User talk:David r from meth productions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

David, I see that no one has "welcomed" you to Wikipedia yet. Let me be the first, and please feel free to leave me a message if you need advice about anything. Thanks! TheronJ 19:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David r from meth productions! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! TheronJ 19:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Early comments[edit]

You have been blocked for persisting with personal attacks at Talk:Johann Hari. The policy here against personal attacks will be enforced, against those who disregard it. You have been blocked for 24 hours.

Charles Matthews 20:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

jaco♫plane 14:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Hari image[edit]

Hi, I had a look at the site you linked to ([1]), but unfortunately I can't see under what license the image is there. There are several Creative Commons licenses, and we can only use the "Attribution" or "Attribution / Share alike" licenses. Images that have a "Noncommercial" or "No Derivative Works" can't be used (since they would not be allowed to be used on Wikipedia mirror sites like answers.com). Still, I agree that this is a much better image and would like to see it used in the article. Do you have confirmation that it is licensed under the proper CC license? That would be great so we can put this dispute behind us. Cheers, jaco♫plane 14:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, thank for your message. Unfortunately, the image on flickr is not licensed under a creative commons license. If you look on the right, under "Additional Information", it says "© All rights reserved". If that were a creative commons image, it would say "Some rights reserved.". See this image for an example. I see that he has tagged the image "Anyone who wants can use this", but that is not a real license. I'm sorry that this is proving so tricky, but it's really necessary. If I allow this image to be uploaded it will most certainly be deleted by another administrator within a few days, which is not exactly what we want. I've left a message on the image page explaining how he can remedy this situation. It should take all of two seconds for him to select the right license, and once this is done I'll upload the image immediately. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 18:37
Perhaps you could mail him again asking to take a look at the message I left. I've also removed the old image for now. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 18:45

Mediation[edit]

Have you initiated this, dave?Felix-felix 14:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk Page[edit]

Is for talking to me, dave. Other edits there will be erased, as I see fit.Felix-felix 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Warnings from your talk page[edit]

Generally frowned on, dave-especially block templates put there by admins. You probably didn't know that-but I'd probably restore them, if I were you.Felix-felix 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hmm. Thanks, I'll put them back. I'll tell you something else that's generally frowned on in wikipedia: inserting lies into entries, blatantly trying to impose your POV on entries of people you hate, imposing your own political bias, insulting real people as sockpuppets... I could go on, and you probably did know not to do it. The way you are disregarding the wiki rules and authorities is appalling.

David r from meth productions 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you like, dave. Usually form to reply on the other person's talk page-then they get a 'you have new messages' message when they log in.Felix-felix 10:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, it's not "how I like". When did your obsessive hatred of Johann Hari begin, Felix? David r from meth productions 12:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


He's wrong on both points. You are quite entitled to remove anything you like from here. And if someone puts a message on your talkpage you can reply either there or on their's. It's up to them to watch for a reply on yours.--Docg 14:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My warm fondness for Johann Hari[edit]

Began soon after the little tyke starting writing for the Independent. I know what he looks like from the telly, dave-as I imagine many others do too.Felix-felix 15:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Gilad Atzmon[edit]

I'm a jazz fan, dave. And he's jewish. Have you read any of his stuff, or do you just like quoting stuff of his out of context?Felix-felix 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read so much of his stuff that you could only use the partial quote from the frozen WP page? Here's the quote in context; Since America currently enjoys the status of the world's only super power and since all the Jews listed above declare themselves as devoted Zionists, we must begin to take the accusation that Zionists are trying to control the world very seriously. It is beyond doubt that Zionists, the most radical, racist and nationalistic Jews around, have already managed to turn America into an Israeli mission force. The world's number one super power is there to support the Jewish state's wealth and security matters. The one-sided pro-Zionist take on the Israeli­Palestinian conflict, the American veto against every 'anti-Israeli' UN resolution, the war against Iraq and now the militant intentions against Syria, all prove beyond doubt that it is Zionist interests that America is serving. American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world.. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least. Whether the Americans enjoy the deterioration of their state's affairs will no doubt be revealed soon. [2] The emphasis is a little different, don't you think? (in fact, experience tells me that you won't) He's anti-zionist and anti US imperialism, and isn't afraid to use rough language in his arguments. But there again, he is Jewish. I wouldn't criticise a black person for using the term 'nigger' or somebody from Eire calling another Irishman a 'mick'-for example. But of course, this is all about his criticism of israel, not his language toward his fellow countrymen and diaspora Jews.Felix-felix 13:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote This is another of your lies. Here is a direct quote from Atzmon:

"I argue that once you strip Jewishness of its spiritual content you are left with mere racism. You see, I am neither a religious Jew nor a secular one. Thus, I cannot regard myself as a Jew."

