Misplaced Pages

User talk:WVBluefield: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:33, 20 November 2009 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,032 edits →3RR and civility: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:17, 14 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(147 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Ban Appeal Result ==
==BLP and ]==
I understand your argument that consensus doesn't apply to problematic content in biographies of living persons, but in this case aren't we dealing with a matter of public record? --] 22:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


The community ban on ] is suspended under the following conditions
If no relevance is indicated, doesn’t it seem like someone is trying to poison the well with information that is designed to bias the article and is not directly related to the subject?


#Editor is indefinitely restricted to one account, namely ];
Does the WCR have any other funder and why arent they mentioned in the article's lead.
#Editor is indefinitely banned from ].
#The community ban may be reimposed at any time by motion of ArbCom if the editor engages in sockpuppetry; behaves disruptively; or fails to comply with the spirit or letter of these terms.


For the Arbitration Committee,
I believe they call this guilt by association. ] (]) 22:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
] <sup>]</sup> 23:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


==Archives==
== Edit warring at ] ==
]
]
==]==
] Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed{{#if:Lawrence Solomon|, ],}} is on ]. {{#if:Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation|A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at ].|}} {{#if:|{{{3}}}|Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.<br><br>''The above is a ]. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.''}}<!-- Template:uw-probation --> -- ] 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


== Welcome back. ==
Your current editing at ] is completely unacceptable. Please familiarize yourself with ], including the three-revert rule. Use the talk page to work this issue out. You risk being blocked if this behavior continues. ] (]) 17:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


Its a BLP issue as I have explained, I don’t have to justify its removal on those grounds, other editors have to justify its inclusion. I am just trying to get editors here to play by their own rules. ] (]) 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I am glad to see that you have managed to work out an agreement that allows you to continue to contribute. Please be diligent about keeping to your restrictions so that you can continue to have a voice here on the project! --] (]) 20:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
:BLP is sometimes an exemption from 3RR but not in this case. As far as I can tell, it is not the factual accuracy of the material that is under dispute, but rather its relevance. That is purely a content matter and not one where it is acceptable to edit war. If you believe that this is in fact a BLP issue and the talk page isn't working for you, may I suggest ]? ] (]) 23:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


Hello. Thanks for your message. I replied on my talk page. -- ] (]) 20:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks, although work is putting a dampner on things. ] (]) 21:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


== Category:Highly_Hazardous_Chemicals ==
:Hi BluefieldWV, I've had a look at the BLP/N issue and whilst I sympathise, I don't think you're going to win this argument. (See my response at Michaels' talk page.) I'd be interested to discuss it here though if you think I'm wrong. FYI, I am an ] editor largely devoted to BLP issues that are inflicted on climate change skeptics. I believe that Oren0 is also skeptical of climate change theories, and I think he's giving you good advice about the edit-warring. ] (]) 16:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


The category you created is nominated for deletion. You may wich to comment at ]. --] (]) 07:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
:: Thanks. It does seems like a tough argument to make. The threshold for what constitutes legitimate criticism here seems to be awfully low for some topics and inversely high on others. ] (]) 15:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


== Please read what you are reverting before reverting it ==
== Watts ==


TND: ''An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of GoRight...'' - understand now? Your revert comment thus becomes irrelevant ] (]) 14:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding edit. Perhaps you should take some time and actually read the reference instead of assuming? Watts ran ''as a conservative'' (Quote emphasis mine: <small>But the race took a turn when '''conservative candidate''' Anthony Watts opted out last week, saying there was “not enough Anthony to go around.”</small>) - and that isn't opinion - it is a fact. --] (]) 15:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


== Tags ==
: Actually, no where in the article does Watt's self identify as a conservative or that he ran as a conservative so its the opinion of the reporter that Watt's is a conservative. Thanks for trying. ] (]) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
::You will have to learn to differentiate between Op-Ed's (opinion), editorial (opinion), columns (part opinion) and a newspapers regular journalistic articles (not opinion). But if you really really want Watt's confirmation of what is a fairly regular and completely non-controversial item - you can find it , where Watts makes fun of someone who is implying that he is "..a conservative, he can't possibly think for himself..". (notice how that one was an editorial) --] (]) 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
::: Hey look at that, you found a reliable source. Now go put it in the article. ] (]) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
::::No, that one is actually not a reliable source. Where as the other one ''is''. You really need to read and ponder ]. --] (]) 17:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


