User talk:Daynal
"Opinion is the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world. It requires profound, purpose driven larger-than-the-self kind of understanding" Bill Bullard, Educator
"Does the ostracism of high gossip cause a blank and passive silence? The question reflects the current misére. It tells of the dominance of the secondary and parasitic." George Steiner, 1989
"Myths of objectivity that devalue knowing subjects are no friend of living minds." Rob Davis --Daynal (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Dispassionate description or passionate persuasion?
Dear Fellow Wikipedians,
One of the delights in surveying much of the rhetoric of apparent reason is finding that beneath the glib surface of cool confidence lurks so many unruly passions that remain unexamined in that state of mind oriented toward acquisition and material control over one at home in a state of progressive intellectual inquiry. Few things seem to elicit turbulence in this arena of mind more than the study of Jesus that becomes manifest in the comparative survey of the range of sustained observation, experience, and study of his life. Indeed, it would appear that anxiety operates proportionate to one's investment in 'authorized' i.e. existing cultural 'forms' defined by dogmatic defenses against what are seen as unruly intrusions of the dynamic of human experience. It is hoped that the editorial character of this online reference would value the investigation and accurate representation of textual sources commented upon more than unstudied opinions reacting to perceptions of sources, and especially those lacking approval in or from prevailing patterns of the culture at large.
Gratefully,
Daynal 08:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Rob Davis
Rob, it's worth noting that several recent studies have shown that individuals who use overly elaborate language to convey simple ideas are often viewed as more unintelligent than their peers who utilize a less "dynamic" vocabulary.
Basically, I'm telling you that there's no need to present your idea on the talk page as if you're addressing a philosopher-king. You'll get much less accomplished by forcing such complicated language into a comment that can be summed up into two or three sentences.
Assuming that this is all in reference to the removal of the Urantia business, I should notify you of the concept of undue weight. I think that a quick read-over will make the reasoning for the removal of text quite clear. The Urantia concept, as intriguing as it may be, has no discernible body of followers (I did see a source some time ago which claimed that it only had 7 or so adherents- from a "Urantian" source, interestingly enough), and is in every way an extreme "minority" viewpoint. To sum up what WP:UNDUE says, "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.". Therefore, I see no justification for the inclusion of this information at all.--C.Logan 09:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear C. Logan,
Thank you for clarifying the importance of unnamed sources to rationalize deletion without dialogue contributions giving priority to original sources in a written article. Appeals to popularity of unnamed references underscore the value of peer review as a viable means of maintaining trust required for expanded sharing. Alas, 'minority view' is but a frame of mind that in terminology of local acronyms translates to POV. Nevertheless, should an article on what 'a' religion is and how it comes to frame ensuing "religious perspectives" be undertaken, I will gladly contribute to the labor of any at home with a taste for philosophy more than the manufacture of mythology but feigning 'fact'.
Gratefully,
Daynal 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Rob
In terms of religious groups and denominations, the direct number of adherents is used as a general guideline for coverage. It's not strictly proportional, but you should have a good idea that in an article such as this, where the beliefs of millions (and billions) of individuals are summarized in a mere three or five paragraphs, a tiny sect which contains an indeterminately small number of individuals should not have "equal representation". Doing so would be akin to providing a separate section for small organizations, or even for the individual opinions of scholars. The view presented in the Urantian belief system is simply far too insignificant (as it is) to warrant coverage, as the group is both historically disconnected and numerically disadvantaged. I'm not entirely opposed to inclusion, however, and it would seem that if any real body of followers can be shone, it would be a step in the right direction for assessing Urantia's standing.--C.Logan 11:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear C. Logan,
Certainly your rationale is understood even if it does represent a reductionist model for assessing relative strengths of various social 'groups', religious or otherwise. Religious groupings as defined by ecclesiastical hierarchies is inflated for political and enonomic reasons, and even then, only 'count' persons on the 'rolls' rather than actually supportive which is a bit like the US Government boasting wealth while ignoring the vacuous base of its currency.
Such a methodology is useful for 'groups' sponsored and or sanctioned by governments whose own census methodologies are but a means to maintain oversight and control. 'Groups' with little or 'no' infrastructure are 'invisible' only because their objectives are intangible, focused as they should be, upon the value of spiritual reality more than visible and material interests.
The citizens of this world have discarded these traditional methods for controlling their thought used throughout history to define what is authentic and/or acceptable spiritual experience. Anyone attuned to cultural trends, and if not, 'official' demographic patterns, recognize the true state of 'mainline' status in the most prominent organizations whose institutional decline make hollow any claims of majority status and pose interesting questions as to what it is that is represented by the term 'religion', that notwithstanding demise of traditional models, is alive, well, and growing throughout the world, albeit, in vastly more fluid 'forms'.