So (a) your claim he is Jewish is false, and (b) your claim he is only critical of Zionism, not Jews, is false. - David R 86.129.145.38 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that you couldn't be bothered to sign in again, dave! As for Atzmon-i don't think that you can give up your ethnic identity just like that, and from his own bio; "Raised as a secular Israeli Jew in Jerusalem, Gilad Atzmon witnessed and empathised with the daily sufferings of Palestinians and spent 20 years trying to resolve for himself the tensions of his background." [3]. I couldn't find your quote, dave-where was it from?Felix-felix 16:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You wrote; It's from here:

http://haloscan.com/tb/thecutter/113481030207466491

This link doesn't work-and moreover looks like a blog comments box-one of your specialities, dave.Felix-felix 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to altahrir.blogspot.com/2006/01/beauty-as-political-weapon-gilad.html and then apologise for your transparantly ludicrous claim that this man is not an anti-Semite. But don't do it to me, I don't want to hear any mrope of your lunatic racist ramblingsDavid r from meth productions 12:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, dave-it's an interesting and thoughtful interview-but how does it 'prove' he's a racist? In fact, he points out throughout that he's not. Have you read the interview through?Felix-felix 09:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is not Jewish. if you do not consider yourself to be part of a "race", a socially constructed concept, then you are not part of it.

That's an interesting position to take, however I think you'll find that it's an untenable one. Do you think you can opt out of hair or eye colour too?Felix-felix 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How revealing. You think 'race' is a category built into the body and the bone, like eye colour. Only one group of people now hold this view: racists. Everybody else acknowledges that race is a mutable social construct. He's a Jew according to the Nuremberg Laws but not according to him. I know which I believe. David r from meth productions 12:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, perhaps eye and hair colour are bad examples, being purely genetically determined-you can't opt out of being from Yorkshire or being a braying public schoolboy either.Felix-felix 09:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a Jew, and he is not criticising only Zionists but all Jews. (He has written articles entitled "the Protocols of the Edlers of Zion, part Two). It is hard to see how he could be more blatantly anti-Semitic.

Well, apart from the fact that he's Jewish, which, as I've pointed out before would make the liklihood of him being 'antisemitc' rather remote. And the fact that he says he's not an anti-jewish rascist.

- The Ku Klux Klan say they aren't anti-black racists. No doubt you would excuse them too, provided they said their hatred of Jews was criticism of Israel.David r from meth productions 12:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no dave-as they aren't black.Felix-felix 09
56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
And Atzmon is not Jewish, except under the Nuremberg Laws. 81.129.158.74 17:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But he does seem to like to use provocative language, I wouldn't use it myself, but as I outlined above, I wouldn't criticise a black person for saying 'nigger', for example-I don't see how Atzmon is any different. Felix-felix 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For you to posture about Johann Hari, accusing him of advocating "the destruction of untermenschen", while defending this blatant anti-Semite, is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. When did you last risk your life going to Congo, Gaza, the West Bank etc, as Hari does regularly? You are too busy defending racists. - Dave86.129.145.38 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand in awe of Hari's tourist jaunts to Iraq and Israel, dave. Standing for proper standards in WP isn't 'defending' anybody about anything, dave-not that I expect you to understand that.You seem to be in a bit of a bad mood today. Try and cheer up.:-)Felix-felix 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lots of tourists head to Gaza as it's being bombed and interview Islamic Jihad suicide-bombers. Lots of tourists go to the worst war zones in Congo, where four million people have died, and interview the militiamen who are raping and murdering. Lots of tourists spend a fortnight in the rubbish dumps of Lima with the street-children, in a place the police don't dare to go to.

You are not defending the truth about Atzmon; you are lying about him to minimize his blatant racism. he is not Jewish, and as my quote from him showed, he is not attacking Israelis, but all Jews. Confronted with hard evidence, yet again you go silent.

While Hari is out there reporting from some of the most suffering places in the world, you are defending people who write articles called "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Mark II)."

This is not a bad day, Felix. I have simply discovered what kind of person you are. Before, I thought we simply disagreed. But I am not polite to people who defend racists while accusing consistent anti-racists like Hari of being in favour of "the destruction of untermenschen."

