User talk:Unitanode/Archive 4

Joe Connelly (writer)
As I said on Lar's page, I'm not interested in any animosity between you and other users. However even in his defense of you in the AFD Lar says the article as it stands should be kept. You said that when you are wrong you withdraw. Even if you had every reason to create the AFD in the first place, I think you should consider this. Does it look better for you and your cause to fight for deletion of this article? Not as the article once was, but as it stands now at this moment.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It may well deserve to be kept. With that said, what I was interested in was a fuller discussion of why, before either a premature SNOW close, or my eventual withdrawal of the nom. Unit  Anode  19:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case have you considered expanding on why you question why it should be kept. Your nomination only mentions two things.  One that it was de-prodded.  A statement of procedure, not a reason for deletion.  The second that it was an unsourced BLP.  It was unsourced, but Eastmain added sources.  This sourcing answers all the concerns you've expressed.  I'm unsure what to discuss, your concern was answered and even when you reopened it you haven't given any additional reasons.  Just this vague desire for more discussion.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked it over again, and have withdrawn the nomination, conditional to the sources being kept. Unit  Anode  20:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for considering this. I know there's a bit of a rift at the moment regarding BLP's.  I can't imagine though that any reasonable person, regardless of viewpoints on how to handle BLP's, would prefer the unsourced version to the sourced version.  Naturaly I'm not online 24-7, but it's on my watchlist now.  If I see anyone taking that bizzare step of removing the references, I'll do my part to revert.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. I wouldn't be surprised by anything anymore, though. I've seen PRODs removed, with no sources added and unsourced information put back in articles, with no sourcing provided, so nothing would really surprise me anymore. Unit  Anode  20:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mistake?
You reverted Wikidemon's edit to the Michèle Fitoussi with a summary that sources were needed, but they actually did provide sources when they added the info back in. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 20:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Because of WD's previous edits, which simply restored unsourced material to articles, I didn't check it like I should have. My apologies, and thanks for the note. Unit  Anode  20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool - thanks for the quick revert. I saw things going pear shaped in short order; glad you don't mind my jumping in to say something. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 20:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. We are, the lot of us, here for the same reason. Unit  Anode  21:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction, most, not all, of us are here for the same reason. ;) --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 21:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True, true. Unit  Anode  21:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Who put you in charge?
Just so we are clear: I don't take orders from you, and you don't have the authority to mess around with the comments of others. Try that crap again and I'll be off to WP:ANI faster than you can say "disruptive prodding". -- Scjessey (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do your damndest. I asked a question, and now I've simply sub-sectioned the other commentary. There's absolutely nothing out of process in that. You'll be laughed off of even the ANI dramapit if you take this there. Unit  Anode  19:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you going to take me to the dramapit, too? I know you can dish it out and I respect that, frankly, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.--Milowent (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't take it there, unless you persist in these antagonistic personal attacks. I hate that place with a fiery burning passion. But your juvenile name-calling and accusations about "book burning" are completely inappropriate. You'll either stop this kind of thing, or you'll most likely be blocked. Unit  Anode  21:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Trout
for trouting an admin for correctly applying CSD whilst simultaneously misinterpreting both G4 and G7 and overlooking G11. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been deleted FOUR FRIGGIN' TIMES!!! So often, that the original landing page had to be SALTed. It's a clear SPEEDY. Unit  Anode  19:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read the speedy guidelines. It's both G4 and G11. What's your issue here? Unit  Anode  19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * " ... deleted via a deletion discussion ... This criterion also excludes content deleted via ... speedy deletion". -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "...although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply...", which would seem to provide rationale for simply shooting it onsite, which the admin refused to do for some reason. Unit  Anode  19:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ("as a substantial recreation of previously deleted material") is a misapplication of G4. Accept your trout for inappropriate trouting. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not yet, I won't, since the main point of the trout was due to the fact that the article should have been shot on sight. How it gets there is a poe-tay-toe poe-tah-toe argument, as far as I'm concerned. We have enough chaff to clean up using PRODs and AFDs without this kind of nonsense making it past a SPEEDY nom. Unit  Anode  19:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing my point that whether or not the article should have been deleted, you tagged it as G7 despite it asserting notability and trouted an admin for not G4'ing it as well as voted in AfD under G4, despite it not qualifying under G4. After all that it was a G11. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't place any of the speedy tags. I simply offered my opinion that it was an easy speedy call after it was brought to AFD. I was right about that. Unit  Anode  15:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting Admins...
