User talk:BigK HeX/Archive 5

Edit Summaries

[[1] Please try to use them - with so many reversions on that page it is the best way to protect yourself from unwarranted action. It might be a pain to fill them in sometimes, but if other people can't easily interpret your reasons for reverting you are in danger of being sanctioned by someone. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

All very true. Thanks for the gentle reminder. BigK HeX (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Schiff

That was your fourth revert today and has been duly reported here. Letting you know so you can self-revert and possibly avoid a block. Yworo (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Illuminati Eye?

How ironic! Or is that intentional? Congrats for becoming part of the central (edit) planning authority on "Libertarian" WP! Anyway, I wanted to comment on how "brave" you were deleting all of debt-based monetary system. It takes a lot of courage (and skill!) to pick up an eraser and rub. You keep rubbing on Peter Schiff and Tea Party too. You seem to be rubbing a little too vigorously all over the place. I'd ease off a little on the rubbing if I was you. But then, clearly I'm not you, am I? Thank the one true God for that (which isn't yours!). Ha Ha Ha! - CentralBankersAreBlindLikeMoles (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For someone who purports to be well-versed in private property theories, you certainly do continue to express ignorance in rather basic tenets --- foremost that the internal structure of PRIVATE COMPANIES are NOT in any way comparable to [the "evil" of] governments. I know it helps you to rationalize your jackass behavior, but Mises and Rothbard -- and more recently, Rand Paul -- and basically all of your libertarian heroes would celebrate Wikipedia's right to run their business in whatever way they see fit (regardless of how "totalitarian" their "central planning authority" may seem to you). Making the effort to be honest with yourself is probably the first step to getting people to take you more seriously, but it seems you're rather content with your laughingstock status as a hypocritical clown. BigK HeX (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, you might be interested to know that no one fears the "power" of your "information". People just don't like your ramblings distracting from legitimate information. BigK HeX (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring again

Please note that you appear to have broken 3RR on Criticism of fractional-reserve banking. Please remember that every removal is a partial revert to your stub. Yworo (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You can try to game the system like that if you like. My guess is that you'll fool no one. BigK HeX (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, that's not gaming the system. I haven't reported you but simply wanted to make you aware that WP:3RR is very clear about partial reverts. Please stop edit warring. Yworo (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither have I reported you, but please stop wiki hounding. BigK HeX (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate that accusation. If you'll look at the edit history for G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), you'll see I've been an editor of that article since December. That's because it's a subject I'm interested in, just as you are. Yworo (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So, you deny reaching the "Criticisms" article through my contributions? BigK HeX (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How I found the article is immaterial. I added the article to my watchlist recently because it is a subject area in which I am interested and have been editing in since at least December. Now, if I added some article in a topic you are interested in but which I am not, that would be wikistalking. But you can't seriously think that you can game the system to claim I can't edit a new article in an area I'm already interested in simply because you were there first! Yworo (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not my opinion that you can't edit the article "because I was there first." But, my question was simple. Did you find the article through my contributions? BigK HeX (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, I found it through Federal Reserve System (an article I've edited) -> Criticism of the Federal Reserve (which I've not edited yet) via the see also section of the latter article. Yworo (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

please note that your revert with the comment "emoved POV writing ... WP is probably NOT a dramatic thriller novel)" has now been sent to dispute resolution. i don't believe that the federal reserve would write a "dramatic thriller novel" about itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 05:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Third party in WP:POORSRC

This is intended for named third-party individuals. If someone has an opinion about banks that use fractional-reserve, that's just an opinion and not an attack on an individual. Just as for example not liking blue-suede shoes is not an attack on some specific blue-suede-shoe wearer. You are misusing the guideline. Griffin's opinions are being sourced. That's it. Yworo (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You can choose to read the policy in whatever way you like. The actual words there are "third party" and I am quite sure that the spirit of the policy is very certainly aimed at preventing the use of unreliable sources as coatracks from which to hang dubious criticisms. Between my reading of the actual policy guideline and your presumptions of what you believe to be implied there, I'll stand by the actual words. BigK HeX (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the source? It covers problems with fractional banking between 1361 and 1857. Who's being attacked, I ask again? Yworo (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks :D

