User talk:Minor4th/Archive 7

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Advice re BLP noticeboard
Minor4th, as a relatively new editor you might not be fully aware of the purpose of the BLP noticeboard. It's not meant to substitute for article talk pages. If you have an issue with a particular article, please raise it first on the article talk page. If the matter can't be resolved there or needs further input, then feel free to raise it on the BLP noticeboard. Most BLP issues can actually be resolved without going near the BLP noticeboard. Could you please try listing your concerns on the article talk page first? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, but I'm familiar -- the issue has been raised on the talk page among other places.  As you know, BLP issues have not been easily resolved and remain an intractable problem in some of the article spaces on which I have recently had the privilege of interacting with you.  If you still have questions about the particular issues with the Monckton BLP, I will perhaps be able to make a list for you on the talk page.   I don't have time now to do that or to address the issue more fully on the BLP noticeboard.  Later this afternoon or evening.   Thanks again.  Minor4th  19:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do post a list on the talk page. I would be happy to help with resolving any issues you identify. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No offense, Chris, but you are the BLP violator and I think it's appropriate for someone besides you to look at it and hopefully resolve it.  I will make a separate heading so that you can continue your advocacy unimpeded on the existing discussion of Monckton. Thanks again.  Minor4th  20:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th: more advice: don't take BLP advice of someone who doesn't understand the policy. Editors can and should bring any conflict to the noticeboard. Perhaps if others had done that, we could have avoided a huge mess at Monckton and Marknutley would not have been blocked. ATren (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely my thinking.  Thanks ATren.   On the BLP discussion Chris chastised me for changing the heading to include the name of the BLP expressing concern about incoming links -- this, despite the fact that an hour earlier the heading had been edited to clarify that the BLP was a subject in the global warming area.   How does that make sense?  <span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, and if the rules were enforced equally, someone so ignorant to BLP policy would not be allowed to edit BLPs, especially those people with whom he disagrees. It's a travesty that it's allowed to happen, but that's the state of affairs here, where the house POV trumps neutrality. ATren (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I do hope ArbComm comes up with a good way forward. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"CRU regulars"
ChrisO just means the editors who hang around the CRU article and contribute to the article and talk page. --Yopienso (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks but it wasn;t Chris' comment and that really doesn't make sense. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, right--it was Viriditas to ChrisO. The point was a suspicion that Duchamps was trolling and just trying to get a rise out of the people who show up at that article or its talk page.  I don't know if it's true, but it makes perfect sense.  --Yopienso (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was assuming you understood "CRU" stands for "Climatic Research Unit." --Yopienso (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks.  Yes, I do know what CRU stands for.   Its use in this context is peculiar though because it appears V was referring to some subset of Wikipedians as "CRU regulars" -- I know there are Wikipedians who were formerly associated with CRU, and I don't know if there are currently any Wikipedians who are associated with CRU.   Clearly there are editors who are supportive of the scientists who belong to the CRU who are having a great deal of trouble with the CRU email article.   There are really many possibilities as to what the author of the comment was referring to, and that is why I asked that the editor educate me about what they meant.   I appreciate your helpfulness, but I'm afraid only the author of the comment is able to answer this question.   You could be right about the meaning, but it seems more limited that what you described.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification of article probation
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change 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.'' -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please tone down your comments
I certainly do not have "an agenda to denigrate this BLP". Please do not make personal attacks against other editors, and please bear in mind that Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is under article probation, which means that problematic conduct by editors may result in sanctions by uninvolved administrators. I've notified you above of the terms of the probation. If you have specific, substantive issues with the article content or with content proposals then please feel free to raise them, but you need to refrain from assuming bad faith or making personal attacks in future or you may find yourself being sanctioned. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:AAGF
 * And consider taking your own advice and monitoring your behavior so that sanctions do not become advisable.  (Ok, throwdown time.....)',  "hostage takers",   "actively promoting a fringe POV",  "none of your business",   = I'm a more valuable editor than you   <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But I am! ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Good boy. :D  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ChrisO: given that I just gave you a caution a few days ago, it appears that you might possibly be able to do better than you currently are doing at giving the appearance that you don't have an agenda and that you are are trying to assume the assumption of good faith. Just a thought. ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And you could try to tone down the combative nature of your own comments. Please Lar. Polargeo (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Lar's not the problem here. Jimbo told ChrisO to tone it down also at the CRU email controversy / Climategate discussion only this morning.   GregJackP   Boomer!   02:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Deceptive edit summaries
Please do not mark substantive changes that have POV implications as "copyedits." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with SBHB. That shouldn't be marked as a copy edit in such a contentious topic space.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but adding one word "alleged" is not a substantive change.   <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 02:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't realize how lame the two warring factions are. They argue over every little change, no matter how benign.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right I didn't know.  I thought the addition of the word "alleged" was a no brainer since it's uncool to make accusations of criminal activity while the matter is still being investigated.   It is common and best practice to refer to such activities as "alleged."  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 02:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was a bit too harsh at first, for which I apologize. As a rule copyediting should only correct spelling, punctuation, and style with no change to meaning. If you're doing anything substantive please don't mark it as copyediting, even if you're on the side of the angels (like fixing BLP violations). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK.  And I am on the side of the angels. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 03:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
You appear to be engaged in an edit war at Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation against ChrisO. I suggest you discontinue any further edit warring, and ensure that consensus is reached on the talk page and the article is then changed to reflect that. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I did seek consensus before making edits. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 15:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. But still, there was edit warring going on and I warned all participants. Even if you're supporting the consensus view, it's still not acceptable to edit war. Gain consensus and if the consensus can't seem to stick, ask for assistance. ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. I understand.  I have left the article for the time being. It is not worth getting into these kinds of scuffles, and I don't are as much about it as the activists.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 02:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Media Matters for America at WP:RS
Hello there, Minor4th. There was a recent discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, Media Research Center, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, Newsbusters etc. at Identifying reliable sources. Some of us believe that these hyperpartisan sources should never be used as factual sources at Wikipedia, due to their tendency to selective edit facts. Please participate in this important discussion, concerning one of Wikipedia's most fundamental editing policies, on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