... is really not a good idea for non-admins when the admin was exercising administrative functions to close a discussion or thread. Until you have passed an RFA yourself you really have no place replacing your view with the view of someone who has been specifically trusted by the community to make these calls. Spartaz Humbug! 15:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Administrators are no more "important" than anyone else. I undid a non-administrative action of his, that was very inappropriately done in the first place. Unit  Anode  15:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed were the admin acting in an editorial capacity then they count no more or less then anyone but my message specifically referenced admins acting as admins and I'm sure you already know better then that.... Spartaz Humbug! 15:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I happen to have your user talk page on a watchlist since our discussion on Lar's talk page on the subject of using automation to create a log of articles tagged for BLPPROD. Looking at the page referenced by Spartaz, I notice that you are now edit warring on an article probation enforcement page.  This strikes me as unwise.  I suggest you self-revert and, as Scjessey suggested, take up the matter with the person you reverted. --TS 15:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I undid the close because it was inappropriate. I've left a message at Prodego's talkpage informing him of what I've done. I'm done with allowing people to sweep how WMC treats people under the rug. Done with it. Unit  Anode  15:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

2 comments

 * I clarified my indentation on Prodego's talk and removed your comment requesting clarification
 * I think you should self-rv the close of the WMC section. This problem will not be solved here where unwatched biased admins have taken control. It must be escalated, and in that case, your revert of a close will only be used to discredit you. I would self-rv with a comment of protest, and deal with directly with Prodego. ATren (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And you can see they are all coming out of the woodwork to pile on against you. See, that's how it works: it starts with the baiting -- e.g. WMC's smears -- then when editors complain, aligned editors show up and seed the complaint thread with endless argumentation which blurs the issue; then an admin shows up and closes it as unparseable; and as soon as you respond with the slightest bit of frustration, they use your single moment of frustration against you and misrepresent the entire ordeal. Look at the way ChrisO, MathSci, and SBHB came out of the woodwork to attack you at AN/I. Soon others will arrive and pile on. I've seen this at least half a dozen times, against good editors, and it always goes the same way. They all converge on the kill, and another opponent is vanquished, preserving their dominance. That's why you never do anything remotely crossing the line in this debate. ATren (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I really hope some admin blocks me for it. It will be at Arbcom the next minute, and that person would lose their tools. It probably needs to be at Arbcom anyways. There's nothing approaching fairness at that "enforcement" board. Unit  Anode  16:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me ATren. coming out of the woodwork? That would be a reference to those who, like you, asked UnitAnode to self-revert.  a single moment of frustration? That would be UnitAnode's two successive reverts.  Please don't make things worse.  Let's try to avoid the battleground mentality. --TS 16:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your request to "try to avoid the battleground mentality" is just a bit ironic, given both your participation at ANI in this regard, as well as your history. Unit  Anode  17:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to the fray tony :) guys i did post something similar to this. This is a tactic and one these lads excel at. The thread becomes full of argument and is near impossible to read. Hell it the last case WMC did not even bother to defend himself, he left it to his pals to create chaos, and they in turn were helped by you. If you feel the need to make your voice heard in the next RFE then say your piece and leave it at that. All you need do is ignore their attacks and keep the thread clear for the actual op to sort out mark nutley (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "and one these lads excel at","left it to his pals to create chaos","ignore their attacks" ... is that the higher ground? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weird, i don`t recall mentioning taking the higher ground? However ignoring attacks actually is taking the higher ground :) mark nutley (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

nomination
Hi, I think you nominated this article, there has been a fair bit of discussion and the article has a few citations , would you when time have another look at it to see if your position has changed. Off2riorob (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My view hasn't changed. I keep an eye on that one, and the 3 sources currently provided are simply not enough to get past WP:POLITICIAN. Unit  Anode  02:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Try to cast a kinder eye over the discussion, there will only be more notability. Off2riorob (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas, we're not into what may be, rather we're into what is. Unit  Anode  02:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You should not consider that you speak for or that your position represents the consensus of the wikipedia, as you have seen yourself on multiple occasions recently where you yourself have been isolated and in the minority, this stub is cited and is semi notable and rising...oh well, lets see how it goes.. Off2riorob (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can choose to be as antagonistic and aggressive as you like here, Off2riorob. We're not talking about any other article than the one at the top of this thread. At this point in time, he is not notable enough for an article. That seems to be consensus at the AFD as well. Now, if you choose to continue with the aggressive tone of your last post, I'll be disengaging, and removing any further posts which take that tone from my talkpage. Unit  Anode  02:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler
Hi, Unitanode. Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A misunderstanding
As you'll appreciate, accusing other editors of being untruthful is a personal attack, please phrase your edit summaries more carefully. You'll have noticed that Lar has confirmed that Hipocrite's understanding was correct, and you had misunderstood Hipocrite's reasoning. These things happen, and it's best to avoid accusations of bad faith. . . dave souza, talk 19:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seemed clear to me that Hipocrite was saying Lar brought Holocaust denial up first. That doesn't seem to have been the case, as Lar only mentioned the concentration camps by way of making the point that they are controversial articles that don't have near the contention. The Godwinning started with Hipocrite. Unit  Anode  19:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave's confused. ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okey what is your justification
I've seen what your defenders have to say. What is youre justification?©Geni 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Read my userpage. It's right at the top, just click "show." Unit  Anode  22:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No thats a statement of what you are doing. I asked what your justification was.©Geni 22:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Having unsourced material in marginally-notable BLPs is a bad idea, and is against policy. I thought that was obviously why I was doing it. Unit  Anode  22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And exactly which bit of policy do you wish to cite to support that claim?©Geni 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP. Unit  Anode  22:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for butting in, but Geni, where exactly do you get off demanding justification? You've already made your position in BLP matters abundantly clear when you punitively blocked Kevin a few weeks back.  There's a process and a discussion going on at AN/I at the moment.  It'd be advisable to follow the community this time around rather than going rogue. Tarc (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to go talk to Geni on a page where Unitanode can't just revert them to give himself the last word. –xenotalk 22:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, stop. She was posting the same damn thing over and over again. It was distracting, and I was sick of it. Unit  Anode  22:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you should remove the whole thread. –xenotalk 22:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? She'd made her point. I'd made mine. I just wasn't going to chase my tail satisfying her antagonistic behavior. Unit  Anode  22:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it gives the mistaken impression that s/he ceded to you. Which s/he did not. –xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * She was asking me the same thing again and again and again. It's been asked and answered well enough at ANI. My edit summary made that clear. Unit  Anode  22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And edit summaries aren't immediately apparent. I don't think its appropriate to make it look like someone ceded to you by reverting them to give yourself the last word. But it's your house, so I won't belabour the point any further. I'll just make sure to look closely at the edit history of this page in the future to ensure I'm seeing the whole picture. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 23:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do what you like. I don't remove many comments from here. Unit  Anode  23:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work
You're in the hot seat for today, but it will all blow over soon. JBsupreme ( talk ) 22:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think... :) Unit  Anode  22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Political candidates
Hi there. I noticed you participated in the Articles for Deletion discussion for Graham Jones (politician). I have started a discussion regarding a consensus position for candidates in legislative elections (by way of amending WP:POLITICIAN), in case you are interested in putting forward your views there. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Harry Anderson
Hi. I mostly undid your edit to Harry Anderson. I didn't see any reason to flush almost the whole article other than the lede. It seems like the majority of what you removed was a list of films and tv shows the actor has been on, easily verifiable. If you disagree or there is some major problem I'm not aware of, I suggest you start a discussion or give an explanation on the article talk page. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest adding Template:Citation needed or some variation, and giving a bit of time for possible reply, before unilaterally deleting large sections of long established articles. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If it were a normal (non-BLP) article, that's what I would do. BLPs are a very different animal, though, so those type things are removed on-sight. Unit  Anode  02:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, if there were something potentially controvercial or libelous, I'd agree. As I've seen nothing in that category, I don't. Most of the tv and movie appearances can easily be referenced with a couple minutes of googling. If you don't care to put the work into doing so, I'd suggest asking for confirmation before deleting. I'll also note that the lede paragraph which you left in is exactly as unreferenced as the body of the article which you deleted.