I saw your post on the AN/I and I appreciate your comments. Nice working with you, too. Here ya go: [2]. Malke2010 22:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. Just thought you (and others) might feel better to know that your civility -- even in difficult edits -- is being appreciated. Best wishes! BigK HeX (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow

Hey, thanks so much. That's awfully nice of you and I appreciate it. Once I've engaged, I really consider it my responsibility as an editor to stick around an article even though the tenets of WP:3O don't require or assume that a person would do such a thing. Anyway, thank you again. — e. ripley\^talk 16:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! BigK HeX (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Income tax

First, let me thank you for your good edits.

The key adjective in the Wilson bit is "progressive". The earlier income tax was a flat tax. Wilson's tax was, I think, the first income tax to tax the rich at a higher rate than the poor. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

As far as the earlier taxation: Revenue Act of 1862 ... has 3 brackets (under $600, $600 - $10,0000, and over $10,000). A modification in 1864 added another bracket, I think. BigK HeX (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Pay attention to what you're doing before edit warring.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Christian

I'm all for anything that can avoid an edit war, but the major speakers for the American Right use the word Christian so often that it seems to me that "Judeo-Christian" is dodging the truth of the matter. As for "socialism", I've explained my objection in Talk. It isn't that the Right is not anti-socialist, it is that the word "socialism" has come to be used so losely it is meaningless. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought about splitting my comment into the two sections, but am under the impression that most people only read the bottom of the Talk page. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, you're right. If you want to restore your comment, feel free to do so. I think having the two issues addressed separately keeps the discussion from wandering all over the place. BigK HeX (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

TPM

We've had this edit or a very similar one show up before. [3]. Take a look at the talk page. I wanted to pare down the Commentaries section and also, I think we should pare down the Polls section. The article is really getting outsized. Thanks.Malke2010 23:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed your efforts (and your great work at consensus seeking). I didn't notice anything objectionable in your proposals. Guess I'll see what the end result looks like. BigK HeX (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you think it's okay, mention it on the talk page. Once we get an idea of where everybody is at with it, we can change it. Would be nice to get the article down sized a bit. There will always be more stuff to put in down the line, I'm sure. And be sure and mention where we should trim the Polls section. Malke2010 00:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue III)

Positively Economics The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue III (July 2010)
Use the show/hide button to display or hide this newsletter. From the editor Sticking to my promise of sending these out monthly, it's time for the July edition of Positively Economics, covering the events of June. It's been another constructive month for the project. Wikipedia remains, as ever, a very popular source of information about basic economic theory, as well as for biography and more specialised topics, and we shouldn't forget that contributions to these core articles remains our greatest strength. Onwards and upwards, as they say, for another month. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 14:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Articles of note New featured articles: None New featured lists: None New featured topics: None New good articles: Brander–Spencer model Redlinks to be squashed Skysmith has posted an updated list of missing economics topics. Most will need redirecting or new articles written to blueify them, so, if you can lend a hand with the effort, please do. There are some from virtually all areas of economics and hence to suit all tastes. Project news Unassessed articles: A whole swath of articles have been added to the WikiProject recently, mainly on notable economists. They are yet to be assessed on their talk pages; this also provides a good opportunity to check and improve some of our least monitored articles. Unsourced BLPs: Before the articles about economists were added, the project had very few unsourced biographies of living people; now there are a little over a hundred. If we can clear them, however, then it is unlikely that there will be many more. Again, they represent some of our least cared-for articles, and often present good targets for cleaning up. Your comments are invited in the following other ongoing project discussions and requests for help: Featherbedding Herbert Hoover Intelligence-related citations
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 19:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism in the United States