Do you agree that GoRight is suspected of running ongoing sockpuppets? Yes or no will work. Thanks. ] (]) 00:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
== 3RR on Anthony Watts ==


You've broken the ] rule on Anthony Watts, i suggest that you revert yourself, and be more careful in the future. Also consider using the talk-page. --] (]) 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC) : Since there arent any active CU's on GoRight, I think the correct answer is no. Thanks for the concern. ] (]) 00:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


: its a BLP issue and not subject to 3RR ... or thats my understanding. ] (]) 18:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC) :: If you continue your disruptive behavior, as evidenced here, I will seek to have your old restrictions reimposed. It's clear you are slipping - stop. ] (]) 00:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


::: Excuse me! You are the one being disruptive. You think these games of yours are going to provide enough of a distraction to prevent your just deserts from the arbitration committee? Pal, you are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. ] (]) 00:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
:: Well, if it was for you would be wrong (whereas if it was to delete an obvious allegation about the individual you might get away with it see]). However I cannot see a clear 3RR violation. I strongly advise you to post alleged BLP violations on the noticeboard and not try 3RR yourself especially for relative trivia. --] ] 18:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Calm down. You are under a misapprehension. CU is nice to have, but what is relevant is the SPI. Several users were satisfied with the evidence. Several users have expressed the concern that these are socks. Please leave the templates alone. Thanks. --] (]) 01:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
::::: And which several users expressed concern? Oh that’s right, the usual suspects. ] (]) 01:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::Not that it matters, but there are several "unusual" editors involved. --] (]) 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::: Interesting, did they all get your tweets and IM's? ] (]) 01:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: No, of course not. You cannot Tweet money orders. My international goon squad called at their door and offered them a choice of US$ 1.2 million (in small, unmarked diamonds with no contiguous numbers) or a broken knee cap each. What were you thinking! --] (]) 01:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


In response to what I feel was a rather snide comment on AN/I, BASC lifted your ban under some very specific conditions, constructive behavior being one of them. I would strongly suggest you reconsider your recent actions and return to productive behavior. If the current trend continues, it is very likely that you'll find the ban reinstated. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
::: It was for that, and I honestly dont see how I was wrong. Any material on that page must be accurately sourced, and if not sourced properly, must be immediately removed correct? ] (]) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


WVB, don't let them bait you -- better to focus your efforts on stopping their POV pushing, especially on BLPs like ]. AN/I will never support you over these long term contributors, even when they're the ones who are wrong, so don't even try going there. ] (]) 03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Hmmm Bozmo, with regards to "However I cannot see a clear 3RR violation" - i see it as a clear 3RR violation against two different sets:
:::* Set A: -
:::* Set B: -
:::Which is clearly 4 reverts within 24 hours on the same article. --] (]) 19:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


==Reverting to re-add BLP violation==
:::: Its BLP related, and not covered under 3RR. ] (]) 19:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
With you re-added blatantly incorrect information into a ], in itself breaking policy as well as ], with no other reason than a plea of ignorance. Please desist, and take more care with edits in future. Hope you find these links informative, ], ] 20:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::(e/c)As Bozmo says below, using BLP as an excuse for breaking 3RR is a very bad idea. And in this case the only even remotely BLP related issue is the "conservative" title - which ''is'' sourced to a reliable source (even if you wont accept it as such). --] (]) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


:Well, I see how some might consider the additions to be a BLP violation, but to call them blatant?!? Can you really defend such a statement? All the material was sourced to a ] and the text was an accurate summation of the source. ] (]) 20:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
:::: The policy says you can get exemption for "Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." That is worded as a double test. In this instance, in my judgement there is only a very faint and subjective degree of "libellous, biased, or controversial" in this statement and not enough to justify a 3RR violation. I have certainly seen people blocked for 3RR much more obviously biased material being reverted into BLPs and most admins on 3RR would only excuse you if the content was so harmful as to make minutes matter. Personally I would have blocked for it and I would have refused an unblock for it but perhaps I am more aggressive on 3RR than some. --] ] 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


