User talk:MacheathWasABadBadMan

Welcome![edit]

Hello, MacheathWasABadBadMan, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

December 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010[edit]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Your recent comments at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, accusing other editors of engaging in "a laughable and a disgusting example of duplicity, word-game connivery, and pedantry" and the like, do not help in keeping these rather contentious pages focused on the topic at hand. Please tone down your commentary and devote your efforts toward improving the article rather than personal criticism. Wikipedia has guidelines on the use of article talk pages which you should consult in order to use these pages most effectively. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you persist on indulging in soap-boxing and personal attacks against me, you are going to get blocked. Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos![edit]

Although you should desist as requested (or they will block you), I for one am in complete sympathy with you. Furthermore, I am hopeful that in the months to come (I have given up on hours/days/weeks) you will be vindicated. I think a lot of people have looked in here of late and have been similarly shocked at how bold certain partisans have been. It has surely given Wikipedia a much bigger black eye than the few shots you took. Hang in there. Perhaps when people who wish to restore the Climategate moniker radically outnumber those who wish to whitewash the event we can eventually cause this to rise high enough up the admin hierarchy to get corrected. Meantime, cheers! Your comments gave me a good laugh. DeepNorth (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)DeepNorth[reply]

Thanks, DeepNorth, I really, really appreciate that. I also appreciate Nightmote's (perhaps he'll happen across this page) intellectual honesty in dealing with the overall mess with authority and fortitude. It is incredible to many, the amount of ****ery and outright hypocrisy going on with that article. Also amazing is how certain folk -- (name omitted to respect user's recent sensitivity to opposing views and user's protests of "personal attack" in response to thoroughly provoked criticism) -- how certain folk claim on their user page to be "BIG" on freedom of speech and then take it upon themselves to huff and blow when anyone dares protest them and their work. More exasperating still, to claim "I'm all for freedom of speech" and then to blatantly remove another contributor's talk page entry, the entry no doubt contentious but justifiably so as it was addressing ongoing blatant POV-ism in a prolific article -- the "freedom of speech" flag-waver removing that under the pretext of "soapboxing." But I am truly weary of this thing. Doubtless this type of shenanigans will give Wikipedia a lasting -- if not a permanent -- black eye. Bad enough that Wikipedia already has a reputation as a "mystery casserole" when it comes to perception of reliability. This type of thing puts it over the top as a usurpable propaganda instrument. MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - BLP & AP2[edit]

Welcome back. Please refrain from using the talk pages as forums. Also, since you've been gone, the following have been instituted:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]