New sanction for CC articles
You may wish to take a look at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Sincerely, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 11:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Non breakable spaces
See this diff.. your edit seemed to include changing  &amp; nbsp;  (non breakable space special chars) into something else in other people's posts. Are you doing that by hand or is it some odd artifact of how you are editing? You might want not to do that (if you can figure out why it's happening), as editing other people's posts tends to be poorly received. Best. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever I did was unintentional.  Must be an artifact.  I've been editing from my phone and sometimes there are glitches.  I will go make the appropriate apologies. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I just went and looked at the diff. That is very bizarre. Definitely not something I'm doing intentionally or was even aware of.<b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's weird. Perhaps your phone is translating those & nbsp ; into actual spaces during the edit render process. That particular character construction is a hard one not to have things translate on you, consider the gyrations I went through to get it to render in italics above. I'm not sure apologies are necessarily needed if you're on record as not having intended the change but they can't hurt. Maybe fixes are a better use of your time? :) Best. Probably this quirk of that browser is documented somewhere, I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I went back and self-reverted and then added the comment back with a regular browser. That's just weird. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That was inappropriate
You should withdraw this edit immediately, and offer an apology. Calling Hipocrite a "drama queen" and accusing him of feeling sorry for himself or playing his disability for sympathy is way over the line of acceptable conduct here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I already said I was sorry if his feelings were hurt, but the whole stomping off in a fit of rage with vulgarities flying is a little much.  And you guys arent helping matters at all.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 05:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite never asked for others to pity him for his disability, he was upset because he thought that someone was making fun of him for it. Your comment is appallingly insensitive.  I have nothing further to say to you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Hipocrite is upset, but he behaved totally inappropriately and in so doing called a great deal more attention to himself. The fact is no one was making fun of him and it's very wrong to accuse Greg of mocking someone's disability. It was entirely irresponsible of Hipocrite to make that assumption and accuse Greg of something so egregious. What's worse is the fanning of the flames that you and the others are doing on his talk page and here and Amory's talk page(by the way, next time you talk about me on someone's talk page in that manner, I would appreciate a notice). I honestly cannot imagine why you would do that, speaking of insensitivity. If Hipocrite is upset about his disability, why in the world would you bring more attention to it? Making false accusations and escalating the drama over Greg's innocent comment really diminishes the significance of actually mocking someone's disability -- which Greg didn't do, but it does happen. You are doing a disservice to Hipocrite and to anyone else who suffers from such a difficulty. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 06:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a note on your latest posting on the enforcement page (where I just closed the thread down because it was going off on a tangent unrelated to the actual request): of course, nobody has seriously claimed M.n. suffers from a "disability" that affects his editing. That was just some kind of weird rhetorical hypothetical figure employed by ATren. Your taking that at face value was adding something, well..., let's say weird, to a story that was already full of rather bizarre misunderstandings. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I assumed ATren was describing an actual disability, so I guess it was a misunderstanding among others. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 07:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * MN has alluded to a disability that could account for his misspellings and such. I have no idea if it does, and even if it does, I suspect MN would not use it as an excuse anyways. You may ask him about it if you like. As for TOAT's posturing, it's absolutely pathetic. Watching him coddle Hipocrite for something he knows was not intentional, while not saying a word to ChrisO for something that was intentional, well, I find it hilariously ironic that this is all happening on Hipocrite's page. ;-)


