This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nsaa/User_talk_2010.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nsaa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello Nsaa! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondarysources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 5 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Fix only what is broken! You wholesale reversion re-added all the stupid spaces into the reflist that the bot had screwed up. DO NOT use revert/undo unless you know what you are doing. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
If you read the talk page of the bot, you will see what the problem was with whitespace. It is in the thread immediately above the one you started. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nsaa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"Users should not remove only portions of another user's comment" Yes but you can remove the lot. "nor edit their comment in any other way" as in don`t chop it up. There is no prohibition to removing comments from your own talk page, else people could post abuse and it would be there forever :) --mark nutley (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
(e.c.)I don't disagree. As I stated I think his behavior is bad [3] "Why do you [4] just remove parts of an ongoing discussion? Bad bad bad, but since it's you page I can't say much. Nsaa (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)"]. I've not claimed that he has broken any formal rule. Nsaa (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You are misusing your talk page by removing - no. I reject your assertion. If you think otherwise, and care to pursue it, find yourself an admin. Don't bother me about your incorrect interpretations of policy any more William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Please comment on the content, not the contributor
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I have granted autoreviewer rights on your account, as you have created numerous valid articles. This will have little or no effect on your editing, and is intended mainly to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information see Wikipedia:Autoreviewer, and feel free to ask if you have any questions. FASTILY(TALK)00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It's good that you read the warning I posted, then, because "prohibits making more than three reversions" would require four reversions. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 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) 15:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The discussions at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement are not meant to be general fora for discussion of other issues. Narrowly targeted productive comment at any thread is welcome, but please confine your comments to the substance of the request and closely related issues. For instance, if a request is made detailing edit warring by one party, it could be appropriate to provide context in the form of links to talkpage discussion or diffs of other parties engaged in the same edit war. It would not be appropriate, however, to bring unrelated issues to an already open request, discuss content issues, or engage in incivility or personal attacks. If someone else makes that you feel merits a reply but your reply would not itself be closely related to the original request, please raise make your reply at usertalk, open a new enforcement request, or start a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Thank you for your cooperation. A few diffs of posts that venture partially or wholly off topic, or would be better suited to other venues: [7], [8]. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your general comments, and we have seen some backsliding. The first diff you gave was a direct response to a claim by ChrisO (talk·contribs) in his RfE where he states "On every occasion the proponents have been told that WP:NPOV and WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal specifically preclude the use of such terminology, and every attempt to introduce such terms has been rejected.". Should I not be allowed to answer this (his claim about WP:WTA)? The second diff was somewhat off topic Agree with you on that. But unhappyly no one reacted to ChrisOs wery bad behavior[9][10] in the two edits above. I will still answering such claims as I did in my first edit (maybe phrase it otherwise to better following Rfe standards). I will try to not answer [11] in the future to help us getting a more cooperative environment. Nsaa (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The first ChrisO diff you point out is indeed one of the ones I singled out in requesting that they focus better on the topic of explaining a dispute rather than fighting it over again in a new venue. Thank you for anything you can do to help reduce the level of bickering at that page and elsewhere. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Arguing the quality of various sources is good, but some of this crosses over into debate over the topic itself rather than our encyclopedic coverage of it. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
can you be more spesific on were I cross the line according to you? In my last comment in that tread I do an extremely important reference to wp:rs about usages of blogs which some of the others have greatly misunderstod (over and over again) by dismissing sources by saying its a blog. Secondly my argument about taking the man is a big problem on this discussion page. Idealy everytime a person do this I (or other should have notified them on their talk page. Will try that also). Nsaa (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
You repeated the majority of the bishophill blog post you cite, including formatting, and your tone in the preceding paragraph also veers a bit away from collegial. I acknowledge that there are other issues with other editors in that thread, but confining your posts to the issue at hand would be helpful. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but you seem to be living in a dream world if you claim to be assuming good faith. You just accused me of being a vandal because I removed anti-Wikipedia commentary by climate skeptics from a talk page that you placed there without consensus. You appear to have dedicated yourself to getting anti-Wikipedia material on to that talk page. Why? If you hate Wikipedia, why edit it? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed where I informed you that if you edit-warred the bad press-multi reference back on that talk page, I'd seek to have you barred from all reversions on all talk pages. I thought I'd put it here so you know that it appears that your nearly-sole contribution to that talk page is a repeated attempt to put back a defamatory blog piece. Don't do so again, or I will seek to have you barred from repeating this same action, over and over and over. Hipocrite (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm well avare of that policy. But the balantant removal of this section over and over again is ridicoulous and extremly damaging to Wikipedia. I see it as borderline WP:Vandalism (here's is NO WP:AGF), and therefor WP:3rr probably do not apply. Here we even have a named editor in one of the sources that removes it ([12]). It's NOT DONE per WP:COI. Please do check my talk edit history, and you see that i don't "your nearly-sole contribution to that talk page is a repeated attempt to put back a defamatory blog piece". I also suspect some Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Close_relationships but cannot pinpoint it, exept for the language used ("trash" etc.). Nsaa (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes and maybe you can help me reinsert it since it's removed by extremely dubious grounds, see for example the three latest removals as pointed out here. Can you please look into the COI stuff. It doesn't look good, and I start understanding why some of the editors are so aggressively removing well sourced material. Nsaa (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Nsaa, the COI issue has been raised before (here). No consensus was reached and the result of my trying to argue the same points you raised was an indef block, later reverted to time served +9hr. I think fighting this out on the TP is inappropriate and a decision to fight it out in the proper forum should be made with great caution. JPatterson (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Read citations before tagging
In this tag, you ignore the fact that the immediately following sentence has a reference, and that that reference supports both sentences. I suggest you read the references to nearby sentences before spewing fact tags - it would save me time and you embarassment. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
No it's not embarrassing to question what I see as an unsupported statement. In this area I think it's required to add a source to every claim made in the article, and also include a quote from the article referenced to make some more context as I did here [13]. Nsaa (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Chaps, this is addressed to Nsaa and UnitAnode on your talk pages.
The issues are this edit and its follow-up. Please, it is unacceptable on any Wikipedia article talk page to address the editor, and particularly to attribute malicious motives to your fellow volunteers. You both know this, you're not newcomers.
I will give you the advice I give to everybody who departs from civil discussion into such personal attacks: go to dispute resolution. It is not optional. You must seek to resolve the problems by the appropriate methods. --TS03:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
As far as I see it's not wrong if we talks about you ... William Connolley: "He was also a Green Party candidate for South Cambridgeshire District Council or Cambridgeshire County Council every year from 2001 to 2005."[19]. This was not the main point made by me. It's just the attitude to remove every sound critical comments of the supposedly AGW "scientific consensus" (since you have an Phd. you know as me that we don't have any consensus in the science, its political ... ) out there. Nsaa (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
You are multiply wrong. As I've said, I'm not a GP activist. As I've said, even if I was then by your own arguments above you shouldn't have mentioned it. I don't have a Ph. D.. I don't remove *any* sound criticism William M. Connolley (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
As to my talk page: please don't interrupt conversations there. In fact, please read the notice at the top, and restrict yourself to only necessary posts there. If you have anything you feel you wish to discuss, you may leave me a neutral note on my page and invite me here William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
your comment.
your comment at william connolley's page was extremely insightful. since he removed that comment, and is removing all comments which he finds inconvenient, i thought i would repost your comment here at your page. It contains much useful data, so I didn't want it to get overlooked. please feel free to be in touch. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Your comment:
I've soon been on en-Wikipedia for five years, and it has been terrible starting to edit on AGW issues. Until I came across this area I had extrmly good faith in the process that made Wikipedia WP:NPOV and presented every view in a not WP:UNDUE way, but after the AGW issues I lost much of it. We have an environment where even extremely well sourced statements just get removed when it not fits the AGW case. (it's enough to mention "Climategate" that was removed many times in the article about this controversy (hack as they prefer to call it) even if every source on earth now uses it). How is it possible to make an good cooperative environment when some of the AGW editors go on like this? I can examplifies it with this article Lawrence Solomon and some of the diffs: [21][22][23]by WMC[24]by WMC, he is not an environmentalist according to the AGW, even if its supported by many WP:RS sources, [25]Nsaa (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I've removed several instances of soap-boxing and personal attacks from the above talk page. Please remember that the template and associated articles are under probation so a higher standard of conduct is expected. --TS20:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha ha keep on suppressing it? So it's ok for WMC to calling my addition for spam. This is just ridiculous! Please restore it. Nsaa (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Hello. I am contacting you because you are listed as a participant for WikiProject Norway, and the above-mentioned article is sourced by all Norwegian-language references. Moreover, the references do not appear to support notability; they might be mere trivial references to the subject. Since these sources are all offline, and I do not speak or read Norwegian, I'm hoping whether you can assist me in determining whether the article qualifies for speedy deletion. Many thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™talk12:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You did not complete the AfD nomination for Baby shower (or Twinkle failed to do so). Would you like to complete the nomination? Honestly, though, I see no other possible outcome than (Speedy) Keep from the resulting debate :) Regards, decltype (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
[37] I believe this article is under a 1r restriction, you seem to have done two today, would you please self revert your last edit, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I rolled my last edit back. I'm not sure if I did a revert on this earlier, but I revert it since its so hard article. Thanks.