== Evidence ==
:::::I did try the BLP board, but there doesn’t seem to be much action there, at least from disinterested parties. I will try and find another way the next time I run into a situation like this. I would add that an editor is adding material that he knows and admits cannot be found in the reference he is linking to, but adds it because he "prefers" it. What is the recourse in dealing with an experienced editor who is deliberately flaunting the rules? ] (]) 19:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


Please do not edit others' Evidence or Workshop proposals, as you did . You may wish to read ]. Thank you, ~ <span style="color:#F09;">Amory</span><span style="color:#555; font-size:smaller;"> ''(] • ] • ])''</span> 04:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Kim, Sorry that's too technical for me, perhaps I am old and out of date. I would only block if someone did the same revert or partial 4 times but I guess others are better at technicalities. --] ] 19:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::(e/c)Its just 2x2 reverts, nothing really technical. The two first reverts where of "conservative" (which had earlier been reverted by others), and the 2nd two reverts where of a sentence (regarding what surfacestations purpose is) that had also been reverted earlier. Therefore 4 reverts in total. --] (]) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::: And as I stated, the term "conservative" was used by the reporter to describe Watts, not Watts himself and was not phrased as such, a violation of NPOV. The purpose of surfacestations was being deliberately misinterpreted as the source material was not reflective of the articles text. ] (]) 19:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::The phrase used by the referenced article (which isn't an op-ed or any other opinion article) is this: "But the race took a turn when conservative candidate Anthony Watts" - you seem to have the mistaken idea that if something isn't stated by the subject itself, then its opinion, this is incorrect. As for the description of surfacestation, i very much disagree that its an incorrect description of the project, in fact it is completely in-line with what Watts and Pielke Sr. have described it as. --] (]) 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::: It is an opinion and needs to be stated as such. And like I have told you several times before, if you beleive that your description is accurate, you should have no problem finding a source that agrees with you. ] (]) 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::What exactly in your view makes it opinion, instead of news-reporting? --] (]) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::: Newsreporting is void of opinion is it? ] (]) 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::Try not moving the goal-posts and answer the question instead? --] (]) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::: It is an opinion because there is no verification in the article and no information given to back this statement up. Its best to state the facts and let people make of them what they will. Why do you have such a hard time with that and feel the need to interject your opinion so often? ] (]) 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Sorry, but there is no requirement in ] or ] that requires a secondary reliable source to have verification or to back up their statements. We rely entirely on the secondary sources editorial process for that. Please once more read up on what is and isn't considered opinion sources on Misplaced Pages.
::::::::::::::We differentiate between pure opinion sources such as Op-Ed's and editorials, and regular reporting (which isn't considered opinion). Thats how an encyclopedia works. --] (]) 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


== Robert Watson incident evidence at ArbCom case ==
== NPA ==


A Quest for Knowledge and I compiled relevant diffs into a sortable table to make it easier for reviewers. The information is contained ]
Re : please see ] ] (]) 19:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


If you already know about this, or don't know and don't care, I apologize for bothering you - I had originally planned to notify only those who made reference to the Watson incident, but after seeing someone who unhappy to be mentioned and not notified, I decided to err on the side of caution.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 20:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
: You mean as it applies to ? A model Wikipedian and fine example to others you are. ] (]) 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


== Nuclear Winter ==
:(edit conflict) Actually on my rather pedantic definition I don't think calling someone's single edit "bullshit" counts as a personal attack because it is playing the ball not the man. If you had said "another BS edit" or similar implying something about the individual I would have agreed. Lack of courtesy, civility etc etc fair enough but not a NPA violation I feel. I am not very impressed on how anyone is behaving on that page. --] ] 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


Hey man, I'm reading the Talk page of ] and noticed you've contributed quite a bit, although I'm personally not convinced that the whole hypothesis was a KGB disinformation campaign, I thought you might like to read this by the FBI(if you haven't seen it already).
Bluefield, it's uncivil and inappropriate to call another editor's actions bullshit. Although I disagree with WMC's actions on that page, please do not cross the line into incivility. ] (]) 20:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