 * One thing seems clear: unless the committee is watching these pages closely, they will have to deal with the late-arriving disruptors like TOAT in a separate case. It does no good to get rid of a bunch of problematic editors if others arrive to take their place, and TOAT's actions lately have been as bad as any of the worst offenders. ATren (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've said the same elsewhere too: Recently, we've had far too many threads where A berates B about B not complaining to C about how C reacted to D when D complained about the way E reacted to something F did. This needs to stop. At the risk of succumbing to an act of meta-irony here, I strongly recommend everybody just stop commenting about anybody else, anywhere and about anything at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FP, it seriously only escalates the invective all around when you go around removing and hatting of some comments but not all. I don't disagree, however, that everyone needs to just cool it on commenting on anybody else.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

New GAR request
I think it's a good idea to ask for a community review. However, this is not remotely an appropriate request. It's combines an ad hominem with a failure to assume good faith. Please rewrite it neutrally. Thanks .--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I disagree. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As you might know, The Signpost has been reporting on the Climate change case for the past several weeks. One of the drafting arbitrators is clearly unhappy with my reporting, and a couple of other users share a similar view. However, some users disagree (and on at least one occasion, one case participant disagreed with the objection raised (see this). Each user is obviously going to have their own opinion, but irrespective of the outcome, I think actual participants in the case (who are involved in the dispute or may be affected) should add their input. Therefore, I think your attention and participation is invited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive invitation
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 23:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

Request
Can you ok these sources for use in an article please.

by the Journal of Scientific Exploration News Weekly and look to see if this one is a review?Energy & Environment Thanks mark nutley (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at Journal of Scientific Exploration. This is not a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's better than E&E. At least JSE admits right up front what it's about. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edit
Two posts removed. I assume this was an accident. Please try to be more careful. Thanks, ScottyBerg (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me. It was unintentional and I was unaware.  I'll pay closer attention. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see how the edit conflict interface might have led to that issue. It's countertuitive and has always perplexed me. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Talkpage lurker here. There is a known bug with the editing interface since the last upgrade, which sometimes causes one post to delete another in an edit conflict. It's not down to anything done or not done by the second editor, although going out of the editing interface forwards (ie selecting the page from the header menu, then going into edit, rather than any other action) seems to stop it happening. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Good to know.   I have had two or three of these anomalies happen lately, and it's very aggravating because I have not been able to find any cause or pattern to these happenings.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 09:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged
. I probably read it but I'll go back and check it out again. Be careful about soapboxing, I know most people do it in this topic area a bit, but only one side gets serious sanctions for it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not the kind of thing that would result in sanctions, and there was nothing disrespectful at all. Anyway, read it if you haven't, and thanks for the words of caution -- I am aware that the rules are applied differently according to cabal affiliation. That's what the post is about. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 02:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Only warning
Do not do anything like this again. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @M4th, you should know that bold behavior such as this is only acceptable for the chosen ones.
 * @NW, I'd like to know what your implied threat is here. What if he does do it again? Does he get blocked? He didn't break any sanction in doing so, did he? Surely if it's not coded to the letter in the CC probation, you have no authority to issue a block here; isn't that what we learned in the latest drama fest: that it's all about the letter of the law, and that even the pointiest of disruption can be wikilawyered if it doesn't specifically, precisely say that exact disruption is disallowed? In any case, your warning is yet another example of how uneven-handed admins like you are, so willing to defend extreme pointy disruption from editors you like, while simultaneously threatening other editors for simply being bold. Thank you for providing me another evidence point. ATren (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know also.  Anything like what exactly?  A little clarification about what policy I violated or rule I trespassed would be real helpful here.  Before I reverted, I looked around for any indication that you had to be of a particular status to revert on that page or topic area, etc.   I saw nothing.   And a quick look at the ANI will show that other admins who were involved in the initial consensus to impose the sanction were opposed to the unilateral modification of a probation sanction.  I did nothing but preserve the status quo while discussion takes place.   I really fail to see how that is something that draws a warning.  Please do explain NW.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 05:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been well-established in site culture that no non-administrator has the authority to overturn a block or sanction given by an administrator by themselves. You reverted a clearly uninvolved admin on the page. If you thought his sanction modification was inappropriate, it doesn't matter – you still have no right to overturn it. If an admin did it, it would be the start of a wheel war. The warning was given instead of a block, which a functionary I mentioned this incident to thought would be an appropriate step. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there is a discussion on ANI, it might be best to continue this there. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)If you think a block is appropriate, then by all means .... honestly, that's preferable to vague threats in my opinion, and I will not accept this notion that I'm "lucky" I wasn't blocked. In the future, you might consider including the perceived infraction along with your warning.  I personally think you are placing form over function; with an assumption of good faith you would have seen that I was not simply being rebellious and ignoring well-established site culture.  I don't think there is any well-established site culture in this instance because new ground is being broken and the community is facing issues it has never before faced.  If you are honest with yourself, you will also recognize the value in the substance of my comments surrounding the reversion, but I'm fine with whatever happens.   You have a habit of taking enforcement and other admin actions against one perceived "side" of the CC mess, and you either deliberately or unconsciously fail to see and enforce violations on the other side.   This has been pointed out to you before, and you showed great promise when you behaved in a circumspect manner and declared that you would give it the attention it needed.  It is unfortunate that  your introspection has not yielded a more noticeable improvement.  I know nothing about you personally, but I suspect that you are young, and while you may have the exuberance of youth, you lack the confidence that comes with maturity.   I could be totally wrong on that -- just a guess and this is not an insult, even if it rings true.    There are good opportunities for growth and understanding here that could benefit the encyclopedia and the Foundation, but I'm afraid your attitude is a bit 2 dimensional and constricted.  I don't mean that to be insulting either, but I will take this opportunity to encourage you to expand your vision and release your preconceptions.   You could be a really good admin, and that is not something I would say about most.  Take seriously the advice that is gently given to you -- I have seen a lot of it lately.  Consider carefully whether any of it applies and why some editors are perceiving things as they are about you.   You could accomplish a whole lot more with humility and thoughtfulness. Have a good day.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 12:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I just saw your comment suggesting that discussion resume at ANI, and that is fine. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 12:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Note
I edited your comment to correct the spelling of my last name. I hope you don't object to that. Dragons flight (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that. No, of course, no objection at all.   <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 17:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