Cool, i think the 1r covers the entire article, not just sections. Better safe than sorry and it might be best to seek clarification from an admin on this. mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
W.r.t. your placing Dave souza's initial presentation into a div box with visible references-- nice work. Until you demonstrated it there, I hadn't known that we had the capability to format a second, third, etc., "ref group" and reflist. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I must admit, you really confused me by reassigning Ticket:2010040910011249 to me; I assumed it was related to a ticket I had already handled. Maybe a bit more than FYI next time? :D We process typically a dozen or more articles a day through CP, so I'm afraid that I don't watchlist them or really remember their details.
Given that action and your note at Talk:Daniel Gajski, I just wanted to let you know that if a ticket comes in for an article that has already gone through WP:CP (or G12, for that matter) and the content has been removed, you should restore it in accordance with the FAQ and put the proper OTRS template on the article's talk page {{ConfirmationOTRS}} is the best for text). I'll do it this time, but it's a pretty straightforward procedure. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Except with one additional complication here. Since the person who placed the text is not the copyright holder, we also have to use an attribution template on the article's face. {{CCBYSASource}} works, since it isn't dually licensed. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Have you made an edit to a page related to climate change ever?
I'm wondering - have you ever substantially edited a page related to climate change, or do you merely revert other editors as part of various edit wars? If you have, could you point out one content edit you've made? Just checking something. Hipocrite (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hei Nsaa, passing by Short Brigade Harvester Boris's talk page I noticed the discussion concerning two edits that you feel were objectionable. To attempt to explain further, 'Have you stopped beating your wife' is given as an example of an objectionable question, in that whatever the answer, it involves admitting to the beating - the phrase is used when someone feels that they have been given a loaded question to answer, it is certainly not an insult, more a request to rephrase the question. As to 'assume', the full phrase is "Don't assume as it makes an ass out of you (u) and me", which is rather lame, but certainly not an insult either. Both cases rely on the reader understanding the meaning, as to call someone a wifebeater or an ass would be insulting. Having spent a total of 7 years working in Norway over the years, I've had to explain a lot of unusual English idiom that I had used without considering my audience (generally including speakers of several other language as well as Norwegian), so I can understand any confusion that may have arisen. I hope that this helps. Mvh, Mikenorton (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! Anyway in this combative environment it looks a bit odd using such phrases. Why just not state that the user thinks its a loaded question if that is the case? Nsaa (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an English teacher (my older brother is) and so I probably can't articulate why some of your grammer is incorrect but I can correct it for you. So, to help you in this function, I'll present a post of yours I just read and then attempt to fix it.
This is so bad. I have no word for it. Why the heck should my language be subject to Atmoz comments at all? Why not just keep the discussion about what was discussed? I find it totally counterproductive and it harms Wikipedia. So yes give him a long block or a long topic ban for this so other people can start working. What do Atmoz try to achieve? Getting people angry so they make "mistakes" and can get them blocked/topic banned? Nsaa (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Corrected (hopefully!):
This is so bad. I have no words for it. Why the heck should my language be subject to Atmoz's comments at all? Why not just keep the discussion on topic? I find it to be totally counterproductive and it harms Wikipedia. So yes, give him a long block or a long topic ban for this so other people can start working. What is Atmoz trying to achieve? Getting people angry so they make "mistakes" and are then blocked/topic banned? Nsaa (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Nsaa!! Here you reverted an edit that justified itself by referencing the talkpage. You said you didn't see it as in line with the section titled "Outcome" I believe what was meant was the similarly titled "Outcome again". Would you mind checking in on that latter section? If you still stand by your revert you have my blessing, if not, self-revert?--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Self Revert Done. Providing links to the discussion can help when editing, especially when we talk about something with more than one discussion ongoing. Nsaa (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Note
HI, just a note you commented on: User talk:137.219.252.3; just wanted to let you know that this is a university IP (JCU, Townsville, QLD, AUS) Everyone on the university outsources through it so for example; I saw a "message for me; from you" even though I personally never did anything to wiki. Thought you might want to know so you don't keep posting to that IP.
