User talk:Saldezza

Monckton Article
I made some edits to the Monckton article I'd be interested in getting your opinion on. One potentially problem contributor is making aggressive undo's so I'm not certain if they'll remain active for too long. Best Regards - Nothughthomas (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The Monckton entry does need a lot of work to make it neutral but I think, for maximum efficacy, this needs to occur gradually and incrementally. There's already been a bit of progress in getting the salon.com blog editorial removed and the APS report "125 errors" bit deleted, as well as President Klaus' comments added, but still a lot of work to do. I added some minor edits for consideration in the Talk page of that entry I'd love to get your input on. It would be wonderful to have your support on the Talk page in the coming weeks, though, in keeping with WP policies against lobbying other contributors I am not requesting it herein. Nothughthomas (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is anonymous

 * ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.159.51 (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Lucas
In my opinion, your edits to this article are violations of Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements, since they seem to be made to push the reader toward forming an opinion of Lucas. I have therefore reverted them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

REPLY Your opinion is biassed. You are acting arrogantly by dismissing my edits merely because they upset your point of view. The idea that Wikipedia is neutral is an excellent one, but unfortunately it is a complete joke. Wikipedia's extreme bias can be seen from the way that people like you presume to block and censor anything that goes against your own highly tendentious and biassed views. I tried to make the articles on Caroline Lucas and Chris Monckton more neutral i.e. more fair. If Wikipedia were really neutral, these two articles would adopt the SAME attitude, not treat Lucas as a heroine above criticism, while heaping vituperation on Monckton. The administrators should insist that both articles conform to a uniform template. If it is necessary to point out that Monckton does not have a science degree then it is absolutely fair and necessary to point out that Lucas, the leader of the British Green party, has no science qualifications either. In fact she has not even got any science A-levels or O-levels, while Monckton has got Maths A-level. And it shows! His degree is in archeology, a lot more scientific than Lucas's in English Literature. Every time I try to put these facts into the articles, aggressive censors expunge them. If the abuse and vituperation of George Monbiot or the St Petersburg Times (a laughably obscure journal) needs to be in the Monckton article, then why am I censored over and over again when I try to put my own fair and logical points about the mistakes in Lucas's publications, and the contradictions in her economic policies? I am just as entitled to put my point of view as George Monbiot. Why should he have a monopoly? Why should the fraudsters of the climate-change panic brigade be presented as saints, above criticism? The plain truth is that Wikipedia is not neutral, and it is run by people who are intent on imposing their own prejudices on the world. You are using bullying tactics and operating like the Politburo. I would encourage other users to get involved as in the post-Climategate world, it is time for some sanity to be injected into the public discussion of these issues. Saldezza (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Saldezza. I am not merely altering her article to "make a point", I do care what is in it. It needs to be made more neutral in the post-Climategate context. Why should a pack of anonymous Americans put out a party political broadcast and interfere with the way the British people vote?

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Caroline Lucas, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. When your block expires, please make sure that the consensus on the talk page agrees with your desired edits before making further changes to this article. Thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

.

I hope that the reviewing administrator doesn't miss this diff when reviewing this block, because I think it is very interesting. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps too late for this contributor to change his ways, but I still feel motivated to point out the obvious: Monckton seeks to criticise mainstream science; for this, credentials are highly relevant. Lucas merely works on the basis of conclusions drawn from the mainstream science - for this, rather less so. So why exactly you've picked on her I don't know. Rd232

talk 14:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC) YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THAT. For a start, AGW is only a theory, not "mainstream science" and since Climategate it is a discredited theory. Lucas has spent her entire career opposing mainstream science. She opposes animal experiments, even to find cures for human diseases such as cancer. That is opposing mainstream science. She asserts that nuclear reactors are less safe than other forms of energy, which again is against the conclusions of mainstream science. She opposes the use of chemicals for agriculture and the introduction of genetically-modifed crops. All that is opposing mainstream science. She puts forward economic theories that are opposed to those of mainstream economists. Her publications are full of silly mistakes, as I tried to show but the mindless fanatics immediately censored my contribution. If as you say credentials are important for challenging mainstream consensus, then you yourself have just condemned Caroline Lucas as a fraud. Secondly, Monckton has got far better credentials than Lucas. I tried about four times to put in that his degree was actually in archeology. Each time the mindless fanatics censored it. The science of global warming depends on creating a model of the past. Monckton has a degree in archeology from Cambridge, one of the best universities in the world, and archeology uses scientific methods to construct models of the past. He is also very competent in Maths, physics, chemistry and analysis of data. So he has excellent credentials for what he does and Lucas has none at all. Wikipedia has no right to falsify the picture, and I have been supported in what I say by several other users. All of them were of course blocked and censored. So stop insulting me and start learning a bit about the world and reality.Saldezza (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Saldezza.

