User talk:MissionNPOVible

This user values third opinions and occasionally provides one.

Hi, I see this is a new account and am just wondering whether this is a special purpose ID for third opinions and such.

Also, I have responded on the talk page for the Michelle Rhee article and made an addition to the article using a RS and a quote from it. Thanks again, for helping out. --Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more question - did you just change your user name from something with third opinion in it to something with NPOV in it? If so, how did you do that? I thought it was a big deal to change a user name or that only admins could do it. I really don't mean anything by this question, I am just wondering because I really could swear you had a different user name here a few hours ago. -Regards -KeptSouth (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nothing special, nothing new :-) MissionNPOVible (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask whether you've edited Wikipedia previously under other account names, and if so, whether those accounts have been subject to blocks, bans, or other such sanctions. MastCell ^Talk 04:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask?MissionNPOVible (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it seems obvious to me that you've had previous experience as an editor. In those sorts of situations, I usually just ask people directly. MastCell ^Talk 04:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's obvious, why are you asking?MissionNPOVible (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm sometimes wrong, and I think it's best to check my assumptions. Mostly, I'd like to know whether your previous account(s) were subject to blocks, bans, or other such sanctions. MastCell ^Talk 15:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why would you like to know that? MissionNPOVible (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I thought it would be self-evident. Using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny is against policy, and more importantly, I don't really want to waste a lot of time reasoning with someone who's just going to end up re-blocked as a sockpuppet. MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it would be self evident to a new editor, but I understand - and appreciate - your comment about wasting time. I have edited before, some time ago. I was blocked from editing for 24 hours once, and was accused of being a sock on several occasions, but this was, and is, not true. I do find it a little depressing that I somehow trigger people's suspicions (and hostility at times) when I'm just trying to be intellectually honest - which is what I understand the purpose of WP to be. MissionNPOVible (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks, and sorry to pry. I appreciate your response. MastCell ^Talk 03:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on MastCell's inquiries, for the sake of clarity, were your edits under the previous account in the same topic area(s), broadly read, as the edits you're making now? Could you be a bit more specific about when your last block was received? You'll probably want to spend some time reviewing Wikipedia's policy on how to obtain a clean start; if you're returning to edit in areas where you've been involved in conflicts in the past (whether you've been blocked or not), it may be seen as sockpuppetry if you fail to appropriately disclose your previous account history. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of justifying my existence or participation to you. If you have concerns about my contributions, feel free to make detailed and specific comments. I don't participate in witch hunts, neither as a perpetrator or a victim. If you have a complaint provide the details and I'll be happy to respond, otherwise feel free to engage in some autocopulation :-) MissionNPOVible (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, if your previous edits were in the same area, and especially if your previous block was for edits on a related topic (and not a long time in the past), then you're in very real danger of violating Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy. Telling me to go fuck myself doesn't change that. It's your responsibility to make the necessary disclosures; it isn't my responsibility to play guessing games with you.

You'll note that my questions tried, as much as possible to respect your privacy while still resolving the issue of the appropriateness of your new account. Specifically, I didn't ask which articles you edited, only if you were in the same topic area; I didn't ask for the name(s) of your alternate/previous account(s); I didn't for specific dates for any previous blocks, only an approximation. Speaking for myself (and as a Wikipedia administrator) I would be satisfied with brief, honest answers to the following questions:

1. Have you edited Wikipedia articles related to vaccines or vaccination (broadly construed) under another account at any time in the last 12 months?
   • If yes, has any of that editing been contentious or involved 'heated' discussions?
2. What was the date of your last block (under any account) and/or caution from a Wikipedia administrator, to the nearest month?
3. Did any of those blocks or warnings relate to vaccination or vaccines (broadly construed)?