Do not contact me again. If I did not think you were a pitiful nutcase, you would disgust me. David r from meth productions 12:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, dave, strong language indeed!Felix-felix 13:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us take the issue of defending racists, and inserting libels into wikipedia, seriously. You evidently wouldn't understand. Do not reply. Do not contact me. David r from meth productions 22:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done, dave!Felix-felix 09:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Play nice[edit]

Hi David. Given that you mention "disregarding the wiki-rules", you'll be aware that those rules involve not using terms such as "pitiful nutcase" to refer to other editors. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are crucial to maintaining harmonious community relations, and contravening them can lead to a block from editing. I'm not interested in the nature of your dispute with Felix-felix, just reminding you there are ways to do things and ways not to do things. It also appears you recently removed warning and block notices from your talkpage without good reason, and these will be restored. You are of course welcome to archive your talk page if and when it becomes unmanageable, and provide a link to that archive. Note that archives should not be used solely for storing warning messages. Thanks, Deizio talk 08:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deiz - thanks for your message, I take your point. It's frustrating when another user defends racists and inserts libels into an article, but you're right, the correct response is not to talk to this person but to contact the wiki authorities and wait. David r from meth productions 19:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request regarding Johann Hari[edit]

Felix, David,

I would be happy to sign on as the mediator in response to the pending request for mediation, but since I've commented a couple times regarding your dispute, I wanted to check whether you had any objections to me doing so. (If you would prefer a mediator with no prior involvement, please feel free to say so -- I won't take offense.) Thanks, TheronJ 17:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm open to any mediation, it's very kind of you to volunteer...David r from meth productions 17:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, sorry for not updating you. Felix has agreed to mediation, and I have made some initial suggestions on the mediation page, here. My initial suggestions would be that you (1) take a look at that page and tell me what you think; (2) add the page to your watchlist so that you can see if Felix or I add something, and (3) that you cut back a little on the Johann Hari talk page until we've had a little time to try to sort things out. I appreciate that there has been a lot of history, and that the page has been protected for weeks, but think that we should all try to start from scratch and see if we can identify and resolve the problem. Thanks! TheronJ 19:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of disputed points regarding Johann Hari[edit]

Hi David, I have put some input into the list of disputed points on Hari's talk page. I have tried to be as balanced as possible, but I am new to disputes and may have added input in a not entirely helpful way. Anyway, I hope it is of use. Mr-Thomas 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I knew I'd get something about it wrong... I've posted on the mediation page now, cheers. Mr-Thomas 20:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Spiked[edit]

Hi David. Thanks for you support on the Spiked talk page. The agenda-pushing, accompanied with wild and baseless accusations and attacks on whomever attempts to fix the article (which is frankly beginning to resemble cult-like behaviour) has been going on for many months now, and reverting the user(s)'s edits and vandalism and explaining it on the talk page is getting to be hard work, and is eating up most of the time I am able to dedicate to this encyclopaedia.

I would therefore be grateful if you could help keep an eye on the page, and revert or reword any of the nNPOV additions you will inevitably find. As for the talk page, it has become clear that the user in question is unable or unwilling to understand either basic English or elementary trains of logic, and I have already clearly dealt with the "issues" surrounding George Monbiot several times so from now on I am only going to address specific concerns raised. The user in question looks to be accusing us of sock puppetry, so keep an eye on WP:SSP just in case he figures out the process and get beyond his monomaniacal obsession with editing the Spiked page. Please also see the Suspected sock puppets page I created regarding the user(s) in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Peterthepedant

Additionally, are you aware of anything I can do about this, beyond continuing to edit this page? I've already reported him/they for Suck Puppetry, but the admins don't seem to be paying attention to sock puppetry concerns any more. I am also worried about the effect the accusations will have on my reputation amongst those who just read the talk page and do not follow up my invitation to compare our contributions.

Best regards, FrFintonStack 18:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving Hari copyright[edit]

Hi Dave,

It looks to me that the absolute rock-solid way to resolve the copyright issue is for Mr. Hari to send an e-mail stating:

I own the copyright to the image found at http://www.ourmedia.org/user/120455.
I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify that image under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, no Back-Cover Texts, and subject to disclaimers found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL.

Mr. Hari can send it either to you and "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" or just to you, in which case you can forward it to the permissions-en e-mail address. Mr. Hari should understand that this license will grant the right for anyone to use or modify the image. At that point, we can upload it and tag it as GDFL licensed, and we're done.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.