Response to email
Hi! I received your email, in which you referred to me as a 'mindless Green fanatic.' I feel it's only reasonable to tell you that I'm not British, and don't know anything about the Green party there. I have no idea whether I would be likely to vote for their candidates or not. I don't know whether it's at all similar to the Green party in the United States; if it is, I've never voted for a Green party candidate. My responses to you were based solely on your own edits, not on any political opinions- I have no opinions about British politics, since it isn't an area I know much about. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)NO I AGREE THERE ARE NOT MANY AREAS YOU DO KNOW MUCH ABOUT. That is why you have no right to meddle with our politics.

Using the e-mail feature to continue attacks is a poor idea. I've removed your ability to use that button for the remainder of your block - please keep your communications on this page. Kuru  (talk)  01:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that you aren't actually interested in the article on Caroline Lucas, but are adding bias to it because you're unhappy with the quality of the article on Chris Monkton. We call that disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point, and it's against Wikipedia's rules- if the article on Chris Monkton is the one that you care about, then when your block expires, use discussion and negotiation to agree on a fair wording for that article- making this article worse won't do anything to make that article better, and ultimately your goal is the best possible article, not making your 'point.' In addition: the formatting problems you're having above have to do with spacing. If you add a space to the beginning of a line before you start typing, you get the extended pink text box with the dotted lines; to get the more usual style of formatting, backspace so that your words begin right at the left edge of the screen.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

NO YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND ME CORRECTLY. YOU MISUNDERSTAND AND THAT MAKES YOUR ACTIONS IN REPEATEDLY BLOCKING ME ALL THE MORE ARROGANT AND PRESUMTUOUS. To Daniel Case:  I am not either waffling or being inconsistent. I have pointed out that it is hypocritical to accuse me of "edit-warring" when the other side is clearly engaged in edit-warring with me and they are resorting to despicable tactics such as blocks and doubtless will soon ban me. That will prove just how biassed and unfair they are! I give them minutes to do this. NEUTRAL? What a joke! The founders of Wikipedia claim to have a "neutral policy" but this is a complete joke. It's rather like the Free Elections in a communist country - yes, you can freely stand for election so long as you are a member of the communist party!!!! Wikipedia is actually controlled by a small number of "Administrators" who select each other as "suitable". They have the power to vet, delete or change anything in any article, and many of them appear to work round the clock as they are dedicated to promoting their own obsessions. They expunge within minutes any attempts to change their point of view. They restore the insulting or biassed material they wish to display. They go further and quickly block or ban anyone who does not conform to their dictates. They then police the web to prevent anybody from that server ever registering on Wikipedia again. These tactics are in my view despicable. Take, for example, the Wikipedia articles on two leading British figures, Caroline Lucas MEP and Chris Monckton, the notorious global-warming sceptic. If Wikipedia were neutral, these articles would conform to a CONSISTENT template. Instead, the article on Lucas, a global-warming fanatic, is wholly uncritical and reads like a party political broadcast. The article on him is just an assassination! It consists of few facts, quite a few errors, and the rest is vilification. A collection of insults from people whose point of view is as far from neutral as the administrators' themselves. '''Neutral? Ha ha!'''Yet the recent revelations about fraud on the part of global-warming scientists in the UEA and the USA (Phil Jones and co, Michael Mann) have to a great extent supported, even vindicated Monckton's views, while those of Lucas have been shown to be naive. It would be fair to put into Lucas's entry that she "has no scientific or economic qualifications" since the article on Monckton thinks it necessary to include such a remark. Yet when I included that, and some factual material about the errors in Lucas's publications or the contradictions in her policies, the administrators not only erased it but immediately resorted to blocking me. I also got insulting e-mails. Yet they block me from using the e-mail facility in return! Neutral???? What hypocrites they are. They designate as "edit-warring" anything that goes against their fixed prejudices. Doubtless they will soon ban me as the final proof that tthey are neither neutral nor interested in being accurate.Saldezza (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Saldezza.

15.12 3rd Jan I see the administrators have also banned Nothughthomas for attempting to adjust articles in the direction of what I would call fairness and neutrality. Those tactics only prove how biassed Wikipedia is. In fact, by running such blatantly biassed articles on British politicians, Wikipedia is trying tell the citizens of another country which way to vote. That is interfering with the democratic process. It is arrogant in the extreme.

Vandalism warning
Please do not vandalise Wikipedia policy pages, as you did with this edit to Neutral point of view. If you continue to vandalise pages, you may be blocked again. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week
for. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. Things to notice: THAT IS ABSOLUTE RUBBISH I did not disrupt anything. I put some comments on the discussion page from the best possible motives i.e. I saw that all the articles on so-called Gay rights in Africa are highly tendentious and biassed. It seems to be you who is seeking revenge and using insults rather than respecting other people's views. To even expunge what is put on the discussion pages is the lowest, most despicable tactic you have resorted to yet. My comments were far from irrelevant and you are rude and contemptuous towards me in erasing them. You dismiss every other person's ideas as mere "point of View" and "irrelevant" while imagining that your ideas are objective and superior. You really think that you are God, don't you, FisherQueen? There is no tactic you types would not stoop to obtain a monopoly of the media for your own narrow and feebly-supported views.Saldezza (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Saldezza.
 * Do not disrupt the encyclopedia to make a point. Your long expression of an irrelevant personal opinion here is, in my opinion, simply your attempt to disrupt an article you noticed I had worked on, to revenge yourself on me for blocking you.


