User talk:Ndeavour

CS1 error on Dusty Baker

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dusty Baker, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hello, Ndeavour. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very informative, thank you. Since I have not considered editing the Landmark Worldwide page, but have simply questioned what I consider to be sloppy work that shows a point of view (versus the neutrality purported to be the goal of Wikipedia), I'm not sure any of that applies, but should I venture into actively editing the article, I will bear those guidelines in mind and adhere to them.

It seems to me that the sources cited are being misquoted and misused, and therefore, the sections lack the kind of rigorous research you referred to in your response on the talk page. That weakens the integrity of Wikipedia, and I would argue that neither of us wishes to see that happen. I want to see this as a foundational aspect for my grandchildren to use if they happen to get curious about the world/culture/society they have inherited. That's not advocating for Landmark - it's advocating for responsible journalism. Ndeavour (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ndeavour: Have you ever done a Landmark course? What is your relationship with Landmark, Erhard and related entities? I can assure you people have spent a LOT of time on that article. Polygnotus (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I have done Landmark programs. I am not about to edit the article, nor am I questioning whether or not some people have expressed concerns about the company and wondered if it could be a cult. It's simply that the vast majority of them, including the sources that are cited, conclude that it isn't. Time spent does not always equate with time well spent, especially if accuracy is compromised.

I said in my initial post that, given the strong point of view you seem to have, that the section in some form should be retained - just move it to a different location, and correct the misrepresentations. Again, that seems a feat of editing beyond my talents so I am not about to attempt it; and therefore will not edit the article.

Now, it's my turn to ask - what has led to your position? If such a question is outside of the policies here, then I apologize in advance. Ndeavour (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You answered one question, which I already knew the answer to, but you have not answered the other question: What is your relationship with Landmark, Erhard and related entities? Polygnotus (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as you clarify your position, I'll be happy to answer. Ndeavour (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to you we were taking turns. So when you've finished your turn it will be mine. I wouldn't wanna be impolite and speak before it is my turn to do so. Polygnotus (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a clever reply! As I said, I've done Landmark's programs. I will add that I have participated for quite some time, gotten great value and have at times stopped participating. What is your relationship with Landmark? What has lead to your position? Ndeavour (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So your relationship with them is that you worked as a volunteer (e.g. seminar leader)? Or did you receive money from them? Polygnotus (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has led to your position? I ask again, having answered your question as requested. Ndeavour (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to my edit dated 18:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) above, you'll find that I asked not one but two questions. You answered one. Polygnotus (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you haven't answered my question - I have asked it more than once - I consider that my answer is sufficient for now. Once again I will ask you: what has lead to your position? Ndeavour (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your favourite animal? And what is your favourite dinosaur? Polygnotus (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Hemicentetes semispinosus is pretty cool but as a pet I prefer cats. My favourite dinosaur is the ankylosaurus. Polygnotus (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it. You aren't interested in any real dialogue and have resorted to nonsense in place of replies. I thought about finding out who at Wiki to speak to and then decided to stop wasting my time. Enjoy your cats and your opinions. Ndeavour (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction I had to your two most recent comments has kept me from engaging with Wikipedia for two weeks now. I repeatedly asked about the background for your point of view and you rudely blew me off with nonsensical replies rather than answering. I don't usually get upset, but I did.

If that wasn't your intent, then please be aware that such behavior on the part of someone with extensive Wikipedia history has left this potential contributor shocked, disappointed and reluctant to continue here. And if that WAS your intent, then I need to find out who to speak with and register a complaint, since how that represents Wikipedia is in direct opposition to what I understand that it stands for.

Like it or not, own it or not, your years of experience has you representing the entire community. I think I need to let others with more experience and background be the judge. Ndeavour (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Ndeavour! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! DaveApter (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DaveApter - thank you very much! I've not read through everything down this pathway, but having a distinct starting point makes working in this medium much easer to contemplate. Ndeavour (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policies etc.

Hi Ndeavour, If you haven't already read them, you might find the summary of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines helpful.

Wikipedia requires all users to be civil, to assume good faith, and to refrain from casting aspersions, so you might find it useful to follow the links to the pages explaining those policies.