Some modern historians have tried to trace a history of conservatism, e.g., Viereck, Kirk, Rossiter, Allitt. Modern conservatives themselves are eager to extend the history of their movement before the 1950s or whether it existed. Unfortunately there is no agreement on the definition or narrative of conservatism. TFD (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is being clearly conveyed in the article at all. I am about to go on a tagging spree there. BigK HeX (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss

Can you send me an email from my talk page? I would like to discuss our favorite sock-puppeteer in a more private forum. Thanks, LK (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk page revert

Please review WP:TPG and don't do as you did on Talk:Conservatism in the United States again. Thank you and have a nice day. Soxwon (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You refactored other's comments w/o their permission and with no obvious reason as listed by acceptable reasons on WP:TPG. Therefore, I reverted your edits using Twinkle. Soxwon (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I have not been able to concentrate on it lately, I have been active on that talk page in the past and usually keep an eye on it. As for the vandalism and reasons given, *shrugs* I was probably a bit quick to hit the vandalism part, but honestly, it's probably just best to leave a quick message on the editors talkpage and letting them do it themselves IMO (less confusion, no chance for changing meaning by accident, and you aren't at fault). Soxwon (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree it's less troublesome to let an editor move his own out-of-place comment. BigK HeX (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

tertiary source

When you say we require a tertiary source do you mean one which connects mass killings to communism? mark nutley (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's fine if the secondary sources do that. But, a tertiary source would help us know where there is broad agreement in the field between the secondary sources, and where there is sharp disagreement. A tertiary source that surveys works which includes Rummel (Valentino, etc) would help the article immensely. BigK HeX (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this may be what your after, i have only glanced through it as i just finished doing my accounts and my eyes have melted :) [4] These guys compare and discuss quite a few of the people who work in this field. mark nutley (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

1rr

If he does, I will plead the template; I had my one revert, and I discussed it. Incidentally, have you encountered m. nutley and OpenFuture together on other pages? Yhey have common verbal tics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe this past week has been my first encounter. Oddly enough, the only clear 1RR violation has been OpenFuture when he reverted my edit and then yours. In theory, if you wanted to play it safe, you could self-revert and then have OpenFuture self-revert as well. BigK HeX (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh .. one unfortunate note though. I don't think WP:OWN would override a 1RR violation, had one occurred. Though I still think there's a better than 50/50 chance you're OK. BigK HeX (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

An interesting idea about an armistice. But let's see if they can come up with any reason to keep the dictionary definitions first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually Openfuture`s is only 1r, both edits are unbroken mark nutley (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Mass killings under Communist regimes, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (3rd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

The hilarity of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (3rd nomination) continues. Thanks for your helpful comments. As much as I have my opinion, I also want us all to at least argue over something relevant. I've serendipitously been involved in most of this article's debates (and really, not out of some political watch-list... I stumbled upon the first one and then followed it since then) so I've grown a little exacerbated with the whole thing, especially because there are a few people I know [on wiki] commenting there I'm not especially convinced by. Anyway, policy differences notwithstanding, thank you for your comments. Shadowjams (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've only checked on the article sporadically (but it looks like I picked a good time for some wiki-drama). To think, I got sucked into this article by giving what I thought was a simple tie-breaking opinion on a question regarding the accuracy of the death tolls. I guess I should've checked the talk page before stumbling into the hornet's nest. I must admit that, sadly, I don't think any amount of willingness to find consensus will actually get the editors there. But, it's good to see that there are editors determined to set the stage! BigK HeX (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea. Without naming any names, there are some clear political opinions going on there. Sure we all have some, but the degree to which they abandon wikipedia policy is surprising to me. I'd expect it on some contemporary political issues, but I thought that the book was closed on communist regimes as a political success story. My opinion, obviously political too, but I'd like to transcend those base instincts from time to time. I hope we all can. Thank you again. Shadowjams (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Thank you for taking the time to give a 3rd Opinion on Talk:Port_Adelaide_Magpies_Football_Club#1870 Vs 1997. I will concede to you suggestion and hopefully (as long as we can agree on the change), once the page has it's protection removed, change it accordingly. Sequal1 (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for MkuCr