removal of warning
I trust you've been around long enough to know the maxim that removal of a warning on a talk page is considered evidence that the warnee has seen it. -- SPhilbrick  T  11:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - are you speaking of WMC? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 12:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Another request
Per my probation and should you have a few minutes to spare could you please ok the refs in this article? Thanks mark nutley (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will look at it, but it will be this evening before I can get to it. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, no hurry, but at least before the bus actually hits me :) mark nutley (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thought you were already under the bus :)  I'll get to it as soon as I can -- it will be today though.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, Mark! There are 15 sources.   This will take a little longer than I thought.  Sorry, I didn't realize there were so many so give me a little more time.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 03:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worrys mate, take your time, the bus is getting ready to pull off though :) mark nutley (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to start making comments about the sources on the talk page of that article. I have asked GregJackP to take a look and help evaluate the sources also. Just keep an eye on the talk page for progress as we go through and for discussion or questions that come up. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 23:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made all the changes you suggested, when you have a moment can you give it the ok? Thanks mark nutley (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know i have now moved this article to mainspace Climate Audit, thanks for your help mark nutley (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Partisan sources
I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision
Please note that contributors should not be voting here. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your !vote (and reword if appropriate). What we are looking for is constructive criticism (such as alternate wordings or alternate remedies). If you aren't around I may remove your !vote myself, and you might want to then modify your comment. Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I really meant remove - entirely. I've told Greg Jack that also. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll look again but I thought it just read like regular commentary without the vote.  You have my agreement to remove it if you think it's inappropriate or out of order. Thanks. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 15:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You are mentioned on my talkpage
You may want to look at it. GregJackP  Boomer!   03:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Check your WP email. GregJackP  Boomer!   04:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nada .... <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 04:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, do a youtube search for "Hide the Decline satire" - and watch the two vids, the first one Mann threatened to sue for defamation over. The second is better IMO.  BTW, they made Fox, CBS, Rush, etc.  Might be good for an article....  GregJackP   Boomer!   05:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Check your GJP mail.  Funny you mention that video because I think I came across that earlier today or maybe it was a Monckton satire.   I'll look, thanks.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 05:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL Nope, this is not the vid I saw earlier, but the first one made me laugh out loud because it's so silly ... and catchy.  Looking up the lawsuit threats now. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 05:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Was already an article, was deleted despite all the sources, one was even nature mag. I think a quest for knoladge has it in his userspace mark nutley (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't really interested in creating an article, and from the coverage I saw in the media, nothing really ever came of this other than some finger wagging.  It has all led me to some more interesting and pertinent reading, however.  Are we allowed to use the Climategate emails in articles now? Oh wait ... maybe you're not the right guy to ask :)  (Just kidding with you.)  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 07:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh brother
This is all very predictable. Note that the admin who denied the unblock request cited 3 diffs -- 2 of which are exactly the same diff is a redirect of an improper merge. If a redirect is a violation of BLP then the editor who I was redirecting is also an egregious BLP violator.