In relation to the constructive comments you made on the Landmark Worldwide talk page, you might find the guidelines on the WP:OPINION page useful.

Finally, if you want to get background on the editing history of editors who are interacting with you, this is a really useful tool: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/ DaveApter (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you. Ndeavour (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Email

My email address is polygnotuswikigmail.com. I am a rather curious person - both inquisitive and peculiar. Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. 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. Thank you. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I asked a number of randomly chosen administrators - to please lend their background as admins as well as what I presume to be their experience to determine if they could see a way to resolve an ongoing issue. There was no request to take sides but merely to look and see. If that offended you, I apologize. It simply seemed to me to be a logical and rational means of obtaining relatively objective views. I appreciate consensus building - but the discussions and actions all originate with one user who is not cooperating, who takes matters into his own hands and seems to be operating counter to that. If I'm wrong and merely building a case for a different point of view, I figured that other admins could tell me. If that's an abuse of your time then again, I apologize. Ndeavour (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to your message on my talk page. There are other ways to go about getting more eyes on the discussion. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PostgreSQL

Can you please explain why you keep information about me in a PostgreSQL database? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't - I think that was a hurried copy/paste from something else I was working on. I don't maintain databases of any sort. I apologize for raising any concerns. Ndeavour (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not possible. Copy/pastes do not combine into one. And if you don't maintain a database of any sort, then why would your computer randomly add "pgsql" and "Copy" and "Edit" to your clipboard? The only logical explanation is that you do have (access to) a database, which is where you copypasted the complaint from while accidentally copying text that is part of the interface, and are not telling the truth. Polygnotus (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit started with the accidental inclusion of "pgsql CopyEdit" and then at the end there is "CoyEdit". So which PostgreSQL interface has those interface elements? I am somewhat familiar with pgAdmin but not with all of them. Polygnotus (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone more familar than I with how to post ANI sent me a file. I blindly trusted the instructions and inadvertantly included the tags you point to. Again, I don't maintain any databases and I don't access any databases, Ndeavour (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ndeavour I believe you. Please forward that mail to polygnotuswiki@gmail.com

And yes I have received your previous emails. I can only receive mail from that address, not send it so when I receive email I reply on Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The person who sent that email to you is not your friend; they are using you. Please forward that email to me and I may be able to help you. Polygnotus (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the offer. I decline. I'll be the judge of whether someone is "using me," I got what I asked for, and, unfortunately, made some assumptions and got a hurried reply to a less than specific request. Once again, I've learned that emails don't tell the full story, and a follow up phone call has restored the integrity of that relationship. In that phone call we also figured out that it was my poor use of ChatGPT attempting to point to instances where I saw you as less than straightforward and at times less than civil, that led to some of the markings in the ANI. That appears to be why you seem to think I "used a database and was tracking you." AND I didn't inspect my work before posting. Ndeavour (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ndeavour I know you didn't build that database; you aren't the computer wizard type.

That relationship is that someone is using you as a WP:MEATPUPPET, which is very much a blockable offense.

And that person has been blocked before, when they were using a different account, so what they are doing is block evasion.

They will say whatever you want to hear to ensure you do not reveal their identity. But it should be obvious to you that what they are doing is not above board.

So I am asking you to reveal who you spoke to. Who emailed you that stuff to post on ANI?

You are about to be banned from Wikipedia, for something that you allege that other person did. If you reveal who set you up to do this (and forward the email to arbcom-en

wikimedia.org and myself) then maybe Arbcom can try to fix this problem. Polygnotus (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I went to a friend since I obviously don't know much about Wikipedia. All your presumptions and assumptions strike me as extremely paranoid and highly insulting, not to mention completely inaccurate. It seems as if you are out to demonstrate my complaint. If I am to be "banned from Wikipedia" as you suggest, then so be it. I'm not invested in it - I had hoped to bring about a reasonable discussion that might lead to change. I was moderately hopeful that you were out to create a genuine dialog when you created the War Room but have found myself very disappointed. Ndeavour (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, you have been banned from English Wikipedia. Appealing the ban can be conducted using the procedures here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]