Thank you for stepping up and getting things going on formal mediation. I don't think the current AfD is going to solve anything (especially since I thought the previous AfD had) and I was going to propose formal mediation again myself. But since my earlier proposal for it on the talk page went nowhere, I wasn't sure how to get us there. Do you have any previous experience with formal mediation? AmateurEditor (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No experience whatsoever. So ... feel free to take the reins there! Hopefully someone at the Mediation Committee can see a way through our collective impasse at that article. BigK HeX (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have less time than I used to have for Wikipedia (which is why I have been almost absent from the AfD discussion until now). I want to participate, but I doubt I could lead anything unless the pace slows way down. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my mess up. I had to run out the door and didn't double check. LK (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Never a prob. Actually, I thought it might have been some goof-up that I originally inserted into the text, since I am the editor that once added those assertions (about financial panics) to the article long ago. BigK HeX (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

In the disagreement hierarchy [5] you are frequently on level 4 (with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT regarding evidence for Rummel being non-fringe) to 7 (with ad hominems like the one on MmuComR ecently). Please improve your attitude and debating style. Your current debating style is WP:DISRUPTIVE. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow .... a response containing only charges that actually apply to you. Watching what could be projection is such a treat.

In any case, our little discussion might be viewed as annoying. My contributions to the discussion are continuous posts to refocus the discussion on policy after distractions from policy, which is probably far more acceptable than the continuous posts discussing everything except the applicable policy. BigK HeX (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your refusal to consider your own debating style just means that constructive debate will continue to be impossible. That's too bad. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. At the current rate, constructive debate will continue to be impossible -- but that has nothing to do with me. That you find it annoying for me to refocus the conversation on policy every time you fail to post the requested RS is one matter, but it's certainly NOT why the "debate" fails to be constructive. FRINGE objections have been raised, and you've been challenged to quote and cite an RS which fulfills the policy I've quoted for you about 6 times; you have done everything except that. When you're willing to consider the value (or lack thereof) within your own contributions, maybe the discussion will become more productive. BigK HeX (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your excuses aren't helping. You are not "refocusing", any more than I'm "refocusing" on your personal attacks. It's just bad excuses to yourself to avoid looking critically at your own behavior. If you wanted to refocus, the first thing you would do is to strike your own ad hominemns. But you refuse. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to continue the transparent filibustering on my talk, then please just confine it here from now on, so that we can free the article talk page of all that rubbish. BigK HeX (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I clicked to see the talk page and apparently hit rollback instead. TFD (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a prob. Thought you might have been removing that section, since it seems to be another thread prompted by a long-term sockpuppeteer. BigK HeX (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Steven Milloy

Please do not revert unreliable sources into a BLP as you did at Steven Milloy. Also your yellow floating tag thingy means i can`t click on new section? mark nutley (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please use the talk page to explain your reasoning ... not as a place to repeat your terse edit comments. BigK HeX (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q3/junkman.html....http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-arctic-climate-impact-assessment/.... http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

These citations do look not WP:RS to me, please stop adding this disputed material to a WP:BLP and follow WP:BRD on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You have broken wp:3RR please self revert mark nutley (talk)

Please come to the talkpage of the article and explain why you edit warr this poorly cited content into a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your question on WP:RSN

FYI, Off2riorob appears to think that because I have edited some climate change articles I am automatically aware of, involved in and responsible for all problems in all climate change articles. He has some very strange views. I would suggest ignoring him, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the wild speculation that I'm seeing so far, it looks like very sage advice that you're offering here. Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You should have seen the discussion I had with him earlier on my talk page - like something out of Kafka, frankly... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know all this climate wiki-drama was going on. Seems like a pretty huge nexus of uncompromising editing. Pretty wiki-serious stuff  :-O BigK HeX (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep welcome to climate change [6] mark nutley (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, i have now supplied the Diff`s and my evidence over the above matter. Please make your statement at the RFE board. mark nutley (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Anarchism

Thank you for catching that. The page has been stable for nearly a year, I was afraid it was about to plunge back into the horrors of The Before Time. Zazaban (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No prob. The guy is crazy (which he's basically admitted himself, a time or two). We'll have to keep an eye on him until the necessary blocks are in place. BigK HeX (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Banned user?