Gratefully,
Daynal 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Rob
While you may be correct in general concerning the issue, it doesn't make much of a difference in the face of Wikipedia policy. As you're aware, this discussion concerns what goes into Wikipedia, and given the current information available, Urantia does not satisfy the framework of WP:UNDUE, which states:
"Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority."
[...]
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."
As things stand, it would seem that Urantia has no verifiable body of followers, and no real significance beyond its own existence (and uniqueness of presentation). As is pointed out above, there appears to be no need to give article space to this extreme minority view, where religions like Buddhism receive only a paragraph's worth of material on the subject.--C.Logan 22:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear C. Logan,
Thank you for your willingness to engage in dialogue on this matter! This in itself reinforces the legitimacy of Wikipedia content.
However, the WP policy regarding a minority 'view' cannot be applied as it is not a quantitative measure, but one that must forever presume upon a quantitative methodology while relying upon purely qualitative considerations. The methodology you represent could be very well applied to an article on Jesus as represented in the major world 'religions', but is misleading when governing religious 'perspectives' on Jesus or anything else. The former can easily comply with WP criteria on this point, but the latter will never as it is entirely subjective.
Regardless of the ambiguity of WP terminology, the verifiable 'fact' towering above this subjective fog is that of all the 'religious perspectives' found in 'religious' literature throughout the world, including the New Testament, none feature a more prominent focus upon the life of Jesus, and none provide such extensive details which are being quietly examined by many theologians, philosophers, scientists, and as well, the most influential performing artists that have ever have lived on this planet.
Gratefully,
Daynal 19:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Rob
The policy is quite clear on the matter, as the judgment of a "minority view" can only be considered in the neutral sense; that is, quantitatively. We are extremely limited in making qualitative decisions in matters like these.
The case with this article is no different then it is in the Jesus article; it would just appear to be different as it is presented as a cafeteria of perspectives on the subject, with no apparent limitation on representation. However, WP:UNDUE still applies.
Without a sold quantitative basis upon which to base the general acceptance of views, there is very little separating the views of true world religions and a religion dreamt up by some old man out in the Ozarks which has received minimal media coverage. WP:UNDUE is a quantitative judgment.
We must adhere to the rules of WP:NPOV, and by that measure, WP:UNDUE, when assessing any text for incorporation. Per this policy, we cannot present minorities (especially those in the extreme minority) with as much (or even more) coverage as views which are held by the majority groups.--C.Logan 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear C. Logan,
I respect the requirement of a 'solid' quantitative criteria to ascertain the general acceptance of views, but in the absence of any reference to 'solid' data from sources authenticated by an inclusive 'group' of editors, the appeal to mere perceptions of popularity only underscores the vacuity of these 'mainline' claims. Nevertheless, it may prove helpful to recall that almost without exception, the religions you recognize as 'major' were all "dreamed up" by persons living on the margins of their respective 'civilizations'.
Gratefully,
Daynal 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Rob
License tagging for Image:Barnard telescope.jpg
Daynal (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for uploading Image:Barnard telescope.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
becoming an article
After discovering Wikipedia featured only a sentence on Landon Garland, I did some initial research and composed the article as it exists at the moment. As I am not that familiar with all the technical requirements for an ideal Wikipedia article, I wanted to register my interest in eliciting any input that others might have.
It would appear that it no longer is but a 'stub', however, I would like to see the article feature pertinent references and sections, but will wait until I conclude further research. Additionally, the categories under which the article is labelled seem to need adjustment if not supplementation. After studying the subject further, I will check back.
Daynal (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
rue-the-Bots
After writing this article enclosed with a family portrait of this subject, I received what appeared to be an automated email from a 'bot' warning me against further 'vandalism' and inserting "unwelcome edits". Obviously, this entity read the draught of this article as worth retaining, but I am glad to have been disabused of the thought that human beings were editors at Wikipedia.
Daynal (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Daynal Institute Press
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Press_logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Press_logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Daynal Institute Press, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add Template:Tl on the top of Daynal Institute Press and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. AndrewHowse (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello AndrewHowse:
As my username has been "blocked indefinitely" in the context of adding a stub linking from another article, I seem physically unable to reply to your suggestions for engaging in the dialogue recommended to address your concerns. --Daynal (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Rob Davis
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!
I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: single-purpose account here to promote Daynal Institute Press. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?
I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.
You have several options freely available to you:
- If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
- If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
- You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.
Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it - see below.
Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, confusing, or misleading.
If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username which is quick and easy. To do so, please follow these directions:
- Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
- At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
- Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far easier allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username.