The FBI also seem to agree with Tretyakov's claim.
== October 2009 ==


* The Targeting of Sensitive, Proprietary, and Classified Information on Campuses of Higher Education
<div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:24 hours|a period of '''24 hours'''|a short time}} to prevent further ] caused by your engagement in an ]{{#if:Anthony Watts (blogger)|&#32;at ]}}. During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:|] (]) 06:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)}}</div>{{z9}}<!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> per a complaint at:'']''. ] (]) 06:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence/higher-education-and-national-security
{{unblock reviewed|1=My edits were made to correct what I believe was a clear cut BLP issue involving the use of ] in the article. There currently exists a , and the consensus from several uninvolved editors is that this is a BLP violation. At the very minimum I should have been warned, along with all other involved parties but not blocked for enforcing what has been advertised as a guideline in which there is to be no compromise. ] (]) 19:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)|decline=The content you removed was not an obvious BLP violation. Whether or not it should be included is a content issue to be decided via ]. Your block is a correct application of ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)}}
Quote-
The KGB had the report published in a Swedish journal. In the intelligence world, this is called disinformation. '''Disinformation may be blatant deception or small fabricated kernels in a large milieu of reliable facts.''' In the academic arena where research is often based on previous research, when results from a study can be shared quickly and easily with other researchers, '''it is important to science that people share accurate results. If subsequent research is based on incorrect data, many of those subsequent conclusions could be inaccurate as well.
'''
The same document but in PDF
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence/higher-education-national-security


Further references can be found on the page ] and yet more are linked in the Nuclear Winter talk page. There is now certainly sufficient support for Tretyakov's claim to be included in the article, despite the chronology presented by Tretyakov not being right. Any addition of this claim to the article should include that Tretyakov gets the Chronology of events wrong. Though simply because the Chronology is wrong doesn't mean it isn't worthy of addition.
:Bluefield, it was very disappointing indeed that an editor who was violating every rule in the book took this action to have you blocked and that an administrator actually listened and acted. The consensus is finally that the material was violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and WP:V and there's no doubt it was inside a WP:BLP. By any literal reading of the WP:BLP, you did the right thing. Please don't be disheartened as change happens slowly. As I said above, you just need to accept that 3RR has teeth and is a lot easier to enforce than BLP. ] (]) 08:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
What do you think?
::How exactly was Verbal "violating every rule in the book"? And why exactly was the block wrong? BluefieldWV had been warned several hours before the block happened, but chose to ignore it. --] (]) 23:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
:::I see, I wasn't aware of that a warning had been given but even so, the policy is clear that material should be removed when a good faith editor objects to it and that 3RR doesn't apply when unsourced material is repeatedly re-inserted into a BLP. As you'll note I am not endorsing edit-warring, even if the BLP does state that it doesn't apply in this scenario. In fact, I believe that the BLP policy needs to be changed so that it no longer states that 3RR doesn't apply. I can't imagine any scenario where that advice could lead to any outcome other than the most unfortunate one where a good faith editor who was defending BLP ends up being blocked. Further, it would also stop a lot of edit warring disputes from occurring in the first place. ] (]) 06:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
::::I would advice that you take another look at this, then consider whether your statement about "unsourced material" is correct or not. Then think abit about why the request for unblock was refused. Perhaps you may even want to consider appologizing to Verbal. --] (]) 18:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
::::: My statement about "unsourced material" is absolutely correct. You cannot support a statement by appealing to non-existent statements in an FAQ. Not asserting P is not the same as asserting not-P. Not listing an intention to publish as a goal of surfacestations.org at the FAQ is not the same as stating positively that there is no intention to publish. ] (]) 10:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::Well allow me to ignore 50% of the reverts as well, and ask you how is conservative ''not'' sourced? --] (]) 12:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Also, having come to your page, I'm struck that you've been banned from the Gulf War Syndrome page, that seems bizarre. What were you doing that caused the ban?
Its actually comical to see the way shit goes down around here. The notice board’s consensus was that the inclusion of the material was a violation of WP:BLP’s policy, and somehow I was still blocked and my appeal for an unblock was also rejected. “All BLP’s are equal, however some are more equal than others” should be the policy around this fucking asylum. ] (]) 15:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
] (]) 02:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


== ] ==
Warning removed with apologies. <font color="green">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 17:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


: Thanks! ] (]) 17:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC) {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692221704 -->
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
== Please please ==
<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 16:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Please tell me you are accurately portraying these (very hard to find) sources ? Can you provide a copy? --] ] 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

: The book reference can be found in google books: , as for the Washington Times, I don’t think there is a free version online, but yes both do reference the Singer Sagan debate on the aftermath of the Kuwait oil fires and both comment on Sagan’s inaccuracy and Singer’s more realistic prognostication.