 * Seek consensus rather than edit-warring. You have twice restored this edit despite the fact that consensus on the talk page does not support the change.
 * Always be polite. You have made a number of personal attacks in your edits since your block expired, including but not limited to those in this edit.
 * Notice that this block is longer than your previous block. If you are able to follow Wikipedia's rules, you are welcome here, but if you are not, you can expect to be blocked again, for an even longer period of time, if you continue breaking them.  It is possible that your next block may be permanent.FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * YES I AM SURE YOU WILL STOOP TO ANYTHING TO FORCE YOUR VIEWS ON THE PUBLIC AND SUPPRESS DEBATE. HOW DESPICABLE.

WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT FOLLOW ITS OWN RULES.
 * If you look back at talk pages, you'll see that everyone you've met at Wikipedia has been polite to you, and has explained the rules to you clearly and carefully. Your current strategy is not achieving your goal.  When your block expires, you can continue using this strategy, be permanently blocked, and your goal will not be achieved.  Or you can learn how to follow Wikipedia's rules, talk to other users politely, assume that everyone's goal is to create the best, most accurate encyclopedia possible, and have a better chance of improving the article that you are actually interested in, which, if I understand correctly, isn't Caroline Lucas but Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, an article in which I agree there is room for improvement.  It's entirely up to you, of course.  If you decide to work together with others and help, your help will be appreciated, and if you decide to be blocked instead, then, if this person is important, it's inevitable that someone else will come along eventually to make the needed improvements.  Again I remind you- not only am I not trying to 'force my views on the public,' I don't even have any views on this subject, other than the view that Wikipedia works best through good manners and cooperation.  I've never heard of any of these people until I saw your edits while patrolling recent changes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please be more careful with your formatting; you are adding comments in such a way as to indicate that I have written them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saldezza&diff=prev&oldid=335808377 Wuh  Wuz  Dat  14:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

REPLY FROKM SALDEZZA I have already told you that I am not only interested in correcting the Monckton article.I think that the Lucas article and many others also need to be changed a lot if they are to approach neutrality. You say you don't have any opinions on British politics but the fact is that bias and interference do not need to be deliberate. Just circulating such severely inaccurate and one-sided articles on the web is an act of interference, whether you and the others doing it realize it or not. It will give people searching for information a misleading picture. Ideology includes all bias, not only the conscious. You are convinced that your own opinions are "fact" while those of everybody else are "irrelevant point of view". That is an insult to other people. Insults are rudeness. Blocking is rudeness too. Telling other people how to run their country is supreme rudeness! Your articles on Africa are a good example of your bias; they need to be questioned and the fact that you presume to edit out comments on the discussion pages which try to correct that bias shows that you are not acting as a neutral administrator. Banning and blocking others just because their opinions are different from yours, and refusing to improve the factual accuracy of articles, is not liberal - it is what I would call narrow-minded bigotry. Your administrator status should be withdrawn. Finally, when it comes to rudeness, most of what is included in the Monckton article is nothing but rudeness. And the more I look on Wikipedia the more of that kind of slant I see. Saldezza (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Saldezza
 * If you continue to attack everyone and everything in sight, your block may be extended, and your user talk page access may be revoked. I suggest you take a break from your talk page for a few days (whilst you're blocked anyway) and consider that Wikipedia is a project where people try to find ways to collaborate despite the inevitable disagreements. There are dispute resolution procedures if necessary, but it rests on an assumption of good faith and generally being civil. You might also want to read the essay No angry mastodons before you take that break. Rd232 talk 12:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

.

I haven't edited Caroline Lucas at all, except to remove your violations of WP:NPOV, which I noticed while patrolling recent changes. I haven't added any new information to the article, nor have I removed anything which followed Wikipedia's rules. I have not contacted you by email, though you have sent one abusive email to me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, in the original context, the quote from me in the unblock request above was clearly referring to Saldezza's behaviour on this page, not his edits. Rd232 talk 15:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia policy neutral? Are the administrators neutral?
Please note that I've moved your discussion with the above title to the administrators' noticeboard:


 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

It was a little off-topic on Village pump (policy)--TS 23:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation notification
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite block
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for '''disruptive editing. Regardless of your motives, you are apparently unable to fit in with the Wikipedia community'''. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan  &#124;   39  23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"From user Saldezza".

I think that Tan and the others who have broken the Wikipedia rule quoted here should be indefinitely blocked themselves.

E-mails
Out of interest, are you really claiming that people have e-mailed you to complain about your behaviour (or whatever) before you e-mailed them? Do you have any evidence of this? Please note, I'm not interested in e-mails from people who were replying to any e-mails you sent them Nil Einne (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)