User talk:Douglas Cotton

Indefinitely blocked

 * I am sorry, but it appears clear that you neither agree with or are willing to abide by Wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources for content and fringe theories in particular.  I have indefinitely blocked you from editing.


 * Should you demonstrate a willingness to abide by our community standards any administrator can unblock you.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.


 * See the bit where it says...
 * "...you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: " ?
 * That's what you need to do - it will tag this talk page so that admins patrolling unblock requests will see it. Thrub (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to abide by WP policy
(1) I have not failed to abide by WP policy in any edit of any article since the warning.

(2) You have not cited examples of such in support of your unblocking.

(3) Nor do you have grounds for removing my User talk. Thus I request unblock immediately. Please see information below, as it may be in the best interests of WP to do so.

Douglas Cotton (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: I have removed the "information below" referred to above, as it is a continuation of the editor's attempt to bring his WP:OR theories to the public's attention using Wikipedia. I suggest that the editor's talk page access should be removed if he does not cease this activity. BMK (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I am waiting for you to support your accusations with examples of any article thus edited and the date(s) when such editing took place. You have not presented such and all you have done is make assertive assumptions which are incorrect.  Then, to cap it off, just now you removed information which was in support of my application for removal of the block.  What sort of kangaroo court is this?  I have nowhere else to communicate, and I hardly think many are going to read my personal talk page.  Douglas Cotton (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, Wikipedia is a private website, and follows its own policies, which have been explained to you a number of times. We actually do not have to "support our accusations" in the way that you demand, since it is apparent enough to a sufficient number of Wikipedians that your contributions have not been an asset, and are unlikely to be in the future.  AT this point., we are just happy that you can't screw up the encyclopedia any further, and because of that you've unlikely to be unblocked any time soon. That few people are going to read your talk page is of no concern to us, because what you write is unencyclopedic, and we have no interest in disseminating it.  I think perhaps you have us confused with some kind of of "free speech" website, which we are not. BTW, you've been posting comments all over the place for quite a while now, and you still haven't got the hang of how it's done.  Here's a primer (which you hopefully won't need for long, as your talk page access will be revoked):
 * Do not mark your comment "Response" or precede it with your Name and Diplomas. Use multiple colons to inset your response from the previous comment: i.e. if the previous comment was prefaced with two colons, use three colons for your response.
 * Sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).  The system will automatically add your account name and the time and date stamp of your comment
 * BMK (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Have a read of What Wikipedia is not - there's plenty there explaining why Wikipedia is not to be used for propounding your own personal hypotheses (and that includes talk pages, not just articles). As for the material removed from this page being "in support of my application for removal of the block", you need to know you have absolutely no chance of getting yourself unblocked by simply repeating the same soapboxing that got you blocked! Thrub (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and continuing with stuff like this and linking to it here is an ongoing breach of WP:NLT - continued attempts to use legal avenues to get your own way is likely to lose you access to this talk page too. Thrub (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC):
 * He's still on the same track. The edit which I deleted because it's more of the same OR, also contains a legal threat: "You appear to miss the points made about WP's common law responsibility to pay due diligence to the validity or otherwise of information WP disseminates, which may reasonably be assumed to potentially influence politicians, voters and the allocation of taxpayer funds." BMK (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Well Douglas, I've tried to help (as have others). But if you won't listen, well, goodbye. Thrub (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @Douglas Cotton: You're not getting it. Your original research theories are dead as far as Wikipedia is concerned.  They will not see the light of day, they will be reverted. Is that clear? BMK (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I said nothing at all about myself initiating the potential multi-billion dollar class action law suit that I expect large companies will one day launch against parties who were involved in the promulgation of the fraudulent claims about carbon dioxide. WP is not above the law.  I have been trying to help WP realize that some of the "reliable sources" quite frankly display a pathetic lack of understanding of standard physics. See linked comment now at the top and appearing on several climate blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Cotton (talk • contribs) 07:25, 5 April 2014‎ (UTC)
 * "Pathetic" is indeed a word that springs to mind, but not in regard to mainstream science. (Unwatching this page, this person is beyond help.) BMK (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have your head so buried in the carbon dioxide that you are not even aware of the hundreds of scientists who now know it's a hoax? Main stream physics says a totally different thing from what greenhouse conjectures say.  Don't say I didn't warn WP.  Every error I find will be meticulously explained (using sound physics and cogent argument) in comments all over climate blogs - year after year.  And you underestimate the marketing and advertising I plan.  I (and our growing group of prominent physicists) are probably nearly ready to go with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Cotton (talk • contribs) 12:38, April 5, 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Douglas, it appears that you are trying to argue that you are right (see WP:THETRUTH) but this block is based on your behavior. You have to acknowledge that your editing has been disruptive at times and reassure the admins that you will discontinue the editing behavior that got you into trouble. The issue is not about carbon dioxide but about you and how you choose to edit. Arguing how this block is unfair will not get you unblocked. I also urge you to look over the guide to appealing blocks (WP:GAB) for advice on how to address your situation if you wish to continue as a Wikipedia contributor. Liz  Read! Talk! 13:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above contains wise words, which Douglas would be well-advised to take to heart. Dozens of experienced Wikipedia editors and several administrators have all seen the "I should be unblocked because I am right" argument and the "I am already obeying the rules; prove that I am not" argument. These arguments have convinced exactly zero people, and repeating the arguments again and again will not make that number any larger. The road to being unblocked is clear; convince an administrator that you understand why you were blocked and that you will change your behavior. Alas, evidence from other websites pretty much tells us where this is going. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And Wikipedia may do well to heed the warning about their being a party promulgating the greenhouse fraud that is easily demolished with mainstream physics. Almost any physicist who looks into what I am explaining about the errors finds himself having to agree I am correct.  There will be a huge class action law suit sooner or later.  Meanwhile, enjoy the current natural 30 years or slight cooling until at least 2027 or 2028.  Then, as I first predicted in August 2011, there will be 30 years with about half a degree of warming, but after that there will be about 500 years of natural cooling such as between the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age.  It's all regulated by planetary orbits, with their magnetic fields affecting the Sun and cosmic ray volumes, which in turn affect our climate, through cloud formation and other processes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Cotton (talk • contribs)
 * Such little doubt as may have remained that you're one of those doddering old crackpot scientists is now competely dispelled. EEng (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only are your comments in violation of WP:FRINGE (be they right or wrong), but even though you, yourself, are not threatening to sue, your comments are clearly intended to cause a chilling effect on editing in certain manners you do not agree with, even if that is not your consious intention. And regardless of even that, all of your commentary here is not going to get you unblocked - it is only making the logic behind the block itself even more ironclad. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Saying "I said nothing at all about myself initiating the potential multi-billion dollar class action law suit" is a lot like a mafia enforcer saying "nice place you have here, It would be a shame if something were to happen to it" or a Klansman saying "a lynch mob is coming for you, boy. I am not saying that I will personally initiate the lynching, though." It is called a thinly veiled threat. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request
The request for arbitration involving you has been declined by the Committee. The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 18:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing blocked, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page, expiry time of indefinite
This user has been blocked from editing this page, so there is little point in having it on your watchlist. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)