 * I've added a couple more references, and requested more. I'm not sure the block threat you put on the talk page, I presume directed at me (?) is appropriate. I appreciate efforts to improve referencing in Wikipedia, but I fear I'm getting in an unpleasant mood over this. I suggest we call in some additional neutral parties in to take a look at this. Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Especially personal information has to be sourced. Readding such information without sources isn't acceptable. You've now added some bare urls as sources, so I'll try to fix those into proper references. The gross misuse of fact-tagging by you needs to end, though. Unit  Anode  03:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon? "Gross misuse"? I'm sorry, I think requesting citations for unreferenced material in long estabished articles is more appropriate than simply deleting major sections without advanced warning nor discussion. We seem to be of different opinions as the best way for dealing with some details. I suggest discussions on community forums where others can give their input would be much more fruitful than the two of us arguing our opinions. Also, please see Civility. Thanks much. Infrogmation (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP stubbification
This kind of edit warring is not acceptable. Your ongoing content deletions, like this one, which I reverted, are not supported by policy and are doing considerable harm to the encyclopedia. I am preparing an AN/I case about this, and if necessary will file a behavioral / content RfC regarding these deletions and the way you have gone about them. Please consider this a prior notice. I believe I already gave you a final warning about this, so this is simply a courtesy prior notice. If you do wish to continue I ask that you pause this kind of thing until we can have wider community input on whether you have consensus. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Good luck defending reinsertion of unsourced material into BLPs. Unit  Anode  18:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Aren't the works themselves the sources? "X wrote Y". Y is the source that X wrote it, and this is easily verified. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 18:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Another solution is to create a "Selected bibliography" section and include the ISBN numbers where available. The ISBN numbers provide verification of the author's work. <b style="color:#FFB521;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:navy;">shhh 19:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that's not all he's been reverting. On his last diff, he was simply restoring a list of stuff that was almost trivia-like. As a gesture of good-faith, I restored the Case stuff for now, though. Unit  Anode  19:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This was a less than ideal response. This really leaves no choice. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll find I don't respond well to threats. I restored the Case information, as well as removing the trivial unsourced stuff from the Beth article. Unit  Anode  19:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Will you respond to my request then, that you seek consensus before continuing to delete content in this fashion? While I'm at it and for the record, if I restore content I believe you have incorrectly deleted in another article are you going to revert me again?  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not "seek consensus" to remove unsourced material from BLPs, no. I will discuss the issue with anyone who pops by here, but there doesn't need to be consensus to removed unsourced material from BLPs. Restoring such material could get you in a spot of trouble, though. Unit  Anode  19:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I dispute your edits. Therefore I may revert them.  It is then up to you to seek consensus for them and not edit war, as you have been doing.  The other three alternatives, edit warring myself, allowing your edits to stand because you're willing to edit war and I am not, or seeking administrative intervention, are all very poor substitutes for collaborative editing.  This is all very basic Wikipedia policy.  You know your interpretation of BLP is a minority one, and I believe it's not even a BLP argument but a desire for BLP policy to be something other than what it is.  Edit warring does not change policy.  Discussion might.  Back to the issue at hand, if we can slow things down and have a truce - I will not revert any more of your edits and you will stop deleting content from BLPs for lack of citations - we can take the behavioral question out of it, skip AN/I, and go straight to a content-focused RFC on the question of whether otherwise verifiable information should be deleted from a BLP solely because it is unreferenced.  I believe that's been rejected more than once as a proposed change to BLP but wider input is not a bad thing.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Dispute" all you want. Removing unsourced material from BLPs does not require consensus. Stub-ifying BLPs that are poorly-sourced is not in any way against policy, and it needs to be done. I read your above proposal as more "I'm not going to stop reverting you unless you stop stub-ifying poorly-sourced BLPs." That's a complete non-starter. Unit  Anode  19:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I have very occasionally and selectively reverted some of the worst of your edits, something I am free to do. You seem to make it clear that you will edit war over this.  Being unwilling to edit war myself, and not wanting to see the encyclopedia compromised in this way, I'll have to ask for community or administrator help in getting you to stop.  Again, if you want to do this without the behavioral component you really ought to pause until the community has spoken.  I'll go ahead and prepare the report.  That's most unfortunate but that's your choice.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Make sure you mention how one of the "worst of my edits" was removing unsourced trivia from the Beth article. As for the "behavioral element", there is none. Removing unsourced information from BLPs is well within policy, and restoring it is outside of policy. BLP problems are outside the scope of edit warring. You're, quite simply, way on the wrong side of this one, both on a policy basis, and on a "do the right thing" basis. Unit  Anode  19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying that you're following BLP policy but that's just not what it says. By "worst" I meant most obviously wrong. Some of your edits remove complex content that would take a while to assess; others are very simple. The removal of unsourced trivia sections was a battle fought at AN/I and Arbcom a couple years ago. The section you deleted, though titled trivia, was not trivia at all. At any rate, I have filed the report so you're free to comment there. I strongly suggest you pause your efforts until there is a resolution of this. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You've become nothing more than a disruption. I'll simply be reverting your further "contributions" here, unless and until you gain at least the most rudimentary grasp of WP:BLP and what it entails. Good bye. Unit  Anode  20:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought WP:BURDEN is clearly on those who want to add information. Is there some reason Wikidemon you want to override that, especially for BLPs which is another policy? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a strained interpretation. The verifiability of the content is not under any serious challenge.