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
editHello,
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
editThis 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.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)
June 2024
editMaybe against my better judgement, I am going to give you a warning here instead of going straight to the Administrator's noticeboards. You have gone two whole years without resurrecting your vendetta against Tyson on Wikipedia. I don't know what triggered you to return to this but there is nothing good for you in this. 8 1/2 years is a hell of a long time to hold a grudge. Please just drop it, for your own sake as well as everybody else's. If I take it to the noticeboards the Admins are going to note that you are not using your account for anything constructive and probably block it indefinitely preventing you from using the account for editing on any other subject, which you have done in the past. Please take this opportunity to either engage with Wikipedia in other, more healthy, ways or, if you prefer, to disengage. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- So long as Tyson's misinformation remains in circulation I will continue to call it out.
- You are not doing anything constructive by protecting this source of falsehoods.
- If Wikipedia decides to ban me for speaking the truth -- so be it. HopDavid (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- That last sentence has an unfortunate connotation of crankdom. And you're too good at math to be a crank, I hope. —Tamfang (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you notice my interest in math. You also seem to enjoy geometry.
- I started following Tyson because of my interest in science and math. I was a fan of his advocacy for increased NASA funding.
- But I would notice numerous errors. Tripling RPMs doesn't triple artificial gravity. There aren't more transcendental numbers than irrational numbers -- both sets are thought to have the same cardinality. And so on.
- --
- But I was willing to cut Tyson some slack. If he was getting people interested in space I was willing to grant him some artistic license.
- --
- But then I started seeing Tyson's wrong history. That is another matter. His history contains false accusations against individuals and groups. And in any case it is a serious offense to use falsehoods to push a narrative.
- --
- The Bush and Star Names story is just one of five examples of Tyson's invented histories. In that talk Tyson accuses President Bush of delivering a divisive speech "attempting to distinguish we from they" in the wake of the 9-11. When Bush's actual speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion delivered from a mosque. If you look over the talk pages since 2014 you will see this has been an edit war since 2014.
- Reliable sources were provided to demonstrate Tyson's Bush and Star Names story was false. That did not matter.
- --
- And reliable sources could be provided to show Tyson's history regarding Hamid al Ghazali (Link) and Isaac Newton (Link) are also false. But that would be a waste of effort given that Tyson's defenders work hard to censor criticisms of Tyson.
- --
- I know it sounds cranky to claim that there has been a concerted effort to censor criticisms against Tyson. But that is the the truth. HopDavid (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Posting about Tyson here is a serous mistake. Accusations of censorship also. I suggest you self-revert. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Objective3000, I mention you on my Tyson page: https://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2016/01/fact-checking-neil-degrasse-tyson.html
- I am trying to do my small part to combat systemic dishonesty. HopDavid (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Posting about Tyson here is a serous mistake. Accusations of censorship also. I suggest you self-revert. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- That last sentence has an unfortunate connotation of crankdom. And you're too good at math to be a crank, I hope. —Tamfang (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Indef
editSince it's clear you have no interest in being here to build an encyclopaedia, and are in fact only here to criticize Neil deGrasse Tyson, you've bene blocked under WP:NOTHERE.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.