Note that user talk pages receive messages for everyone who uses that IP to edit. If you want to avoid irrelevant messages, create an account.—Tetracube (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hei Officer :) I mean this Schulz guy repeated the smear, doubnting I would be able to convey irony or sarkasm in a second language. I gave him a sort of example in my reply and insofar I dont see the need to bring him to court. I strongly believe he will try it the other way round. Polentario (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Nice to see that you can manage to write Norwegian :-). Keep up the good work and just don't bother when people says "he's also the creator of the utterly dreadful de:Gore-Effekt article, which makes this one look like featured article quality by comparison. I'll AfD that too shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)"[40]. Nsaa (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Youre welcome. I translated no:Terje Rollem from Norwegian into German and expanded the articel, it has been mentioned on the main page as well, but I wouldnt go in the other direction. The Climatist Gang in the German WP tried an AfD against de:Gore-Effekt as well but its been accepted. So Signore Schulz has to provide more than hot air to get further. Lets see. Ha de bra !Polentario (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted them all. We're discussing the lead on the talk page and you're changing it radically. Your other radical changes will need consensus. You don't have it. Try to get it first. Then change the article in those radical ways if you get consensus. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I've not changed the lead? I've only done very small changes, and technical movements of references. Did I remove this? Where did I do that? Nsaa (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I"m sorry. I think I misinterpreted what was going on. Your edits reverted to the radically different new lead (your combined edits here [42]) while a discussion was taking place (near the bottom of the talk page). Was that unintentional? I know Mackan79 and I told him I was sure he wouldn't make a change if he understood the matter was under discussion. You've actually made many good edits to the article today. I'm sorry for thinking you'd rewritten the lead, and I see you've reverted per discussion in another edit today, so you know all about that. I guess I'm just sick of CC shenanigans today. I should have toned down the edit summary too. I'll look over your edits and self-revert to retain all your technical changes. I'll get back to you when I'm done, and if you think I should self-revert more, I'm happy to discuss it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahh. I'm not so into the article yet that I spot what I did wrong here. As fare as I know, the only change I did to the lead today was adding a "-" to the quote (as the source says) [43], pinpointed the source to the Toronto based newspaper Globe and Mail[44], and the most radical editing done, by adding "some" here: [45]. As fare as I see I've not done anything else to the lead (except moving down to the ref section and updating the refs). Nsaa (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Your ten edits ending here [46] also changed the lead paragraph. Was that unintentional? I'm trying to restore all your technical improvements, but it's confusing. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
As best I can tell, this edit [47] restores your changes, but I'm not sure I identified them all. If you see anything else, please tell me and I'll restore it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Ratel (talk·contribs) is currently indefinitely blocked for abusive sockpuppetry. You are of course free to present whatever diffs you like at your evidence section in the climate change arbitration, but I thought I might save you the time of gathering evidence with an eye to proposing remedies involving Ratel. Diffs involving Ratel might, of course, still be useful for highlighting the behaviour of others or the editing environment in general. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahhh. that's a good point. I've not following everything in this area, just seen some not so good behavior. For me it's the behavior that's the problem (Incivility, not assuming good faith etc.), not the specific users and this users socketpuppetry. I will strike it although. Nsaa (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up an anonymous user is insisting on putting the copyrighted AP story into the Erica Blasberg article. Since you removed it earlier today as well, I thought I'd give you the heads up. (Yeah, I'm an anonymous user as well, but some of us do realize what copyright is!) 68.146.81.123 (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nsaa, I see we've both warned Knarum (talk·contribs) with no response but continued actions at this article (well, mine may have been successful - no new personal attacks AFAIK). What do you think - time to bring it to AN/I? You and I had an ec just now btw, but since you only had removed his last edit didn't self-revert. Best, Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I missed this, thanks! I think it would be an good idea to bring in an administrator or ANI if the user continues to revert after his 3RR-warning (you indicated that the user got the message and stopped personal attacks, so it's fine to wait and see, if what I assume to be a new contributor, understands the 3RR rule). Nsaa (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I've given him a final warning and now it's just up to an person with admin rights to block the user if the user continues reverting without discussing it on the talk page first. Maybe a report here Wikipedia:AN/EW is the next step (since the user has gotten the warning on 3RR, and keep doing reverts [49][50][51]) Nsaa (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