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not "strained" at all. The verifiability of the content is under serious challenge. If you want the content in it is on you to verify it and source it. Your attempt to get me banned/blocked/whatever by bringing it to ANI failed. Please stop now. Unit  Anode  17:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that you believe in good faith that the content you are removing is not verifiable? As far as I can tell you have made no effort to assess whether it is sourceable or not.  I have asked you many times to wait until you have consensus before doing any more mass edits.  You have refused to listen and refused to acknowledge the consensus process, so I have used the administrator's notice board for its intended purpose. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you that I believe, in good faith, that the content is not verified. Therefore, it's out until it is verified. As for your use of ANI, you run there whenever I don't acquiesce to your demands. It never works out for you, and you then claim that I'm the problem. I'm getting work done here. You're talking about maybe, at some point in the future, coming up with a process by which people might, at some point, be able to get some work done on the issue. No thanks. Now, unless you have something new to write, I'll be removing any further comments you make about this issue from my talkpage. I'm tired of getting interrupted by the new message bar when it's always the same old thing. Unit  Anode  17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely you have noticed that you are getting in a lot of conflicts with other editors. As long as you see this as a contest between you and me, with you supposedly winning, there is an issue - this is a collaborative project and I have been asking you to work with other editors and follow consensus here.  By the way, WP:V is about verifiability, not verification.  I have only restored content after verifying it.  You should do the same before removing it, that's the usual approach and it will keep you out of these conflicts.- Wikidemon (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion
If it appears someone is going to work on an article you've stubbified, give them some time and room to breathe. For the most-part the material you're removing is entirely innocuous (so doesn't need to be removed !!NOW!! - especially seeing as how long it sat unmolested prior to your arrival) and reverting them without giving them time to source it isn't helpful or collegial. Best, –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 18:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in the history, so it's not "inconveniencing" anyone to have it out until it's verified and sourced. Unit  Anode  18:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Some folks may want to source it over a few edits. I thought Lar said if we made good faith suggestions to you politely you would acquiesce? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 18:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone is actually in the process of sourcing it, that's fine. But, if someone simply says, "easily sourced", and leaves it at that, what's the point? Unit  Anode  18:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can wait a short while to see if they do the needful. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 18:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not when I know full well that most people are simply reinserting the material, claiming it's verifiable, without actually verifying it. If someone (like you have done) leaves me a note at my talk that they're going to verify it, then I won't remove it again. Unit  Anode  18:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I suppose. But do remember that statements that "So and so wrote X book, or Y article that discussed Z" - those publications are themselves the sources. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 18:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought about that before I removed the bit you questioned above. There seemed to be enough "personal flavor" in the portions I removed that it wasn't a simple case of "the book sources this", but I'm leaving it in for now, per your request. Unit  Anode  19:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I do agree with the removal of the unsourced statement "it is also a significant book in the history of societal attitudes towards homosexuality" but the synopses of the works are easily verifiable (just look up the abstract) and already sourced to themselves. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, then. Would you like to remove that phrase (which was one portion of what troubled me) or should I? I think it might be better-received coming from you. I think that right now I could remove "Obama iz teh gayz" from his article and people would think I was acting in bad faith. :) Unit  Anode  19:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * lol (re obama =). I already removed the phrase, or to be more accurate, I didn't re-insert it when I sourced the other things. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 19:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A request
Hi. Can I urge you to use BLP unverified whenever you stub a BLP from here on? I see that you've expressed interest in using it, but it looks like you haven't actually started using it yet.

I think a lot of drama could be avoided by using it. It gets unsourced information off the page, while keeping it in an easy-to-find place for later editors to source and restore. It's an extra couple of steps to use the template, but they're not complicated. If you want me to walk you through it, I'd be happy to. FYI, it goes on the talk page of the stubbed article.--Father Goose (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did mean to start using that template today, but forgot to do so. Thanks for the reminder. Unit  Anode  22:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping!
Go see ANI before you go to bed, please!!!! ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. And I'm so over this. It's like people aren't even actually bothering to look at what I'm actually doing. Unit  Anode  04:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course not! That would be so much less fun than rushing straight for the cupboard where the torches and pitchforks are stored.  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 15:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's what gets me so frustrated: it's very apparent that probably 90% of the people who "support" topic-banning me from removing unsourced material from BLPs haven't even looked at my workpage to see what it is I'm doing and how effective it has been. I have been pleasantly surprised that such misguided attempts at stopping my BLP work have both seemed to flame out at no more than about 50/50. While it's discouraging that many people don't even bother to check into what I'm actually doing, it's encouraging that some actually have. Unit  Anode  17:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Red Button
It is best to avoid accusations of bad faith. Therefore, I have no comments at all. I hope this is enough said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Red Button Is A Red Button (talk • contribs) 03:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's clear from the image info what you did. Pointing that out is not "bad faith" at all. Unit  Anode  03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My dearest, have fun. I have always heard about people like you in here, but then... I have also always refused to believe that. Until now.


 * A Final Consideration: "I like to find out that I died, and that I'm currently in a ballet in China, and all the other very accurate and important things that Wikipedia brings us all." - Stephen Fry, citing Wikipedia among his favourite websites.
 * I am very sure each one of us here, including Mr. Fry, lie in safety in your hands, especially regarding BLPs.