What makes you say that 114.78.249.132 is a banned user? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no doubt, but it'd take me a few mins to gather up diffs for people who aren't familiar with this nutcase. Guy has about 300(?) sockpuppets!!! If you're interested in diffs, let me know. In the meantime, you can check out: Karmaisking (talk · contribs). BigK HeX (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that fellow, was he User:Anarcho-capitalism/User:Billy Ego? Zazaban (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That one might be someone else, as his history goes back a bit further. The current guy initially was blocked in 2008. BigK HeX (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I asked because I don't recall anybody making those sorts of edits to Anarchism lately.

If this were an obvious case of DUCK I would block the IP, but I'm afraid you may have to go to SPI. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely an obvious DUCK. I didn't know you were an admin. I'd love to give you the diffs ... or, I was in the process of creating the SPI. I can finish up there, and you can respond. Whichever works for you. He loves to take advantage of the SPI delays in order to wreak a little havoc; he has mocked the delays many times. It would help dissuade him, if he knew admins were going to start blocking him without the bureaucracy. BigK HeX (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

He called you a stalker, which sounds like an admission of truth to my ears (how could you be stalked by someone you don't know?) Zazaban (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you provide a couple of convincing diffs, I'll block the IP. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. His latest edit, at Talk:Austrian School, is one I recognize from one of User:Karmaisking's socks. Blocked for two weeks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, wasn't too surprised about 2020Speculator being KiK, and glad to see a few other accounts being caught. Of course, that probably leaves him with, ohhh, 5 or 10 buried accounts plus the usual dynamic IP's. Fun fun fun! Ravensfire (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Always fun! Though, it might just be wishful thinking, but it seems he is lsoing a bit of his zeal. Quick work, catching those socks, by the way. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Climate change probation...

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

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Yes, I know you are aware of it - this just gives me a link I can put in the log so that all ts are crossed. And, BTW, your yellow bar breaks the various tabbed links on the page, at least in Safari. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on the bar, and the helpful "close" suggestions on the enforcement page. BigK HeX (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Much better. Now it only breaks the "user page" link. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah.. I figured that's livable  :-D Thanks again. BigK HeX (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My advice

I happen to be an admin who has not edited the article in contention. I would advise you to listen to my advice. Talkpage please. Polargeo (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have answered your post on my talkpage. You are incorrect to believe that my recusal for the climate change RFE page affects any advice to you here. Polargeo (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism

Hey, thanks for backing me up. Good to see some people see straight through the fog. Would you go as far as to request with me a rewrite or rebalance of the criticism section to remove any soapbox statements which simply advertise and explain opposing strains of libertarianism? See what I wrote in talk under von Mises statement if you haven't already. Thanks again,--ValenShephard 22:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a look, though it might be tomorrow. Thanks for the heads-up! BigK HeX (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think its worth a look. The criticism section is too much of a soapbox for all of Thatcher's favourite philosophers... Of course, some of it can remain, when it actually deals with lib soc not the critics' own ideology. So far there only seems to be one person in disagreement, and he has been pretty much silenced when you decided to delete von Mises' statement anyway. On another note, a few months ago someone brought up whether to even have a criticism section, and not a single person who supports lib soc actually made an argument, so all these people with POVs against lib soc decided it should stay.. So I think we could challenge that, they hardly had a whole range of opinion.. 2 or 3 people simple agreed with eachother and it stayed. I also think Noam Chomsky and Jose Saramago should be mentioned somewhere in the article because they are probably the world's best known libertarian socialists. I'll find some quotes from them on the subject or something. Keep it up,--ValenShephard 14:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Climategate"

"...my own research on Google news shows that over half of sources in the popular media do not even contain the word "Climategate"." Can you document that this is true in sources published after July 7, 2010, please? --Yopienso (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I could. But:

A) I hardly feel limited to arbitrary constraints such as those you propose, and

B) I'll leave you guys to first build a case covering the logical bases, before there's really any need for me to argue counter to it.