Thanks, and I hope that helps, TheronJ 15:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! i have sent an e-mail to Johann now... David r from meth productions 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johann sends Johann email. I love it. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed that, too hehe JenniferGovernment 19:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic - what a numpty he is. I'd like to be in two minds about living a lie as well! My TinyMind (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail[edit]

Dave, would you be willing to activate your e-mail? You can do it by entering an e-mail address in preferences. No one (except maybe Wiki staff) can see the e-mail address unless you respond to e-mail people send you, but if you prefer, you can preserve anonymity by creating a yahoo or hotmail account and using that. Thanks, TheronJ 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, my e-mail is <in page history> David r from meth productions 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Dave - I've removed your e-mail from the lead page to hopefully keep your spam down. TheronJ 13:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature hint[edit]

Hi. I'm guessing from a comment you made at Talk:Mark Steyn that you'd like to sign as "DavidR", not "David r from meth productions". If so, the software has a way to do that automatically. You can click on "my preferences" (probably at the top of this page), put
[[User talk:David r from meth productions|DavidR]]
in the input field labelled "signature" and make sure the "raw signature" checkbox is ticked. Then, whenever you type "~~~~", it will be translated to
[[User talk:David r from meth productions|DavidR]] 12:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC) using the current date and time. Of course, you vary the text as desired. Hope this helps, CWC 12:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Hari[edit]

Yes, I agree - which is why I'm OK with a "was criticized by" approach - it seems to address the notability of the source without getting into the question of quality. Phil Sandifer 23:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Phil, I think there's two problems with that argument.

(a) These sources fail NOTE, as several wiki administrators have said. 'Private Eye attacks journalist' is a bit like 'Dog Bites Man', it happens all the time

(b) The section is, by Felix's own admission, designed to create the impression Hari's journalistic standards have been seriously questioned. But he doesn't have BLP or NOTE standard sources to make the allegation. So the section fails wiki standards; it creates an impression for which he doesn't have adequate sources.David r from meth productions 10:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit]

I just wanted to drop by an apologize for misreading your comments. Thank you for your patience. Shell babelfish 10:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Hari image[edit]

I'm happy to add the image, but I don't see any evidence on the page that it's a public domain image. I've put the old image back in for now - if you can show me proof I'll be happy to upload what I agree is a better image over that one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good good - I was just looking at the discussion, and I remain puzzled - [4] seems to be Johann Hari's Flickr page, but it says the image is copyright (all rights reserved), not public domain. If you have him e-mail info-en@wikimedia.org and let me know when he's done so I'll have a look there and get it sorted out. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll call him in a minute and get him to e-mail straight awya if he can; I think he might be out of the coutnry but I'm not sure and he has an i-phone anyway so should be able to.David r from meth productions (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just played this scene in my head, it made me giggle. Thanks for cheering up my dull day. JenniferGovernment 19:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Uploading images[edit]

John Nevard (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy deletion of Cristina Patterson[edit]

A tag has been placed on Cristina Patterson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Cheeseman Muncher (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you put a reason against deletion on the talk page!! :) -- Cheeseman Muncher (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Johann Hari. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not remove citation needed templates unless you have checked the citations you are adding positively verify the sentence you are editing. Fæ (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Johann Hari, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. You are removing citation needed tags giving the impression that the citations you have added fully support the personal information in the text. This is misleading, please stop. Fæ (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Johann Hari, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Fæ (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Johann Hari, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop removing cn tags without addressing them. The blog you added makes no mention of Woodhouse and is a poor source to use elsewhere where it would appear self-serving and does not cite other sources to back up these claims. Fæ (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Littlejohn[edit]

No problem David. I appreciate your honest intention here, but you seem either not to know about or not to want to pay attention to WP policy. It would make things easier if you changed that. Per WP:WEIGHT this info doesn't need it's own section and per WP:YOUTUBE the material should be cited to the BBC broadcast of the show, not a youtube link. If you just keep going at it without modifying things when policy objections are raised, you're just going to keep getting reverted. --FormerIP (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010[edit]

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Richard Littlejohn. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. January (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is it's ok to approach people who have already posted in a discussion to remind them about it, and to ask for their opinion. That's all I did. Does that fall under the rubric of canvassing? I wasn't approaching editors who hadn't already got involved and expressed an opinion...David r from meth productions (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David, the problem is that you selectively approached editors who based on previous input were likely to support the outcome you want (you didn't include me for example), and your message, with the statement "several people are trying to take out highly noteworthy and impeccably sourced material", when the point of the discussion is disagreement about the relevance and sourcing, seems worded to encourage them to vote your way. See WP:CANVASS#Inappropriate notification - I think the "vote-stacking" and "campaigning" descriptions apply. This is why I haven't responded to your chasers, I'm still pondering over what effect this might have had. January (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - that wasn't my understanding of the canvassing rules. I thought it only applied to appealing for people who hadn't already expressed a view. Since these are people who had already posted agreeing with me I can't see how it could have been "vote-stacking"David r from meth productions (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tanya Gold[edit]

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Tanya Gold requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. LordVetinari (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some real world blowback[edit]

I visited this user talk page and notice that you have been approached in the past by another editor about a possible conflict of interest. This is a note for your information.

