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * James Goldsmith
 * added a link pointing to John Kay


 * Psycho-Cybernetics
 * added a link pointing to Dan Kennedy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits to Landmark Worldwide
I have reverted your recent edits to the above page. You seem to have removed reliably sourced material and/or changed it on no other basis so far as I can tell but that perhaps you as an individual might disagree with it. Such editing can and often is seen as POV pushing, and can not unreasonably be seen as edit warring by a POV pusher if the individual has, as has been repeatedly established in your own personal case, a clear and possibly overwhelming POV regarding a particular topic. As you know, such edits are, at least potentially, grounds for discretionary sanctions now. Therefore, I think it would be in your own best interests to propose and receive substantive support for such changes on the talk page before perhaps again acting in a way which might make you eligible for discretionary sanctions. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits to Psycho-Cybernetics
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Psycho-Cybernetics, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you!  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 21:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there any other instances of copyvio?
You added some sentences to Human Potential Movement that, as you have told us, had been copied from the source in its entirety, without marking it as such. Are there any other instances of this inadmissable practice of yours in the past? Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't recall any other occasions where I used quotes at all - that's why I wasn't up to speed on the exact conventions. DaveApter (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks - that's reassuring. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio and Source manipulation Human Potential Movement
Stop adding copyvio to Human Potential Movement and additional manipulation of the source. Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you mean by 'manipulation of the source'. DaveApter (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your 'quotation', marked with quotation marks, is:
 * "The human potential movement (HPM) originated in the 1960s as a counter-cultural rebellion against mainstream psychology and organised religion. It is not in itself a religion, new or otherwise, but a psychological philosophy and framework, including a set of values that have made it one of the most significant and influential forces in modern Western society."
 * The source can be consulted here, p.286-288. Please tell me where this quotation occurs in the source (the quote is corrupt anyway, but additionally the "new of otherwise" interjection is a misrepresentation). I have to spell out the tiniest of details to you. Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The quote is taken from page 399 of my copy of the book (Lion Publishing 2004), and is exact. Perhaps an apology and a reinstatement of my edit is in order? DaveApter (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So the copyvio was even more serious than I already thought. I will check it and if you are right, I will apologize and reinstate the quote (quotations in encyclopedic articles are not recommended anyway). Do you apologize for the copyvio and the clear lie on the talk page of HPM that in this respect you did not understand what I meant? Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the inadvertant violation; I had not realised that it was necessary to add a specific attribution and quote marks as well as giving the ref, but - as you saw - I rectified that with my second edit. As regards the "clear lie", that statement was not one: I genuinely did not understand what you meant by 'additional manipulation' or 'corrupt'. It would be helpful to avoid inflammatory language. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And it would have been preferable to have this discussion there on the talk page of the article, rather than here. DaveApter (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have the greatest difficulty to take seriously that someone who is as skilfull in wikilawyering as you (apparently) are, does not know that copying from sources, without acknowledging it, is a mortal sin in an encyclopedic context. After you have been trying to nail me unto the cross twice, you should not be too surprised that my capacity for clemency has diminished a bit. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here I have apologized for calling the quote corrupt. I had compared the quote with another text of Elizabeth Puttick and I was wrong. Theobald Tiger (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Even though we have different opinions, perhaps we can discuss the edits in future without getting so heated? DaveApter (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that we have different opinions; I simply respect your viewpoint. The problem is, in my view, that there are very, very strong clues indicating that a tag team of Landmark adherents is active, obviously trying to prevent at all costs the Landmark Worldwide article (and related articles) to be in accordance with reliable sources. The reason is, no doubt, that they consider neutrality to be harmful to the Landmark business. As long as you do not show clearly and unambiguously that you distance yourself from the activities of the (real or imagined) tag team, and as long as it remains unclear if your interest in Landmark is likely to interfere and disrupt neutral, objective, encyclopedic article development, you and I will be adversaries with respect to the Landmark-related articles. Remember: they have tried to nail me unto the cross at least twice, and you have been one of the tag team's willing executioners. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Theobald but this is a mixture of ungenerous speculation and sheer paranoia.
 * I can only speak for myself, and I have made my position absolutely clear on my user page (something that I think it would be healthy if everyone who edits on contentious subjects were to do, but almost no-one does). My entire relationship with Landmark is as a sometime customer who did several of their courses some years ago, and found them helpful and good value. Because I had had the honesty to declare this, I have been subjected to endless bad faith accusations of having a conflict of interest. This is no more a COI than I would have editing the Apple Inc page because I have owned Macs and admired them, or in editing the Norton motorcycles article because I once owned one and enjoyed riding it. I don't recognise your characterisation of my edits as being to "prevent at all costs the article to be in accordance with reliable sources". And I have no interest whatsoever in Landmark's profits. I genuinely believe that the version of the article that I would like to see is one that is fair, neutral and accurate; and that it is Astynax and others (including yourself) who are attempting to impose a distorted article which unduly reflects their own opinions. I try to assume that this is not out of deliberate malice but because they for some reason are unable to distinguish their own viewpoint from one which actually is genuinely neutral.
 * As for your tag-team remark, I have no idea what your "clues" are, but I would say that there is at least as strong a case to be made out that Astynax, you, John Carter, Legacypac, and Cathar66 have been so operating. I'm not saying that there is necessarily active collusion either on-wiki or off, but these editors did mutually make six identical (or close) block-reverts on 31st January and four on 12th February. DaveApter (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And one request, will you please cease referring to editors as "Landmarkians" and "Landmark adherents". Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bye, bye. Theobald Tiger (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Your RFC
Hello! I just wanted to know that I requested that the RFC you started on the Landmark talk page be closed about a week ago - no response yet from anyone looking at the request for closure page however. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Landmark Worldwide
Hello!

With this edit, you altered the indenting of statements by me (and by others). That altered the conversation by changing who was responding to whom. I have fixed my response, but you may want to check with other editors as well. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies - I was just trying to clarify when the changes of editors took place according to my understanding of the conventions. I will not do this in future. DaveApter (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No problems at all. I see that it was a bit difficult to follow, and I went back and added bullets to clarify change of editor.  Hopefully that rights it. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Infinite monkey theorem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keyboard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Practopoiesis for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Practopoiesis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Practopoiesis& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually found at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Practopoiesis_(2nd_nomination)... not sure why the template-thing had a redlink, some kind of embedded entity-ref in the wikilink seems to be the problem. Since you seem to know something about the topic-area, I wonder if you mind me shoving some work your direction?  Would you have an interest in creating, or at least stub-creating, Draft:Danko Nikolić as a BLP-article?  I am happy to help with sourcing and such, and there is already a list of publications at the AfD in my original comment.  If you per WP:CHOICE would rather not, that is no problem o'course.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:New Psycho-Cybernetics book cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:New Psycho-Cybernetics book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment
Hi User:DaveApter. Many thanks for your compliments for the editing I did on the Homeostasis article. Much appreciated. Cruithne9 (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited State variable filter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Audio ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/State_variable_filter check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/State_variable_filter?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Limits to Growth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ICI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Fixed your talk page archiving
Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)