User talk:HopDavid
Welcome![edit]
- Hi, HopDavid, Welcome to Wikipedia!
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
I hope you like this place--I sure do--and want to stay. If you need help on how to title new articles check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and The FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or The Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on My User talk Page.
Additional Tips:
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!
- If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
- If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
- You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
- You may want to add yourself to the New User Log
- If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
Matani2005 | Talk 18:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Edits to Neil deGrasse Tyson[edit]
Hello,
I'm writing to let you know that I reverted a change you made to the Neil deGrasse Tyson article. I made a brief review of the circumstances regarding these claims and it seems there is previous consensus that these claims are not appropriate for this biography at this time. If you disagree, please open a discussion on the article's talk page detailing the reasons why the claims should be included, and also please take a look at the resources and policies below:
- A 2014 request for comment about these particular claims
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
- Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight
Either way, a section titled "Confabulations" is not appropriate for this article. If there is consensus to include this, a more neutral section title might be appropriate, or perhaps they can be included in an existing section. But please work to achieve consensus first.
Thank you, —BorgHunter (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Confabulation" is the kindest word I can find. It's a unambiguously a memory error without intent to deceive. "Fabrication" is ambiguous. Often "fabrication" is used to mean a lie with intent to deceive. But it can be interpreted to mean a made up story, without intent to deceive, so fabrication is also a valid label. I don't know a neutral way to describe a made up story. Can you give suggest a better label?HopDavid (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
December 2015[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am in a process of trial and error learning Wikipedia's markup. If I edited someone else's comments, it was unintentional. {{U|I dream of horses}}HopDavid (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
...since The Federalist wrote about me[edit]
This happened. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 02:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sean Davis called attention to Wikipedia editors trying to rewrite history? Yeah I know. Wikipedia's revisions of history has been noted in several places. "Reliable sources" was the grounds for censorship. When a child could easily find ample evidence Davis' accusations are correct. One editor wrote "Wikipedia actively ignores the blogosphere" Which is hilarious. Many editors (such as yourself) are active participants in the blogosphere. To quote your profile "A progressive liberal driven by rage. What's not to love?" Any noise on neutrality and accuracy is a sham. (Looking at the your profile…) 2 followers. Wow. That's a pathetic 15 minutes. If you want more notoriety, rewrite and falsify history a little more aggressively. Please post some more to Tyson's talk page.
Standard notifications[edit]
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Gamaliel (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
December 2018[edit]
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.
Your edits consistently fail to assume good faith amounting to presonal attacks. This is contrary to WP:5P4 and does not engender consensus building. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] O3000 (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
O3000, you are not making arguments in good faith. Don't ask me to assume you are. I will call out your falsehoods and libelous attacks on living persons. I will call out your lack of neutrality and double standards. You should not be a Wikipedia editor.HopDavid (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you want to make a complaint about Objective3000 then you need to do it properly. Moaning about them on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson is off-topic and disruptive. While you have every right to make such a complaint, if you really want to, I must warn you that doing so will draw attention to your own behaviour and may lead to you being hit with sanctions of some sort. I very much do not recommend this path to you. If you take it then please don't say that you were not warned. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)