If AQFK is the only supporting editor among you willing to put in any legwork, then the point is very likely moot. BigK HeX (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In reverse order:

C. I've done considerable legwork, most of which has been ignored:

Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Comments_by_uninvolved_users

Post of 22:23, 26 July 2010--This was a direct answer to you, personally. Did you read it? Did you read the links?

Post of 00:30, 27 July 2010--You posted just a couple of lines below. Did you read what I had written? Did you click on my links?

Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_35#Climategate_and_Holocaust_Denial

Post of 17:11, 12 July 2010

Post of 23:01, 12 July 2010

Post of 07:24, 13 July 2010

B. I've done more than that, but won't waste my time finding it. I consider this, together with AQFK's work, quite a case covering the logical bases.

A. Since we're talking about what the incident is currently referred to as in the MSM, we must perforce work within these constraints, even though, as I've shown, many RSs, including Nature News, were using "Climategate" within weeks or months of the hack. Since you don't care to document your claim, I dismiss it as invalid. --Yopienso (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no way you can really expect for me to put time and effort in presenting my case to you, but expect me to hunt through a bunch of scattered posts....

I would suggest to you scattered posts do not constitute a "case" -- or certainly not the way to present a convincing one. As I've said many time now, if you guys have your stuff together somewhere, and there's actually a case worth debating, then I may feel compelled to participate.

For the moment though, dismissal is fine for you to do. Makes little difference to me, as I agree with the pretty clear consensus that's formed. BigK HeX (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't care to collaborate. "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative....and to be responsive to good-faith questions. Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Co-operation_and_civility

I've put time and effort into rounding up these posts for you. All you have to do is copy and paste the URLs into WP search, then copy and paste the timestamps into your page search and hit "Enter." It's a pity you didn't read them as they came up.

As you know, on talk pages we don't "present a case" such as you describe. I understand there's one at ArbCom, though I haven't seen it. Here's one discussion referenced above:

• Oppose, for neutrality, per WP:LABEL and per points raised by User:Scjessey. BigK HeX (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain how that meets Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality and article titles which states in part: True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 20:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what "editors' opinions" are being "imposed"? Thanks, BigK HeX (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually .... further, can you explain the justification for your invocation of that guide, which is applicable "When a subject or topic has a single common name," given a fairly dubious case regarding "Climategate" being representative of a large proportion of the literature -- a case made even more difficult given the WP:NOTNEO policy. BigK HeX (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to explain. Here is the section in full to which GregJackP refers:

When a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston massacre and Tea Pot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental.

We established in Archive 35 that we could find no MSM that did not use the term "Climategate" in its various spellings wrt capitals and hyphen, and wrt to "scare quotes." That's called a single common name in English MSM RS. (We even found it in German, Spanish, and in the English version of Pravda, which said, "...what everyone is calling ‘Climategate’ -- a major scandal involving leaked emails..." (These are new links I've just looked up.) Clearly the incident is globally known as "Climategate."

The editors' opinion being imposed on the title of this article is that we cannot use a word that began as a perjorative. This is contrary to our policy. (In AGF, I'm willing to believe they believe it is still entirely perjorative. This, however, is willful ignorance, given the many, many references supplied here.)

