User talk:Davidwhittle

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

Thanks[edit]

Davidwhittle, I left a thank-you for you on the Talk:Critical race theory page: "That's better!" —Blanchette (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC) ‎[reply]

I REALLY appreciate that, Blanchette! How do I give you a Barnstar or something for bringing a voice of reason to the fray? Davidwhittle (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David, thanks for your kind words here and on the CRT Talk page where I answered some of your questions with On Editing Wikipedia & "Critical Race Theory". Barnstars? I think they are for real achievements, like major improvements to articles or to the functioning of Wikipedia, aren't they? Your appreciation is reward enough. As for being the voice of reason and clarity, I meant what I said there about studying Aristotle, though of course his surviving works are not in the best condition, many of them having been compiled from what, judging from their telegraphic style in the original Greek (or so I am told), were lecture notes rather than finished treatises. Nonetheless, Aristotle's razor-sharp and well-organized mind shines through even his dense and difficult works, like the Metaphysics. Reading Plato first is really helpful, of course, Plato being a great literary/dramatic artist as well as philosopher, though he always approaches questions indirectly and thus is not a good model for reasoning on WP talk pages, as I learned the hard way! (Sarcasm is usually understood but subtler forms of irony and figures of speech, not so much.)

You are right about the Sisyphean task of achieving consensus on controversial articles, as anyone who has ever attempted to edit articles related to politics will confirm. I tend to withdraw from disputes where I find few allies, since no balance can be gained absent a balance of editors, heartbreaking as it can be to see an article captured by an ideological clique. If you have allies (who may be just neutral, actually) it is always possible, though tedious, to appeal to various higher levels of the WP bureaucracy, or merely mention that you think it is time to do so, in order to get more neutral third-party viewpoints into the issue. I have had little temptation to do so as I try not to get too passionate about these articles. When all is said and done, Wikipedia at any time is only the first word on what is fact, not the last! Speaking of allies, if you ever want me to look at an article or discussion you are involved in just leave a note on my talk page and if I am logged on again in time I'll take a look. —Blanchette (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC) In high school and college, I found Aristotle and Plato so logically obvious as to be boring - I should revisit them with the benefit of experience gained in a world where logic is neither obvious nor common. :-) I'll definitely take you up on your offer - I often pick the contentious ones because I find it most fulfilling when I can fight the dragons of injustice, bigotry, and stupidity. :-) One well-reasoned voice can often make a difference if you're patient enough. Thanks! Davidwhittle (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on my personal talk page, David. I'm sorry I could not participate sooner and support your position but I have now written an argument for your point of view and a message of firm support on the Talk:Critical_race_theory page (see: CRT and BHO: like it or not, they are a pair in the mainstream debate) and I hope you will restore your edits including restoring Peter Wood's comments in the Controversies section, the real source of which (the Breitbart video and Pollack-O'Brien debate — both of which deserve mention in the CRT article, incidentally) prompted his comments in the first place, perhaps with some additional references to the notability of the debate on the CRT-Obama connection. I'm sorry I can't contribute more now; I'll try to return often enough to support you against unjustified reversions, e.g., later today or early tomorrow. (I'm something of a night owl in the EDT zone.) —Blanchette (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Critical Race Theory". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 April 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 02:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Critical Race Theory, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

April 2012[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my opinion (Talk:Critical_race_theory) on you're being blocked from editing and my general view on the way to proceed with the CRT Controversies section. —Blanchette (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts, Blanchette. I agree with your perspectives, and I'm sorry to see that you paid a price for speaking in my defense. It's pretty clear to me what is happening, and pretty discouraging to be forced to give up my idealistic perspectives about Wikipedia and to join Larry Sanger and other critics in believing that until Wikipedia eliminates the anonymity of contributors and editors, it will never be a viable source of accurate perspective on any controversial topic. Davidwhittle (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NORN discussion thread[edit]

I have started a thread about the Glenn Beck religious influences section at the No Original Research Noticeboard. You may find the thread here. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Talk:Critical race theory[edit]

Hi David,

I see, and understand in part, your frustration about edits on CRT. I hope that I haven't contributed too much to it; I'd much rather co-edit through a disagreement than spend time alternating between arguments and dispute resolution processes.