 * Like some others posted here: keep up the good work! Once again, it is best to avoid accusations of bad faith. Oh!, and once again: have fun - Rejoyce Evermore! —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Red Button Is A Red Button (talk • contribs) 03:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in UnitAnode ... I put your talk page on my watch list as you might expect, just noting I have posted a question on this editor's talk page. The whole copyvio thing seems strange.  If it really is the photographer's own submission that should be easy enough to check out.  Beyond that it looks like an odd account, a day old and already getting into some odd trouble.  Let me know if you need any help thinking through WP:SSP type issues.   - Wikidemon (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm not that experienced in dealing with such copyvio issues on images, so any help is appreciated. My only image experience comes from uploading my own photographs, or photographs that are unambiguously public domain (i.e. so old that all copyright claims are moot). Thanks for your help. Unit  Anode  12:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

ITN/C
Thank you for participating in discussions at ITN/C. I do not want to seem confrontational, but could I please ask you to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors and keep your comments civil. Sorry to bother you. HJ Mitchell |  fancy a chat?   02:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It just gets tiresome to see knee-jerk "oppose" recommendations every time a clearly newsworthy story has anything remotely American attached to it. Nothing I said in my support is incorrect. If it were 10 French citizens, and the story was all over the world, this would be flying through. Unit  Anode  03:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I know it's tiresome that some people oppose (or support) for reasons other than the merits of the item but the majority of participants at ITN/C are impartial. I don't know if things would be much different if they were French but there's an unwritten convention that items involving court cases are usually not posted until we have a verdict. Take Michael Jackson's doctor, for example, if or when there's a verdict, the story has a chance of getting on but not before. The other thing is that an article has to be updated before it goes on ITN and, as far as I can tell, none has to reflect the Americans being charged in Haiti. If it's renominated if/when there's a verdict and an update, it might garner some more support. Of course, you're welcome to chip in at other ITN/C discussions- we could do with a few more regulars there. Best, HJ Mitchell  |  fancy a chat?   16:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I get far too frustrated when it seems like every story that has an "American" bent to it is opposed. The example that stands out to me is the Sumo wrestler story. Substitute "controversial baseball player for X Major League Baseball team" and I think it gets laughed off of ITN/C. Unit  Anode  17:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know; and sometimes you're probably right. I'm inclined to agree with you on the sumo wrestler- it was supported because of an apparent need for "diversity" but you're right, a baseballer or any other "mainstream" sportsman would have no chance of getting on the Main Page. I don't think it's national bias, though- to give an example from my side of the Atlantic, John Terry has just been stripped of his captaincy of the England football (soccer) team but that has no hope of getting on (nor should it imho). The best way of countering thoughtless opposes (or even supports) is to provide a well reasoned argument for or against and discuss it calmly with people who disagree with you (as they inevitably will!). You won't win every time but nobody can fault you for trying. Best, HJ Mitchell  |  fancy a chat?   19:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nathalie Bouvier
It is sourced, OK? I hope all's well with your family. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good wishes. And great work sourcing the article! Unit  Anode  03:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding surveys of uneven enforcement...
Regarding this edit, see this. I believe the evidence is strong. By my recollection, he banned TGL and JPat very impulsively and on suspect evidence (particularly JPat). He later begrudgingly overturned JPat, but only after much groveling from JPat. JPat's was clearly bad. He also indef blocked GoRight and sat on it for 3 weeks, and again the evidence was not compelling for such a drastic action. And he was this close to imposing a lengthy ban on Gavin Collins before others stepped in. That's 4 strong actions, all directed at those editing from the skeptic side, and only the token warning at WMC for the other side, after which he quickly nullified by defending WMC after he quickly violated his warning.

Particularly compelling was his extended defense of WMC (I think it was on the enforcement page) where he analyzed each of WMC's edits in detail, and where he dismissed WMC's "yahoos" smear with no comment and his "idiots" smear with something like "minor incivility". I think it might be instructive to compare his defense of WMC against his decisions on GR, JPat, Gavin Collins, and TGL, at the very least. The important consideration here is the uneven enforcement -- in other words, some of the actions by those 4 editors did deserve sanction, but the level of sanction was way over the line given 2/0's leniency towards WMC and other abrasive proponent editors. So we're not defending those editors per se, just asking why the enforcement is so uneven given similar misbehaviors.

If you're interested, chime in on my page. I'm insanely busy lately, but I think the evidence is strong enough and recent enough to put together a quick case. ATren (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's my view that if this unevenness doesn't stop, this will end up before arbcom. It's becoming more and more blatant, and it has to end. Unit  Anode  02:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your move
Your move of the appropriately-titled "Whataya Want From Me" to the inappropriately titled "Whataya Want from Me" is wrong-headed, in my view. However, if MOS guidelines do, in fact, overrule what the reliable sources call the song, then there are a ton more moves in order. Any works by e e cummings that employ his idiosyncratic spelling need moved or fixed. Also, k.d. lang (and other such artists) should be moved to the appropriate spelling. If MOS overrules RS, then it should apply accross the board. Unit Anode  15:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I only moved as I saw the consensus lie. You're welcome to establish consensus for other moves, or perform them if they aren't controversial. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is the consensus was simply favoring a guideline over established policy. Consensus does not trump policy. Unit  Anode  19:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.
A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * PS - I understand that this may not be your first choice but it would be good for the project if we all came together on a name that everyone can live with and then defend that. Please consider the proposal above in the light of being a good compromise position for all.  Thanks.  --GoRight (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking about this. Personally, the only advantage I see to the new title is the removal of the silly "hacking" label. Unit  Anode  19:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then this would at least be a small "win" for you, no? And climategate will remain a redirect so is it really that important to make the actual article be named climategate.  I agree there are reasons why it could/should be named that, I have even argued for such in the past, but these renaming polls solve nothing and just keep fanning the flames of discontent.  The writing is on the wall that we have to find a better way to work together.  If you agree with that then take this small step for the greater good.  Take your time and think it over.  The proposal will be there if you decide to come on board.  Thanks for your consideration.  --GoRight (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally believe that the embarrassment caused by the hackneyed silliness of the current name needs to mount before anything will get better. That said, I'm probably actually closer in my views on the underlying science to those who are "pro-AGW" than I am to the skeptics. I just have a huge issue with all the impediments that have been thrown up against making necessary changes in the GW articles. I will think on it, but right now I'm 50/50 at best on supporting what I consider to be an equally-hackneyed, though slightly less silly, title. Also, I'm not so much interested in chalking up a "win" (even a minor one), as getting things right. And right now, I'm just still wondering whether the new title is that much more "right" than the current one. Unit  Anode  19:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. We all have our reasons.  I wouldn't support the proposed title if I didn't consider to be appropriate, though, so what about it makes you refer to it as hackneyed?  I see it as a rather bland, no frills description of the whole affair.  --GoRight (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Weisbrot

 * Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary language
This edit summary uses a pun which IMHO is intended to escalate (as opposed to neutralize). While I'm a firm believer in users managing personal talk pages as they wish, I encourage you to recognize that inflaming a situation usually isn't as effective as diffusing a situation, when possible. Good editing. BusterD (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He's very good at baiting and harassing, what can I say? There was nothing in my edit summary that in any way violated policy. As for "intending to escalate", I'd told him multiple times he was unwelcome here after how he behaved toward Giano, and his response when I approached him about it. He continued posting here, so I removed it, with what I felt was an appropriate edit summary, given with whom I was conversing. Good editing to you as well, Scott  aka UnitAnode  05:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your considering my suggestion. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"you're becoming quite a master harasser and master baiter" is undoubtedly a personal attack. Consider this another warning. Cool Hand Luke 16:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider this me raising a proverbial middle finger to your warning me for an edit summary after Tbdsy refused to quit harassing me. Scott  aka UnitAnode  17:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But just know that what you did was not acceptable. It's also, notably, not anything like the treatment you received from Tbdsy. Cool Hand Luke 18:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any idea how you came upon my interactions with Tbdsy. It doesn't matter all that much. I approached him about his inappropriate refactoring of Giano's comments at a policy page. He was dismissive. And then kept after me, even after I asked him to stop multiple times. Does the fact that he doesn't do punny edit summaries mitigate in his favor or something? Either way, I don't really give a damn what you think is "not acceptable" or what you think is "also, notably, not anything like the treatment you received from Tbdsy." Isn't that the whole point of someone like him harassing and baiting people? If it's done cleverly, and the person observing doesn't look carefully, it makes the person who was being harassed and baited look like the bad guy. He did that first to Giano, and then to me. But with all that said, if you leave any more "warnings" that are this inane on my talkpage, I'll simply be reverting them unread. It's odd, because you used to be one of the good guys. Scott  aka UnitAnode  19:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. Your interaction with Tbdsy does in fact look like harassment&mdash;him asking you repeatedly to stop editing his page and you instead doing it repeatedly. If you believe it's bait, you shouldn't take it. Simple as that. Cool Hand Luke 19:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I approached him about how his refactoring of Giano's comments at that talkpage were inappropriate. We discussed that for a bit, and then he slapped some weird, self-created template at the end that said something like "conversation over" or something like that. All the while, he continued posting at my page, after I repeatedly asked him not to do so. What the hell is your problem with me, anyways? When did you become the fucking civility police? Scott  aka UnitAnode  19:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that. Tbsdy laid it out in chronological order, and you surprisingly linked to it on your user page. I don't have a problem with you. In fact, you probably would have never heard from me if I didn't think you're absolutely right about the BLP issue (among other things). I would prefer that people on "my side" don't lay into people who disagree with them on-wiki; it makes them harder to take seriously. Cool Hand Luke 19:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I linked to it because I thought his idiotic "summary" was, well, "idiotic." If you'd like a point-by-point refutation of why, then I'll (very reluctantly) give you one. But I'll only do this if you rescind the inane "warning" you gave me about calling a spade a spade. Scott  aka UnitAnode  19:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot imagine that your interpretation of events could justify the personal attack I quoted, so I cannot promise to do anything, but it might be a good idea to explain why you believe the summary paints you in a false light. Cool Hand Luke 20:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you are insisting on interpreting my edit summary as a "personal attack", when it was simply descriptive of what Tbdsy was doing, then I'll assume that you'll be equally predisposed to dismiss what actually happened in our interaction. As for the BLP thing, I note with interest that you're not among those who have dropped me an encouraging note (either on-wiki or off-) that my efforts were in some way appreciated. Most people who "agree" have been content to sit on the sidelines, letting the pointless RFC discussion wend and wind into oblivion, while the problem persists, and even grows. As such -- and combined with bullshit like Tbdsy (and now you) are perpetuating -- I'm just about to the point where I throw up my hands and say, "Fine, you win, have the project and all the headaches and timesink that go with it." To COM below: be careful. You said "fuck", which is sanctionable, in some people's minds. 20:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You were commenting on something he was "becoming," and this was somehow a comment on his behavior? Would "you are X" be a personal attack in your mind (after all, that's only a comment about being which is behavior)? Would anything be a personal attack?
 * Anyhow, I appreciate what you've done. If you can do it without randomly cussing people out, that would be super. Cool Hand Luke 20:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For fuck's goodness sake Luke, go enforce the rules on the perennial disrupters like Connelley and Tarc and Roux and stop wasting people's time. He made a pun about master baiters. Get the fuck fudge over it and move on. Your disruptive nonsense is absurd. Wikipedia is infested with disruptive POV pushers and trolls who do real damage to collegiality and content. So why you've joined up with the likes of Chillum and GeorgeWilliamHerbert who go after good faith editors they don't like I have no idea. Stop jabbing those frustrated with the idiocy and abusive behaviors that go on here and start confronting the actual problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ChildofMidnight, I would greatly appreciate it if you could stop obsessing over me and doing this name-dropping thing whenever and wherever you perceive the Heavy Hand of the Allmighty Cabal. Several of your AN/I filings have failed.  Barber's AN/I failed. Sooner or later you will just have to accept that I have not done a thing wrong to anyone in this project.  Curb your profanity-laced tirades and stop stirring up the situation.
 * I have no beef with Unitanode, but I'd have to ask him about once considering Luke a "good guy", but now apparently no longer. Maybe it is possible that if a "good guy" warns you about something, that there might be some merit to it rather than saying that he has lost his "good" status.  I can see your frustration with Tbdsy, but remember what the Deteriorata said; 2 wrongs never make a right, but 3 lefts do. Tarc (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (To both Tarc and Luke) -- I guess I'm just completely mystified by how a snarky edit summary describing what he was doing as baiting and harassing merits a warning. As for your accusation that I "randomly cuss people out", Luke, that's just patently absurd. If I use foul language, it's not random at all. And saying that Tbdsy is a "master harasser and master baiter" is simply a punnier way of saying "stop harassing and baiting both me and Giano." I don't accept the legitimacy of this warning, and completely reject the premise it was based upon: that this was somehow a personal attack. He was harassing and baiting both Giano and myself, and I had asked him to stop. When he didn't do so, I reverted his post with a punny edit summary calling a spade a spade. If you don't like it, fine. But it's not blockable, except by those who fancy themselves civility police. Scott  aka UnitAnode  21:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * saying that Tbdsy is a "master harasser and master baiter" is simply a punnier way of saying "stop harassing and baiting both me and Giano."