Hello Cobaltbluetony:
It appears I violated a guideline recently by composing the (now quickly deleted) stub on Daynal Institute Press linking from the article I submitted on Timothy Wyllie whose work we are publishing. When I went to reply to the concerns expressed about the stub, I found that I had also violated the Wikipedia username policy (even if there was no such concern expressed in the context of previous articles or talk pages). The stub then has apparently stirred sufficient indignation to ban further contribution.
As there is always lot to learn about local protocols, I would like to discuss with you how further contributions to Wikipedia may be done in a way that does not cause such adverse reactions.
Gratefully,
Rob Davis
--Daynal (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
What an honor to be 'banned' from Wikipedia for contributing the articles Landon Garland, Timothy Wyllie, and Daynal Institute Press. The first article was greeted with automated accusations of "vandalism", the second was judged as having an inappropriate 'tone", and the third was "deleted" without discussion due to "blatant advertising". As such, Wikipedia represents well a mechanistic culture by the sustained exhibition of a precipitous disinclination to dialogue where
1. Theology Vol. 102 (1999) pps. 169-176, Real Presences: Two Scientists Response, by Wilson Poon & Tom McLeish
--Daynal (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Landon Garland, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Landon Garland was changed by Rldavisiv (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-04-22T05:32:37+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Most interesting as this is the comment received when I wrote the article in the first place. Perhaps automated 'editors' cannot discern the difference.
--Rldavisiv (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Timothy Wyllie. Your edits have been automatically marked as unconstructive/possible vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Timothy Wyllie was changed by Rldavisiv (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-04-22T05:33:01+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Most interesting as this is the comment received when I wrote the article in the first place. Perhaps automated 'editors' cannot discern the difference.
--Rldavisiv (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Anthony:
Thank you for your reply!
I do appreciate the rationale for discouraging individuals from choosing usernames of a 'business, band, or other organization'. It is for this reason that I want to be sure no one else will use the name daynal on Wikipedia. If you can assure me that this username will remain blocked indefinitely, I will gladly choose another name. In such case, the reason for the initial use of 'daynal' will have been accomplished.
As to how the editorial culture of Wikipedia demonstrates that it does "value positive contributions", it may prove helpful to revisit the practice of individual 'editors' focusing upon what warrants elimination to the exclusion of appreciating the human source(s) of what is retained in the collection of articles. Where editors function solely as copyeditors, ferreting out what does not comply with policy, then the higher editorial functions of identification and composition suffer accordingly. No doubt, there are groups of editors who actually know one another well and recognize the value each brings to the project because Wikipedia could not have emerged without such. However, the requisite for continued growth beyond this current stage of development is to foster such appreciation proportionate to the project's expanding scale given all writing emerges from within human beings who have a 'single purpose'.
Gratefully,
Rob Davis --Daynal (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
--Daynal (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Press logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Press logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
Hi Daynal, Happy to discuss a new submission. Please be sure to read Wikipedia's policies on notability and verifiability, and then the best thing might be to start your new page at User:Daynal/sandbox. You can then move it into mainspace when ready. --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Andrew:
I am grateful for your willingness to have a discussion!
The policies on notability and verifiability will be re-read along with a range of articles the policy governs to understand how the literal theory functions dynamically. After composing a new article, I would appreciate your review prior to any consideration of moving it to the mainspace.
Thanks,
Rob --Daynal (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. The best thing might be to put a note on my talk page with a link to the new article, when you're ready. No rush, of course. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Timothy Wyllie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
I am interested to know how Wikipedians define "tone" in anything but a manner indicative of a POV. As for inline citations, it appears probable that the time required to locate them may not be afforded by the native propensity toward "speedy deletion" without dialogue. If the posted objection has been generated by an algorithm, perhaps it could be designed to highlight problematic portions, and if by a 'real' person, they might register the details of their concern here.
Looking forward,
--Rldavisiv (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
After consultating with Wikipedia editors, I am compiling a list of third party citations to address the first objections posted against the merits of the article. As to 'tone', given no one has answered how such is defined, I will address that when it becomes more evident there is an policy statement making more vivid the intent of the reference to an "inappropriate tone".
Looking foward
--Rldavisiv (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Having now obtained a formal statement regarding 'tone', I would like to address the objections made against the article relative to the policy statement.
Policy: "Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining understandable to the educated layman. Formal tone does not mean the article should be written using unintelligible argot, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner."
Reply: A rexamination of the article does not turn up instances of informality. If any should find otherwise, please articulate your thought.