Wrt to WP:NOTNEO policy, it states: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." There are endless treatments in secondary sources. --Yopienso (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what Yopienso said. All of the sources call it Climategate, and Wikipedia policy requires us to use that same term. GregJackP Boomer! 22:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "All of the sources call it Climategate"

That certainly is not the case. Not even most of the sources available at this point discussing the controversy use "Climategate" as headline reference. BigK HeX (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like they do, even Nature does The Bering Sea Project: Thoughts on Climategate mark nutley (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

lol ... "even Nature! _{(in a blog) ... (and with scare quotes, too)}" BigK HeX (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you see scare quotes in the text linked above? No you don`t. And you`ll find a blog on nature is a perfectly reliable source, o and while your over there so a searchm see if it pops up a few times :) mark nutley (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhh... no scare quotes?? Quoting from your source:

During the last couple of days I asked the principal investigators on board what they thought of

“ Climategate ”

Did you even bother to read your own supposed "evidence"? In any case, if you guys want to build the case, then it seems like that should have been the RFC pursued first --- although if it must be done as a sub-branch of this RfC, please find a way to compartmentalize the arguments. But without the supporting editors having reasonably established such a case, the move request here to a POV-loaded neologism is clearly doomed. BigK HeX (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

{Edit clonflict} You will note Nature News, as much under Nature's editorial control as its blog, avoided the term in December, but as early as February were using it not only in the headline but in the body, twice in scare quotes and once without. The Bering Sea blog report published July 20 is featured on this page, and there is a tab to access the Journal. --Yopienso (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) So what are they calling it? Because the only hits I get are with "Climategate" as the title, whether it be through Google or LexisNews (which has over 800 hits with Climategate). There are zero using the current title. GregJackP Boomer! 23:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you're asking me for some other "common name." I said that your suggested "common name" is doubtful; I did not say that I had an alternative one to suggest. Personally, I doubt there is one, and so find a WP:NPOV title just fine for now. There is no deadline, and if it seems that a (non-neological) common name is shaking out in the future, we can discuss it far more authoritatively then without corcern for recentism. BigK HeX (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

====================================================================================================

You are likely correct about the recentism; we can wait. But please don't post claims on the talk page that are almost certainly false and that you refuse to attempt to verify.

I particularly object to your citing I asked the principal investigators on board what they thought of “Climategate,” but utterly ignoring The Bering Sea Project: Thoughts on Climategate - July 20, 2010 and What did they think of Climategate? Such cherry-picking makes me doubt your claim about over half the sources in the popular media not containing the word "Climategate," specially since I've looked at a large number of entirely RS that use it.

From the National Geographic, December 8, 2009: Global warming research has been criticized in recent weeks in the wake of leaked emails from the U.K.'s University of East Anglia, which provided some of the new climate data. The private, "Climategate" email exchanges among climate scientists refer to statistical "tricks" used to support a case for global warming and, to some, suggest a stifling of data that runs contrary to global warming findings.

I hope we can honestly examine the evidence and respectfully agree to collaborate. One starting point could be your realizing how ubiquitous the use of "Climategate" actually is and my dropping the matter of the article's title until 2011. Best wishes, --Yopienso (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That you personally are incredulous about something does not really mean that others view it as "almost certainly false." Also, I'd note that I disagree a bit about "we editors do not present a case." Personally, if I believed that Climategate was the accepted term used by most sources, and I really wanted to pursue improvement of the article in that aspect, I would have laid out the logical points sufficient to indicate that, and provided the corroborating evidence.

In any case, I appreciate your largely impartial thinking here and am sure that the issue will be sorted out. Cheers! BigK HeX (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in due time. Sometimes things here seem much more important than they really are; I'll try to step back and spend more time on real life stuff. Meanwhile, it's your talk page, of course, but if it were mine, I'd hide or archive most of this to clear the clutter. (Translation: I won't think you're being rude if it disappears.) Regards, --Yopienso (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sections

BK do you not think opening so many threads at once is a little confusing? Why are we not discussing one source at a time? Can you please hold off on creating more until we have finished with the ones already out there? thanks mark nutley (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I was ready to let it sit for a while, though it seemed there was only off-topic bickering, instead of posting of WP:RS's. BigK HeX (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)