 * This doesn't fly; by this rationale calling someone any name under the sun is just a more foul/snarky/[euphemism] way of saying "gee, I don't like your behavior." Can you give me an example of something you believe would be a personal attack? Cool Hand Luke 01:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But he didn't call anyone a name. He made funny. That's what a pun is. Are you unfamiliar with that mode of humor? Surely we have an article on the subject. Try pun.
 * I'm more than happy to give you an example of a personal attack Cool Hand Luke, but I'm 100% the trolls and disruptive monkeys will use it against me. But if you really really want me to let fly I'll take your word that permission has been granted and I'll show you what a personal attack looks like. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I asked UnitAnode. It's all very well and good to say that it's a [different] way of saying [I don't like your behavior], but one could make this argument for any personal attack. Cool Hand Luke 02:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I made it very clear in that edit summary that I was stating that he was harassing and baiting both Giano and me, but doing so in a different sort of way that was intended to be funny -- and was, if I do say so myself. Scott  aka UnitAnode  02:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You did say that, and it was fine. Then you went on to make a personal attack. Do you believe that personal attacks are excused when they are allegedly funny, or do you think that personal attacks simply don't exist? Given your rationales, it's not clear to me that you think anything would be a personal attack when one could invariably claim that it's a comment on behavior&mdash;as you have here, implausibly. Cool Hand Luke 02:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that "You're a dumbass motherfucker" is a personal attack. Saying that someone "is becoming a master harasser and master baiter" is simply a punny way to say, "cut the crap." I mean, someone dropped a personal attacks warning on me for saying "Cut the bullshit" when William M. Connolley directly lied about me in the statement to which I was responding. When is this civility police bullshit going to stop? Scott  aka UnitAnode  02:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What if they precede it by saying, "I think your proposals ignore our policies, and even if this were not true, it's fundamentally illogical. You're a dumbass motherfucker." Isn't that even funnier than your pun? By your logic, why should it be a personal attack? It's just a Samuel L. Jackson way of saying, "no, that's not a good idea." Cool Hand Luke 02:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you're being facetious. That you think that a clear pun on my earlier statement, in the same edit summary is anywhere in the same zip code -- hell, even on the same continent -- as "you're a dumbass motherfucker" completely removes reason from the equation. Therefore, I think we're done now. Scott  aka UnitAnode  03:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not being facetious at all. I did find your pun clear, but I also found the personal attack clear, and I actually find your comment both more uncivil and less funny than my hypothetical. Humor is not universal; I hope you consider that before saving another "funny" personal attack. I'm not here to score points or get you blocked; I would actually like to make the environment here less vicious. Thanks in advance for any efforts you make along these lines. Cool Hand Luke 03:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, there's the rub: your goal is "less vicious"; mine is "less treating editors like they're in the second grade." We're all big people here. Even if someone made the comment, "You're a dumbass motherfucker" to me, I wouldn't be running to ANI with it, demanding a ban. And, if they were clever enough to say something like, "I am SICK of your motherfucking dumbassery on my my motherfucking talkpage", I'd probably even give them a barnstar. We're all (or at least most of us) grownups here. Sometimes grownups get angry and even curse. You shouldn't poke them when they're angry, and you shouldn't cry when they bite you after you poke them. Scott  aka UnitAnode  03:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, "you're becoming quite a master harasser and master baiter" is not something I would expect an alleged adult to say. YMMV. Cool Hand Luke 04:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, not everyone finds juvenile puns funny. I happen to be a person who does. I also found it very true about the way the person to whom I was addressing it was treating Giano and myself. And what the hell does "YMMV" mean? Scott  aka UnitAnode  04:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In accord with your wishes, I will treat you as an adult and assume that you can do your own research on that question. Do try to be aware that your "jokes" are easily perceived as personal attacks. Thanks again. Cool Hand Luke 04:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I strongly disagree with Cool Hand Luke's opposition to puns. It seems a very puritanical position to me, and if we can't laugh off the abuse that goes on here we'll all end up very unhappy people. I have noticed, though, that some your rhetoric gets heated at times Unitanode. So perhaps it's just Luke's way of letting you know to be careful. There are lots of adolescents and teens running around looking for an excuse to cause disruption by pushing buttons willy nilly. Cheerios. Sorry for butting in. Perhaps it's just a case where what we have here is a failure to communicate. Your mileage may vary (I had to look it up). I find overuse of unfunny acronyms to be highly uncivil, but perhaps it's not a blockable offense? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this kind of civility enforcement on good faith editors who call out master harassers and master baiters is why we keep losing good editors. How about addressing the problem instead of those who react to it CHL? It's time the abusive taunters, stalkers, and disruptiove harassers are dealt with instead of going after those who rise to confront their abuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Its entertaining to have Unitanode's talk page on one's watchlist. I am sure he's only advising other editors to be careful lest they go blind.--Milowent (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ...says the man whose palms are so hairy he can barely type. Scott  aka UnitAnode  19:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's quite a bit like Malleus Fatuorum's talk page. Lots of drama! Sort of the alter ego of the civil Wikipedia! Makes a mockery of some of the "be nice" conventions! — mattisse (Talk) 01:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's quite a bit like Malleus Fatuorum's talk page. Lots of drama! Sort of the alter ego of the civil Wikipedia! Makes a mockery of some of the "be nice" conventions! — mattisse (Talk) 01:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I could provide a spot of entertainment for you two. Scott  aka UnitAnode  03:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was amused. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I sprayed coffee all over my keyboard, yes i am that juvenile :) mark nutley (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Your revert
Your revert here is unexplained. I started a topic on the talk-page about this. Perhaps you'd like to explain there? The Telegraph got things wrong, as all newspapers once in a while do, we (as editors) shouldn't insert information that can be demonstrated as being incorrect. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, after reading through both articles, I've simply redirected the article per the discussion at the talkpage. That should solve any disagreements we have about the issue you mention, at least for now. Scott  aka UnitAnode  14:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, since you've changed the article to a redirect, the issue is somewhat moot - but i still would like a rationale. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I provided one in the edit summary. If not, my rationale was basically that the reliable source did, in fact, say what Nutley wrote there. If the source got it wrong, then that's a different story. Scott  aka UnitAnode  14:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The source did get it wrong. The unit was created before Oct 2009, and thus could not be a response to something that occured in Nov-Jan 2009-10. I did explain in both my remove comment and on talk. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I`d like to know why you redirected the article when it is totaly different from the ar4 article? mark nutley (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I redirected it because I read both, and came to the conclusion that it was an obvious (though, I think, completely unintentional) POV fork. Why not put your effort into improving the AR4 article now? Scott  aka UnitAnode  14:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For the same reason i gave kim over on the article talk "How many people do you think type Criticism of the IPCC AR4 into a search engine?" An article of the political and professional critic`s of the IPCC is well overdue and noting like that is in the ar4 section nor the main ipcc article mark nutley (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that's' a different argument, and a bit more persuasive. I could certainly see where "Criticism of the IPCC" would perhaps be a better name for the parent article, but that's a different discussion altogether. Scott  aka UnitAnode  14:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I`m unsure of your meaning, do you mean rename the ar4 article and put in the politcal fallout from my article into there? mark nutley (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked deeply into it, but my basic point is that perhaps the AR4 article would make a good starting point for a more general "Criticism of IPCC" article. I get that you want a place for the mistakes that the IPCC has made and the criticisms lodged against them to be chronicled. However, the main thrust of the article you created was surrounding criticisms of AR4 anyway, so why not simply work on that article? Scott  aka UnitAnode  15:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If only it were so easy :) Try putting anything into an existing article regardless of how well sourced it is and it gets reverted. It is an augean task indeed to get a hint of critic into these articles. However i believe i can do both options from your suggestion. The mistakes from ar4 can go into the ar4 article, the political stuff can go into the article i began, what do you think? mark nutley (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A redirect is no different from an article with regards to searches. All that happens is that they end up on Crit of AR4. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes kim they do, and no crits of the ipcc nor the political fallout from their mistakes, thats the difference here, one is about ar4 the other the ipcc mark nutley (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, all the critique in your article was about the AR4, and it was even more specifically about the AR4 WGII and III reports. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Kim i think you misunderstand me, yes the ipcc has gotten a lot of flax from the mistakes in ar4, but the flax in my article was directed at the ipcc not the actual report. That is the difference here mark nutley (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy
Stop taking the bait. It's probably best to refrain from answering such nonsensical comments. He seems to be trying to muddy the thread; please don't let him. Just ignore it. Equazcion ( talk ) 20:31, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no muddying the waters happening with me. It wasn't my initiative to add section headers - I tried to warn you it wouldn't work, but you decided not to listen. Anyway, the chaos that has ensued has caused that thread to be archived - I assure you that has nothing to do with me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You were the cause of that chaos. You wouldn't shut up. Hence the muddying, and hence the archiving. It's a major flaw in the system that a person can purposely lengthen a debate regarding sanctions against them, confusing the matter for onlookers. I added subheaders to try and organize the mess you made. I honestly can't believe you. I really can't. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:08, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not about to shut up in a debate about whether my editing practices should be curtailed in any way. I don't think its appropriate you should suggest silencing me from this sort of discussion. That it was initiated in article space was bad enough really. Unitanode, next time you want an interaction ban, which is NOT a narrow suggestion at all, then do it on WP:AN. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting total silence of course. Stop with the strawman arguments. You muddied the thread with irrelevant exchanges. Respond with discretion. The ratio of your comments to everyone else's in that thread was extraordinary. That's muddying the waters. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:13, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Ping
U got mail from me, a while ago. Equazcion ( talk ) 23:41, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll check it. I don't check my WP mail often enough. Sorry about that. Scott  aka UnitAnode  23:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Equazcion  ( talk ) 23:45, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied. Scott  aka UnitAnode  23:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for topic/interaction ban on Tbsdy
See here for the proposal. Based on some recent interaction you may have had with the user(s) I thought you might want to know. Thanks. Equazcion ( talk ) 23:48, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Ping again
You got mail, once more. Just making sure you see it. :) Equazcion  ( talk ) 02:45, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Sorry if this message is pointless, but I just came across your talk page and wanted to say I hope whoever in your family is having health problems gets well quickly. Going through sort of the same thing myself so I know the feeling. Best wishes, X X X antiuser eh? 21:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate the good wishes. My best to your family as well. Scott  aka UnitAnode  22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion's concerns
Jeni disagrees that Tbsdy is the problem. "Pointing out" that her opinion is in the minority isn't helpful. If she is in the minority, everyone can see that themselves. When you respond in a way that attempts to belittle the opinions of those against you, you end up making your own position look weaker to onlookers. People who know they're right and that most people agree with them can see a negative response without having to react to it. And when you react, you risk turning a one-sentence opposition into a 15-line exchange that's bound to get a lot more attention. Equazcion ( talk ) 00:23, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a discussion, not a vote, particularly in a sub-section such as the one I opened. When Jeni made assertions that were untrue about Giano, there was no problem with my pointing out that his (Jeni is a "he", I believe) take was quite unique amongst those who have read the talkpage. Scott  aka UnitAnode  00:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not her opinion is absolutely "unique" is debatable, I think. She might disagree with everyone at the article talk page, but there seem to be some others who agree with her elsewhere, and you have no way of knowing whether they read the talk page. While there's no technical problem with responding that way, it does annoy people, and ends up hurting you, and those on your side of the debate. Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:39, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeni's opinion is absolutely unique amongst the people who participated at that talkpage. Pointing that out isn't a problem in any way, as those who have shown up to oppose were going to do so anyway. That said, there's no point in carrying this discussion on here. If anything else needs to be written, please write it at the proposal page. Scott  aka UnitAnode  00:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually you'll find Jeni is a "she" Jeni  ( talk ) 00:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I don't know why I was under the impression that you were a guy. Scott  aka UnitAnode  00:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name
Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Brannan
Hello. I posted content from a magazine interview hosted his own website on the talk page. That and the NYT statement should settle the question. I had previously pointed that interview out, please read the talk page and discuss there. Also, despite your contention the NYT is a reliable source. Regards Hekerui (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they weren't an RS. However, you can't use the speculation of even a reliable source to out someone. Scott  aka UnitAnode  21:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)