If you want to expand it, feel free to discuss that on talk. B ut don't unmerge against consensus, and do avoid PA's. Please also see the recent FoF's at the Cl Ch case, which you may wish to ponder William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This edit summary is completely unacceptable, as is the use of rollback in your prior edit. You should not be soliciting others to help you out in an edit war with your ideological opponent in any circumstance. If you want his edit reverted, make your case on the talk page and establish consensus; do not further battleground behavior. NW(Talk)23:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Presumably because Nsaa has a good claim on "disruptive editor of the day". Instead of just kibitzing, why don't *you* help by encouraging Nsaa to avoid disruption by undoing consensus merges? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure it was an "idealogical battle" rather than non-understanding as regards how consensus works, and the stepping stones toward agreeing consensus. It has to be said that Climate Change subjects recently rarely example best WP practices, so they might not have been too familiar on how things should work. If Nsaa is now proceeding per policy I do not see any reason to dwell on the earlier misunderstanding. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I acted in good faith and tried to add the new stuff as you proposed here. I was stupid of me making the comments in the Edit summary field above as NW points out. I had some IRW problems yesterday and should not have edited yesterday (You know the IRS people are not easy to handle in countries like Norway ...). Normally Wikipedia is a great place editing in cooperation with others. I love that. This area has developed to be a very unpleasant area and I will go out of it. Why bother? It's "great" that the British taxpayers will subsidize the offshore windmills that will be build by Norwegian firms at Doggerbank and other places. Wikipedia has for a long time been an area where Greenpeace, The Green Party (foremost known proponent WMC) and their likings rule the floor and make the environment for others very bad. Look at the extremely aggressive (removal of Climategate) discussion and repeatedly removal of even mentioning Climategate in the Climategate article and everyone see how bad the situation is here. Even Jimbo Wales has stated how silly the prior title to the current "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" was: "I think there's a pretty strong case to be made for "Climategate" as the name for the article [...] but with a pretty silly title that no one uses. The scandal here is clearly not the "hacking incident" - about which virtually nothing is known. The scandal is the content of the emails, which has proven to be deeply embarrassing (whether fairly or unfairly) to certain people.) The result of the silly title is that there is traction (unfairly) for claims that Wikipedia is suppressing something.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)"[52] and "It is not up to Wikipedia to decide what it is called - it is up to the world at large, and they have - overwhelmingly - decided.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)" [53] on his talk page. Why do we still have articles like this Climate Group? It make Wikipedia looks silly, but the floor has ruled Keep without doing a damn to fix the problems (Keep It's a terrible article and it does read very much like an advertisement., Article has unfortunately been repeatedly whitewashed by PR hacks, The currently article is uncited and looks very spammy., and it was keept … ). It's great it has been there for over 9 months and it stills read like an WP:ARTSPAM article. No I'm out of this environment. Nsaa (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
These two edits, the welcoming of a disruptive, SPA sock puppet[54] and the editing of AQFK's subpage[55] show a lack of attentiveness on your part regarding the problem at hand. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm… I'm not sure what you're pointing at? I added a welcome template to a new user (we should be friendly for everyone, i.e. Assume Good Faith as far as I know). I didn't see that this was a blocked user. Although maybe the welcome template can teach people some of the basic principle governing Wikipedia? That was my intention. And can you explain why I should not build on the article you mentioned? Have I done something wrong against User:A Quest For Knowledge? As far as I know he can edit his own userspace and edit or/and revert me iff I've done something wrong? Nsaa (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a new user, and every indication pointed to a disruptive, SPA sock puppet. As for AQFK, the answer is, I'm not sure. He's been deleting his user pages, and I'm curious if editors are able to edit on climate change topics in their user space. My guess is that they are not, which means you are editing by proxy for AQFK. I could be wrong on this. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I've not done any analysis of the user I gave the welcome message. I do a lot of welcome stuff (check my edit history). As for AQFK I will ask him iff I can move his list out of his userspace to Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Climategate usage (an other list created by me iff I'm remembers correctly) iff he is not able to edit in his userspace. Nsaa (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, nice that you know so. I'm still not sure why you think a welcome message is wrong. Is there a policy against giving an account a welcome message? Nsaa (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Noting an uncontroversial current event that requires updating a Wikipedia page is not the same as continuing to edit a contentious user subpage that is highly controversial and promotes conflict. There is nothing equivalent here. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Heavy-handedness at CRU email controversy move discussion
I'm sure you're aware that in discussions at Wikipedia, it's generally considered pretty heavy-handed to comment on every comment made in opposition to your opinion. In light of the fact that the entire area of climate change is under the aegis of arbcom restrictions, can I ask that you ease up a bit in the move discussion? I'm willing to continue discussing the substantive issues here with you, if you'd like, but I think what you're doing over there is creating a hostile environment that's likely to scare away badly-needed fresh eyes.
I've not commented on every opinion made against my "opinion". I did 4 comments [58] in an discussion 5 days old with around 30 comments. Normaly I don't do this, but here it was so many comments that needed a correction before the period closes ("The discussion may be closed after 7 days of being opened" as stated in the start of the discussion), that I just did it. (Changing your user name from ScienceApologist[59], Joshua P. Schroeder [60] and now jps make it hard for others following your way. Probably not a good thing, but that's my opinion) … Nsaa (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