: I am frankly quite surprised that there isn’t more to be found on this particular tit-for-tat. ] (]) 21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

:: I did not see this "tit for tat" first time around but then I had never heard of Singer before I found the article here when reverting a sock. Incidentally I notice you say you were a deputy Sherrif. I had to look it up because I could not believe the title Sherrif still existed as a non ceremonial thing. --] ] 21:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
:: Hmm. The book does not say anything about Singer being more realistic than Sagan, I just read it. --] ] 21:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

::: You must not be from the US. Every county (that I can think of at any rate) has a police force headed by an elected official known as a sheriff. A “Deputy Sheriff” is an individual granted police powers by the Sheriff commensurate with the compact of the Sheriff’s department. I was a “Deputy Sheriff” in a smallish ruralish county in Northern Illinois until 87 when I was shot 4 times in the leg and stomach, spending 3 weeks in the hospital and 6 months in rehab. I then decided on a new line of work and used my GI benefits to get a chemistry degree.

:::: I had guessed you were from the US. Looking around the Global Warming pages the Atlantic divide is very striking. I have been to the US (along with approaching 40 other countries) but not come across Sheriffs or realised your policemen were elected. Judges being elected is a bit infamous of course (but I think thats not everywhere). --] ] 05:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

::::: Unless you go to a more rural area, you wont see deputies much. In large urban areas they serve mainly at the courthouses and as CO’s (correction officers). As most of America is rural, Sheriffs departments serve as the primary police force in these areas, patrolling unincorporated areas and lending support to local municipalities. Aside from local police, and the county police there is also a state police force in each of the 50 states. They mainly patrol highways and provide support to county and local municipalities if either does not have the resources for a particular case, like a highly publicized murder case or some kind of organized crime activity. State police are also called in to support “distressed” communities that require it. Some judges are elected in the States and some are appointed .. it comes down to local rules. And then there is an entirely separate level of law enforcement that is controlled by the federal government. The biggest difference between all these law enforcement agencies is where they have policing power and where they have jurisdictional authority. When I was a deputy, I had “policing power” all throughout the country but only jurisdictional authority in my county. A state police officer (not to be confused with “highway patrol officers” like in Wisconsin who have no policing authority off the highways) has policing power and jurisdictional authority throughout the entire state.

::::: Things may have changed, but thats the way it was taught to me 20 some years ago. ] (]) 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

::: Just noticed the follow up, that’s what I took away from pg 147 and 148. I am on my way home now but will address it more tomorrow if need be. ] (]) 21:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

::::On the other thing. No rush but what you take away from a page may not exactly be what it says. --] ] 05:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

::::: I have reposted the Times articles and will address the rest on the talk page. I am a bit pressed for time this morning. ] (]) 15:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

== 3RR and Kim ==
I have been wondering about blocking Kim for 3RR but I have left it to someone else to decide. I thought I would explain the trickiness of the decision since I am anxious that you understand how things work and become a long term contributer here rather than an embittered heckler. The main reason is that the reason for blocking in general is clearly not revenge, but to prevent re-offending. In theory for example we never block if the article is already protected. Here Kim acknowledges the mistake and is clearly not going to re-offend. If he had self-reverted he would be completely safe and he says that he wishes he could. Contrast your case where you kept saying you had done nothing wrong and looked likely to re-offend (not that I blocked you, I block very rarely and normally for socks). I do not know which admin will deal with it but this is something they will bear in mind. --] ] 07:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
:As another note in the spirit of friendly advice, in the block appeal above you talk of "a consensus of uninvolved editors". Please be careful using words like this. I cannot see this consensus in any of the discussions (also it is unclear who you regard as uninvolved; uninvolved is a technical term on WP) and although another editor refers to it you should not copy his words unless you wish your reputation to be intertwined with his. Over time people will pay a lot of attention to how faithfully you describe interactions as well as how well you use references (there is a record here of every edit forever so think of it like being under oath). Beware people who agree with you are not always the best people to copy. --] ] 07:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

:: It would seem as if the primary function of a block for 3RR is to stop edit warring and not as a punitive measure. Since none is occurring right now, and has not over the past day, I don’t see a need for a block. ] (]) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