The actions that have been taken since the article went to mainspace is why the article was written in the first place and why the subject is notable and sourced in secondary sources.

Now an SPI? LOL.

Oligarchy is right. (actually an old post but forgot to sign way back when -- wondered why this post never got archived) <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 17:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

unsigned
Did you mean to leave this unsigned? Perhaps to save it from the depredations of the archive bot? ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't know it wasn't signed and kept wondering why that one post never got archived. Signed now. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 17:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks :) <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 02:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well deserved. We need more good examples like yours. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. Ok, now where are the cookies? :) <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 04:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

incivility
You might want to review someone's edits, or at least take a look at their talk page, before you start issuing threats. — kwami (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Kwami, why do keep calling the article a POV fork? If you're going to be taking administrative action related to it, you probably should try to be a neutral party. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a threat, and it wasn't incivil. It was a stern explanation of my intent if the action was not corrected, and it was warranted under the circumstances. When I clicked the new section tab, there was no discussion on your talk page about this. Feel free to delete it if it bothers you, so long as the message was delivered and read. Thanks. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 07:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was incivil. You took a combatitive approach that, in the end, was not needed. All that was needed was some good faith discussion. You could have started with the good faith discussion, but instead you started with the threats if you didn;t get your own way. Which of course had already happened by the time you posted to Kwamis talkpage. So not only do you look like a big meanie but also a bit silly for jumping in after the matter had been civilly solved with your incivil warnings. You should try and calm down a little before posting, in general, because this kind of approach generally leads to incivility from your "opponent" also (and well done Kwami for not responding in kind). Weakopedia (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but thanks for your input. ;)  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 08:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

hatting
I don't think you should be hatting discussions that heavily you are involved with. That is what clerks are for. Lets let them decide where the hat goes.--*Kat* (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've raised this with the clerk, and also M4th re-instroduction of PA's into the header William M. Connolley (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think either of you should be adding and manipulating headers in the middle of a discussion.  That's what clerks are for.  Let's let them decide where to add headers. William, arent  you under a refactoring restriction?  Oh what the hell difference does it make now, right? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 12:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Kat's right. I should have removed the word 'malicious', and you should not have hatted it. Stop this now please. On behalf of the Arbitration Committe, Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unreal. But not surprising  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 13:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Point taken about the headers, but I was only trying to make the section easier to navigate. I wasn't trying to hide any of the conversation.--*Kat* (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I accept that explanation. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 13:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what clerks are for - yes, that is why I contacted one. Now, are you prepared to issue any apologies for you PAs? Or should I interpret ''Unreal. But not surprising'' as you still asserting that the redirect was indeed malicious? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't take the bait, Minor4th. Cla68 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What bait? ;)  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 14:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh, have you popped up again. I'm sure M4th is capable of answering without your hand-holding William M. Connolley (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone needs a hand to hold on to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like I was wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change in Maldives
I do not know if you still edit climate change articles. Anyway, for you and any skeptics lurking here is an article that could really use some skeptic if not denialist bashing, see Climate change in Maldives. It seems that what is is in fact political advocacy is stated as fact. If any skeptic here wants earn the community's admiration and show his skills in producing NPOV text this would be a good place to start. Not too much traffic with that $3 "climate tax" pending. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - Or maybe you would just want to rename it to Maldivian advocacy for climate change alarmism or something. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Petri, you are joking with the tone of your comments above, aren't you? Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Maldives...is in desperate need for help and solutions. Luckily, the President of the country has stepped up to the plate in the last couple years and really devoted his career to save the Maldives." Jesus Christ, who writes such a thing?  Might be easier to rewrite the article from scratch.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you were a really good copy editor, you would remove nothing. You just attribute it and call it what it is, political advocacy. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

FoF
Formally, I think, I ought to inform you of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed_decision William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this an accurate explanation of these diffs?
Just in case you didn't add the page to your watchlist, I draw your attention to the following question. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)