If you're not sure about where your edits and history fall with respect to WP:CLEANSTART and WP:SOCK and what disclosures may be appropriate and/or required, you might consider contacting a member of the Arbitration Committee or one of the Checkusers by email for specific advice and guidance regarding your situation. If you choose to do so, I will certainly respect their conclusions. Stonewalling on your talk page, however, will tend to lead other editors to assume the worst about your history. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we're being blunt, go fuck yourself. If you'd like a different response from me then list your specific, detailed complaints including diffs. I have no interest in your paranoid fantasies, veilled threats, or avuncular 'advice'. MissionNPOVible (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 10:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome George, but what ever are you referring to?  :-) MissionNPOVible (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look above you will see that you told TenOfAllTrades to "go fuck yourself" I think that would count as an attack? regardsTeapotgeorge^Talk 11:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, the template made me think you were referring to an article. I look on 'go fuck yourself' more as helpful advice than an attack ;-) MastCell had already queried my integrity, and seemed satisfied with my answers. I don't know why 10oaT felt the need to also pursue me from the Talk:Vaccine controversy page and take the matter further, there was no prima facie case I was aware of to draw their concern. I found the implication that I was 'somehow doing the wrong thing' offensive and felt that there might be a bit of wikibullying going on - so I gave a reasonable shot across 10oaT's bow. They chose to ignore my hint and even ramped up their response, so I have no qualms about my reply. In any case, a little colourful idiom hardly constitutes a personal attack, and if I understand things correctly, "Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern." BTW, how did this matter come to your attention exactly? MissionNPOVible (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just patrolling new user pages.Teapotgeorge^Talk 11:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, thanks George. You're not short and stout by any chance...or prone to tipping over and losing your contents? :-) I hope you don't take it the wrong way if I leave the line, I'm usually civil even when I'm being bristly. MissionNPOVible (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit Wikipedia too, under the username Tgeairn. Wikipedia is an all-volunteer operation and I am one of the many volunteers here who watch for unconstructive edits. Everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but I noticed that one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Intelligent design with this edit, appeared to be unconstructive. I have reverted it and ask that in the future you please use the sandbox for test edits, not encyclopedia articles. For constructive edits, always provide an informative edit summary so that other editors like me have a brief description of your intentions. If you have questions about editing Wikipedia, you might want to take a look at this tutorial. Also, feel free to ask me questions about editing Wikipedia (or anything else) on my talk page. Tgeairn (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tgeairn, thanks for the thought, but my edit wasn't unconstructive - a little colourful perhaps - but it wasn't being abusive. I've reverted your revert accordingly. I appreciate your intention though. MissionNPOVible (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an RFC done for Wedge strategy, go to Wikipedia:RFC. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 15:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. MissionNPOVible (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. 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 controversialhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MissionNPOVible 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 05:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued that you deem it necessary to put a warning template on my page, yet feel no compulsion to post anything on the page of the person who has actually violated WP:3RR. Perhaps you could explain that to me. MissionNPOVible (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's aware of the rules, and I warned him without a template on Talk:Wedge strategy. The process when something is disputed in an article is generally user 1 makes bold edit, user 2 reverts said edit to original version pending discussion and consensus on talk (WP:BRD). Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 15:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using an alternate account is that it leads people to believe that you're a new user. And then they template you. Comes with the territory. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd describe this as an alternate account - I don't use any other, but I understand your point. MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Cdesign proponentism is very closely related to pseudoscience, so you should read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision if you haven't already and ensure that your editing follows the principles set out there. NW (Talk) 01:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand exactly what you mean by that NW - what's Cdesign exactly? MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a slang term describing creationism/intelligent design, used to highlight how the two nominally different ideas are really interchangeable. eldamorie (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. "Cdesign proponentsists" is a rather famous typographical error from the creationist/ID book Of Pandas and People. Early editions of the book made widespread use of the term "creationist". However, when it became legally important to demonstrate that "intelligent design" was separate from "creationism", the book was heavily revised to replace the word "creationist" with "design proponent".

Unfortunately, in at least one case, the book's editor made an error in the find-and-replace functionality, resulting in the sentence: "Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view." Aside from being a heinous example of a comma splice, the typo might lead a critical thinker to infer that intelligent design was merely a cynical repackaging of creationism to circumvent legal hurdles; hence the notoriety of the term.

It's covered in the NOVA special, which was really quite well-done, or you can read more at The Panda's Thumb. Anyhow, if you wonder why people see creationism and intelligent design as semantically equivalent, it's useful to know that the promoters of these terms apparently share that view. MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How tragic!! That's quite funny - thanks for the history MastCell, I'll have a squiz at the doco you mentioned. MissionNPOVible (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned Hrafn about the tone of his comments on the ID talk page. I would suggest the same thing to you. I know the discussion there can get heated sometimes, and I know it's frustrating to have your article edits immediately reverted, but it's necessary to stay civil and impersonal in talk page discussions. Ignore the attempts to bait and dismiss you and instead continually try to find compromise solutions to content disagreements. If the other editors respond by continuing to try to belittle and provoke you, I and others will (eventually) do something about it. The Intelligent Design article, for whatever reason, is notorious for that kind of behavior so it's important for all participating editors to do their best not to contribute to the ongoing issues there. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair cop - I have probably lost some perspective after the incessant tag teaming over there. Thanks for maintaining a voice of reason Cla68. I look forward to the eventual intervention!! MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This is in regard to the message that you posted and then removed from my talk page. What is a PI issue? What does 'via 30' mean? 'qn' I assume is question? What is 'BG'? Acronym overload! Thanks FiachraByrne (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry! PI - paraphilic inphantilism 3O - third opinion qn - question BG - BitterGrey MissionNPOVible (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has now escalated to Wikipedia:ANI#Dispute over contents of DSM. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Although it looks like things are ticking over pretty smoothly on the talk page... MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)