:: To your other points. I was referring to because he hadn’t made any edits to the article. As for the use of sources, I have reposted them and do believe that I used them correctly. In light of what is now on the Singer talk page I believe even more strongly in this. ] (]) 16:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
::: But what Nil says in this edit is that it is a clear cut violation of policy (which is quite plausible) but not that it justifies crossing 3RR (which requires a strong BLP reason). I am trying to get the BLP guideline made clearer so people don't misunderstand it but not having much joy. --] ] 21:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
:::: Thats would seem reasonable. ] (]) 21:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
::::: By the way, I agree you are improving the Singer article. Thank you for helping the project. --] ] 21:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::: I would like to say thanks to you as well. It has been difficult to find people who are patient around here. I realize that there have been quite a few contributors whose intent was less than pure and acted like pricks, and it’s a credit to your character that you have taken time to explain some basics and nuances around here to a newish editor like myself. ] (]) 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

==High hazardous classification==
Your criteria for "Highly Hazardous Chemicals" are unclear. This categorizing seems to have broad scope and implications for the manual of style for chemicals, see ]. If you have ideas/plans that would affect more than a couple of articles, then you should probably communicate your thinking to the ] in an attempt to get advice and achieve some sort of consensus. The group has a lot of experience and expertise. --] (]) 23:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for the note. My sense is that the highly hazardous classification scheme is not needed. We have a direct link to the MSDS on all chem pages, and we highlight acute hazards in a separate safety section when notable, steering away from giving advice at the same time. Most of the chem editors seem to agree that we could overwhelm any chemical article with diverse toxicity info, so we tend to rely on the MSDS. On a related matter, you are encouraged to participate by consulting the link ]. Cheers, --] (]) 17:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
:: Will do, thanks. ] (]) 17:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

==Need your opinion on some photographs==
Hi. Can you provide you opinion on ? Thanks. ] (]) 01:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

== BLP ==

Aren't you one of the BLP zealots? How do you justify clear violations like this ? ] (]) 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

: and many reliable sources have noted it , . ] (]) 13:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

:: You are dense. Nevermind, I'm sure you'll get there in the end ] (]) 19:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

== change of username ==

Hi Bluefield, out of interest, how did you change your username? I also want to change mine! Thanks. ] (]) 04:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

: I lost my password, got a new account and redirected my old talk page and user page back here. ] (]) 12:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

== Talkpages are not for speculation ==

Please read ]. Talk pages are not ]. --] (]) 17:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

: There is a reliable source embedded in the material. Please read the additions more closely before vandalizing it again, ] (]) 17:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
::Except of course that first of all - you weren't talking about the article, or improving it - and secondly because Andrew Bolt's blog posting isn't a reliable source. Not to mention (as Atmoz pointed out) you haven't got permission to copy other peoples personal mail. --] (]) 20:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
::: Well, its made Wired and Andrew Bolt's blog is a RS because its edited from a newspaper website that has editorial control over it and is not self published. So sorry. ] (]) 20:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You've passed 3RR. I reported you. -] (]) 20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
: Its a talk page and I have reported you on ANI. ] (]) 20:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

== 3RR and civility ==

Please be aware of ] in the context of ]. Also, deliberate false allegations of vandalism are, obviously, incivil. Don't make them ] (]) 20:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:17, 14 March 2023

Ban Appeal Result

The community ban on User:WVBluefield is suspended under the following conditions

  1. Editor is indefinitely restricted to one account, namely User:WVBluefield;
  2. Editor is indefinitely banned from Gulf War Syndrome.
  3. The community ban may be reimposed at any time by motion of ArbCom if the editor engages in sockpuppetry; behaves disruptively; or fails to comply with the spirit or letter of these terms.

For the Arbitration Committee, Shell 23:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Archives

Talk Page Archive Talk Page Archive 1

Lawrence Solomon

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Lawrence Solomon, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back.