However, I think the two texts (1 and 2) I put in the draft RfC constitute each of our best attempts to hear one another. The text is a draft precisely to allow others, but particularly you, to help frame the dispute in a neutral language to outside editors. I think that you would benefit from having people who are not as emotionally charged getting a look at the issue. So if you can engage with the RfC, propose alterations, and agree to abide by the weight of outside opinions, that would give us a way forward.

Sincerely. --Carwil (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truly, Carwil, even though we disagree on much, I have enormous respect for your contributions, reasonableness, intelligence, and overall approach to our disagreements. I'm confident that if it were just you and me, we could probably fairly quickly find the common ground of a worthy contribution to the article. I consider my politics mainstream America, because I find myself in the majority on most polls, and I had the experience of writing an entire scholarly book on the Internet and Internet culture with a New York liberal editor, so I truly believe in Covey's 3rd Alternative ideas - that two worthy adversaries engaged in a goodwill search will find the superior "3rd Alternative" that represents not one side or the other or even a compromise, but a synergistic solution not previously envisioned by either side. I hope I made it clear that my ire is directed not at you, but at others and the overall Wikipedia process that favors activist, agenda-driven editors and censors over thoughtful contributors. I don't know how you put up with it - I've seen it on both sides, but clearly the left-leaning editors get their way when all is said and done, as evidenced by the biased content you'll find on just about any politically-charged article. I apologize for letting the bullies get to me, but I just don't have the patience for a process that gives equal weight (preferential, actually) to the opinions and tactics of destructive, manipulative, non-contributing editors who constantly interfere with the process of reasonable editors (you, me, blanchette, and a painfully few others there who actually contribute rather than just delete) attempting to work out a consensus. I'm just tired of dealing with it and thinking about it - it's been a soul-sucking experience. Every time I've spent the time and put in the effort to try to fairly present a balanced, well-sourced perspective, I end up caught up in time-consuming battle to defend it against a hoard of clearly biased activists and "defenders of the faith" who use Wikipedia jargon and a mish-mash of conflicting rules to over-rule common sense and scholarly exchange to steer the article in the direction they want, without even an attempt to understand the other side of the arguments. All for what? My original purpose of providing searchers with a better, more balanced understanding of whatever subject they're searching for has long since been purged from my idealistic mind as I've seen what an overwhelming (and ultimately futile) task it is simply to defend a few contributions to one article. But I'm curious why you want me to agree to engage and agree to abide by the weight of outside opinions - you, TVoz, Paul, RedPen, and Malik clearly outnumber me and blanchette, so what forces are in play that make my continued participation of any relevance? What reason do I have to expect that my participation in an RfC will make any difference in the outcome? I've said everything I have to say in every way I can think to say it, and you're the only one who engages me in a productive, reasonable exchange where both sides learn from each other. So convince me that I'm not just wasting my time or worse - begging for more angst in tilting at windmills. I trust that the Wikipedia process will ultimately render a Wikipedia result - an article that gives proportionate weight to the bias of those with the interest, time and resources to invest in the article. I'm with Larry Sanger on this - as long as Wikipedia editors are anonymous, the quality of Wikipedia articles on controversial topics will be erratic, spotty, and biased. But I'm open to your thoughts as to why my participation would make any difference. Seems to me that if I agree to abide, then I'll be overruled and the article will be forever bereft of content about the controversy, because the precedent is firmly in place. If I don't agree to abide, then my contributions will be deleted because I'm not cooperating with the Wikipedia process. Either way, the outcome is the same for you - but in the latter case, at least I don't waste my time and cooperate with a sham of a process. Please convince me otherwise... And thanks for your interest, by the way. Davidwhittle (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to wikiFeed[edit]

Hi Davidwhittle,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! RachulAdmas (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Robin Raskin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

dangerous panda 00:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Davidwhittle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is a static IP provided by Vivint Wireless, a reputable firm. Davidwhittle (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; we need to know your IP address in order to look for the block. Please request another unblock with this information. Yamla (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Davidwhittle. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Davidwhittle. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]