Today my attention was drawn on Twitter to this diary entry by Nick Cohen in The Spectator in which he mentions your allegedly proprietorial approach to editing certain articles which he (Cohen) associates with Johann Hari and those with whom Hari has had altercations in the past. He accuses you of denigrating others and sanitizing Hari's article, and speculates coyly on your identity.

I thought you should be aware of this escalation into the "real world". There is an ongoing series of accusations of plagiarism, apparently well founded, and so Hari is getting a fair bit of negative attention in the press. [5] [6].

I have left a similar note on the user talk page of User:Fæ, who last year issued a warning to you about possible conflict of interest. --TS 14:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is also under discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Cohen & Hari. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Jack of Kent blog. I think it's fair to say that David R should no longer edit any articles pertaining to journalists or connected with Johann Hari. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned you[edit]

Here. [7].Bali ultimate (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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. Courcelles 06:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've been serially and continually violating the BLP policy, and editing biographies to paint certain pictures of subjects for at least a three year period. I've looked through your edits in 2011, 2010, 2009, and 2008 and have found almost nothing but BLP violations and slanted editing. Courcelles 06:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The accusations of sockpuppetry are not recent at all. Look at the talk page archives - back in March 2006 User:Felix-felix clearly suspected Hari was editing the page and socking as Dave R and the numerous IPs from which he edited: [8]. Nothing was ever done then, more's the pity. Why has no SPI been undertaken?. Maybe you should start with looking at User:Thelionforreal, User:Robblackhurst and User:Quinefan for a start, as socks of Dave / Dave R / David R / David r from meth productions, and the numerous IPs that 'Dave' edited from. I find it incredible that Wikipedia isn't investigating this - if 'Dave' has been editing for so long and so abusively for so many years, why hasn't it been looked at before now?. 86.137.138.157 (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you were prepared to log in rather than making anonymous comments, perhaps you could raise an SPI request. If the only evidence is from long, long dormant accounts, it would be rather pointless however. Fæ (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I can be of any assistance here, I'd be glad to help. The documentary record created by this user is pretty hard to get your head round, but I'm pretty conversant with it. Drop me a message if you do.FelixFelix talk 16:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a message on your talk page Felix but will add it here. I'm trying to gather evidence for a SPI User:Eyepeepeeeye/IPs but someone wants to delete it already. What should I do? It's not anything that isn't readily available in the archives,Eyepeepeeeye (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should know that forgetting to log in a few times is not necessarily an indication of deliberate sock puppeteering. On the current list you produced I see nothing recent and the vast majority of your speculative maybe/possibles dating back years rather than months. If your SPI case is going to have no events in 2011 then it seems a complete waste of time considering that this account is already indef blocked. Fæ (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But if Dave has already been blocked indefinitely then shouldn't similar warnings go on all the user pages of the IPs he has used? How do people then know that the IP information is similarly unreliable? Besides, the list is a work in progress (you can see how prolific he was) and I'm working forward in time. He edited so prolifically from IPs and unless people follow the dave case they won't know that all these anonymous edits are his too.Eyepeepeeeye (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banned[edit]

You have been banned from contributing to the English language Wikipedia by consensus of the community in accordance with the policy at Wikipedia:Banning policy. That policy will explain to you the difference between the indefinite block (already imposed) and a ban as well as what you should do if you wish to appeal your ban. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Hari's apology[edit]

This may be relevant: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-a-personal-apology-2354679.html Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving of Johann Hari talk page[edit]

Given what we now know about User:David r from meth productions, and that he archived several of the Johann Hari talk page collections, has anybody checked that when he performed the archiving he didn't conveniently lose material during the cut and paste exercise/transfer to the archive page(s)?86.133.51.17 (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other edits by Hari[edit]

Hari appears also to have made edits under IP 86.176.253.159. (See [9].) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.191.176.33 (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_r_from_meth_productions&oldid=1142959605"