I am glad to see that you have managed to work out an agreement that allows you to continue to contribute. Please be diligent about keeping to your restrictions so that you can continue to have a voice here on the project! --GoRight (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although work is putting a dampner on things. WVBluefield (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Highly_Hazardous_Chemicals

The category you created is nominated for deletion. You may wich to comment at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_22#Category:Highly_Hazardous_Chemicals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read what you are reverting before reverting it

TND: An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of GoRight... - understand now? Your revert comment thus becomes irrelevant William M. Connolley (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Tags

Do you agree that GoRight is suspected of running ongoing sockpuppets? Yes or no will work. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there arent any active CU's on GoRight, I think the correct answer is no. Thanks for the concern. WVBluefield (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
If you continue your disruptive behavior, as evidenced here, I will seek to have your old restrictions reimposed. It's clear you are slipping - stop. Hipocrite (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me! You are the one being disruptive. You think these games of yours are going to provide enough of a distraction to prevent your just deserts from the arbitration committee? Pal, you are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. WVBluefield (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Calm down. You are under a misapprehension. CU is nice to have, but what is relevant is the SPI. Several users were satisfied with the evidence. Several users have expressed the concern that these are socks. Please leave the templates alone. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
And which several users expressed concern? Oh that’s right, the usual suspects. WVBluefield (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but there are several "unusual" editors involved. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, did they all get your tweets and IM's? WVBluefield (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
No, of course not. You cannot Tweet money orders. My international goon squad called at their door and offered them a choice of US$ 1.2 million (in small, unmarked diamonds with no contiguous numbers) or a broken knee cap each. What were you thinking! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to what I feel was a rather snide comment on AN/I, BASC lifted your ban under some very specific conditions, constructive behavior being one of them. I would strongly suggest you reconsider your recent actions and return to productive behavior. If the current trend continues, it is very likely that you'll find the ban reinstated. Shell 01:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WVB, don't let them bait you -- better to focus your efforts on stopping their POV pushing, especially on BLPs like Lawrence Solomon. AN/I will never support you over these long term contributors, even when they're the ones who are wrong, so don't even try going there. ATren (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting to re-add BLP violation

With this edit you re-added blatantly incorrect information into a biography of a living person, in itself breaking policy as well as edit warring, with no other reason than a plea of ignorance. Please desist, and take more care with edits in future. Hope you find these links informative, dave souza, talk 20:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see how some might consider the additions to be a BLP violation, but to call them blatant?!? Can you really defend such a statement? All the material was sourced to a WP:RS and the text was an accurate summation of the source. WVBluefield (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence

Please do not edit others' Evidence or Workshop proposals, as you did here. You may wish to read Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Thank you, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Watson incident evidence at ArbCom case

A Quest for Knowledge and I compiled relevant diffs into a sortable table to make it easier for reviewers. The information is contained here

If you already know about this, or don't know and don't care, I apologize for bothering you - I had originally planned to notify only those who made reference to the Watson incident, but after seeing someone who unhappy to be mentioned and not notified, I decided to err on the side of caution.--SPhilbrickT 20:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear Winter

Hey man, I'm reading the Talk page of Nuclear Winter and noticed you've contributed quite a bit, although I'm personally not convinced that the whole hypothesis was a KGB disinformation campaign, I thought you might like to read this by the FBI(if you haven't seen it already).

The FBI also seem to agree with Tretyakov's claim.

  • The Targeting of Sensitive, Proprietary, and Classified Information on Campuses of Higher Education

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence/higher-education-and-national-security Quote- The KGB had the report published in a Swedish journal. In the intelligence world, this is called disinformation. Disinformation may be blatant deception or small fabricated kernels in a large milieu of reliable facts. In the academic arena where research is often based on previous research, when results from a study can be shared quickly and easily with other researchers, it is important to science that people share accurate results. If subsequent research is based on incorrect data, many of those subsequent conclusions could be inaccurate as well. The same document but in PDF http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence/higher-education-national-security

Further references can be found on the page Soviet influence on the peace movement and yet more are linked in the Nuclear Winter talk page. There is now certainly sufficient support for Tretyakov's claim to be included in the article, despite the chronology presented by Tretyakov not being right. Any addition of this claim to the article should include that Tretyakov gets the Chronology of events wrong. Though simply because the Chronology is wrong doesn't mean it isn't worthy of addition. What do you think?

Also, having come to your page, I'm struck that you've been banned from the Gulf War Syndrome page, that seems bizarre. What were you doing that caused the ban? Boundarylayer (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Joseph D'Aleo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joseph D'Aleo is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joseph D'Aleo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Femke (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)