Policy: "Articles should not be written from a first or second person perspective. Articles written in this fashion are often deleted. First person pronouns such as "I" and "we" imply a point-of-view inconsistent with WP:NPOV (although "we" may be used in mathematical contexts). Second person, "you" or "your", perspective often appears in how-to instructions and is inappropriate. First and second person usage should only be used in articles in attributed direct quotations relevant to the article's subject. Gender-neutral pronouns should be used where the gender is not specific; see Quest for gender-neutral pronouns and the related discussion for further info.
Reply: All references to the 'person' utilize third person pronouns.
Policy: Punctuation marks that appear in the article should only be used per generally accepted practice. Exclamation marks (!) should be used only if they occur in direct quotations.
Reply: This editor finds no punctuation at variance with common usage, and no exclamation points have been used. This editor is particularly reluctant to make use of superlatives without substantiation, therefore the two references "premiere" and "seminal" appearing in the article at different places will be verified with third party citations or changed accordingly.
Further comments are welcome.
--Rldavisiv (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Andrew:
When I attempted to follow your instructions, I was greeted again by an automated message indicating that I was not allowed to do the kind of work you recommended in either the sandbox or your talk page. What might you suggest now?
Rob
--Daynal (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Message: This account was blocked in accordance with the user name policy (see above). You were unblocked specifically to allow you to request a name change, which it does not appear that you have. However, you continued editing as a single-purpose account, interested only in those subjects which are directly connected to your publishing company, Daynal Institute Press. I will not be available to unblock you again today (I am leaving soon); you may address this with another administrator if you do not want to wait. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI: Daynal's account was blocked in accordance with the user name policy (see block message on his page). He was unblocked specifically to allow him to request a name change, which it does not appear that he ever tried to do. However, he continued editing as a single-purpose account, interested only in those subjects which are directly connected to his publishing company, Daynal Institute Press. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I'll proceed cautiously, although I'm not ready to say he's an incorrigible spammer yet! --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that you try to get unblocked for the sole purpose of changing your username, and make no other contributions under Daynal. I'd then suggest that you stay well away from any articles in which you might be perceived by others to have a conflict of interest; Daynal Institute, its Press, and its authors would all fit in that category. I realise that's not what I said earlier, but in the interim I've noticed that your email address is at a daynal domain. I don't know if you really have a conflict of interest, but that doesn't matter; it's enough that there appears to be a risk of such. If those topics are sufficiently notable, then other editors will eventually contribute articles on them. If there are no contributions, then that's a good sign that they are not sufficiently notable to be included here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Anthony:
As there was no reply to the message sent¹ yesterday, it appears the communication indigenous to these emergent phases of human-computer interface require patience, so I will wait for your return.
Enjoy-
--Daynal (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Earlier message
Subject: Re: username block? From: rdavis@daynal.org Date: April 22, 2008 12:03:06 PM EDT To: cobaltbluetony@yahoo.com
Hello Tony-
Again, thank you for taking the time to articulate the rationale for the necessary framework within which persons around the world can contribute to such a valuable reference! No doubt, we are all learning how to correspond more effectively within the framework of an open source environment, and despite its shortcomings, I am committed to fostering its success.
It is my understanding that the difference between opening a new account with a new username and following the procedure to "change in username" will transfer all edits to this new username. If so, I will follow your suggestions and :
Add unblock-un|your new username here below (at bottom of Daynal user talk page
Otherwise, I would like to utilize the method you refer to as being used by "experienced editors" that "work on their articles in user space sandboxes, releasing them into the main article space only when they are convinced that it does meet policy", but I would like to know if there is a procedure for inviting the scrutiny of such editors prior to releasing to the main article space. It would seem that this would mitigate the need for negative comments.
In any event, please look over the insertion of unblock-un|your new username here at the bottom of Daynal talk page and let me know if it is in order.
Gratefully,
Rob
Hello Andrew:
After some consideration, I think it will be best for me to retain the username Daynal given that under such circumstances it will be blocked indefinitely accomplishing the purpose outlined above with Anthony. Otherwise, I will continue corresponding in venues appreciative of the constructive role writers' interests bring to bear upon the advancement of knowledge.
Gratefully,
Rob
re: I'd suggest that you try to get unblocked for the sole purpose of changing your username, and make no other contributions under Daynal. I'd then suggest that you stay well away from any articles in which you might be perceived by others to have a conflict of interest; Daynal Institute, its Press, and its authors would all fit in that category. I realise that's not what I said earlier, but in the interim I've noticed that your email address is at a daynal domain. I don't know if you really have a conflict of interest, but that doesn't matter; it's enough that there appears to be a risk of such. If those topics are sufficiently notable, then other editors will eventually contribute articles on them. If there are no contributions, then that's a good sign that they are not sufficiently notable to be included here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
_2){kind=link}
