User talk:WVBluefield/Archive Talk

BLP and Patrick Michaels

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? --TS 22:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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?

Does the WCR have any other funder and why arent they mentioned in the article's lead.

I believe they call this guilt by association. BluefieldWV (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Patrick Michaels

Your current editing at Patrick Michaels is completely unacceptable. Please familiarize yourself with WP:EW, including the three-revert rule. Use the talk page to work this issue out. You risk being blocked if this behavior continues. Oren0 (talk) 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. BluefieldWV (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2009 (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 WP:BLPN? Oren0 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your message. I replied on my talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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 WP:SPA 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. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2009 (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. BluefieldWV (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Watts

Regarding this edit. Perhaps you should take some time and actually read the reference instead of assuming? Watts ran as a conservative (Quote emphasis mine: But the race took a turn when conservative candidate Anthony Watts opted out last week, saying there was “not enough Anthony to go around.”) - and that isn't opinion - it is a fact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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. BluefieldWV (talk) 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 here, 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) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey look at that, you found a reliable source. Now go put it in the article. BluefieldWV (talk) 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 WP:RS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR on Anthony Watts

You've broken the WP:3RR rule on Anthony Watts, i suggest that you revert yourself, and be more careful in the future. Also consider using the talk-page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

its a BLP issue and not subject to 3RR ... or thats my understanding. BluefieldWV (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it was for [1] you would be wrong (whereas if it was to delete an obvious allegation about the individual you might get away with it seeWikipedia:3RR#Exceptions_to_3RR). 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. --BozMo talk 18:41, 12 October 2009 (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? BluefieldWV (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (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: version reverted to - 1st 2nd
• Set B: original version reverted to - 3rd 4th

Which is clearly 4 reverts within 24 hours on the same article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Its BLP related, and not covered under 3RR. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2009 (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). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (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. --BozMo talk 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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? BluefieldWV (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2009 (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. --BozMo talk 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. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 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. BluefieldWV (talk) 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. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 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. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What exactly in your view makes it opinion, instead of news-reporting? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Newsreporting is void of opinion is it? BluefieldWV (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Try not moving the goal-posts and answer the question instead? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 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? BluefieldWV (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no requirement in WP:RS or WP:V 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 Wikipedia.

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. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

NPA

Re [2]: please see WP:NPA William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean as it applies to this kind of edit? A model Wikipedian and fine example to others you are. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(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. --BozMo talk 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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. ATren (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Anthony Watts (blogger). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

per a complaint at:WP:AN3#User:BluefieldWV reported by Verbal (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WVBluefield (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My edits were made to correct what I believe was a clear cut BLP issue involving the use of original research in the article. There currently exists a debate on the BLP board about this, 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. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

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 WP:DR. Your block is a correct application of WP:EW.  Sandstein  19:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 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. Alex Harvey (talk) 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. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 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. Alex Harvey (talk) 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? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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. BluefieldWV (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning removed with apologies. Jusdafax 17:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! BluefieldWV (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please please

Please tell me you are accurately portraying these (very hard to find) sources [3]? Can you provide a copy? --BozMo talk 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The book reference can be found in google books: [4], 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. BluefieldWV (talk) 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. --BozMo talk 21:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The book does not say anything about Singer being more realistic than Sagan, I just read it. --BozMo talk 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). --BozMo talk 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. BluefieldWV (talk) 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. BluefieldWV (talk) 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. --BozMo talk 05:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reposted the Times articles here and will address the rest on the talk page. I am a bit pressed for time this morning. BluefieldWV (talk) 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. --BozMo talk 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. --BozMo talk 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. BluefieldWV (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To your other points. I was referring to Nil Einne as the uninvolved editor 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. BluefieldWV (talk) 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. --BozMo talk 21:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats would seem reasonable. BluefieldWV (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I agree you are improving the Singer article. Thank you for helping the project. --BozMo talk 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. BluefieldWV (talk) 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 Wikipedia:Chemical safety. If you have ideas/plans that would affect more than a couple of articles, then you should probably communicate your thinking to the chemistry discussion group in an attempt to get advice and achieve some sort of consensus. The group has a lot of experience and expertise. --Smokefoot (talk) 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 chemistry discussion group. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. BluefieldWV (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP

Aren't you one of the BLP zealots? How do you justify clear violations like this [5]? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it's in his autobiography and many reliable sources have noted it [6], [7][8]. WVBluefield (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You are dense. Nevermind, I'm sure you'll get there in the end William M. Connolley (talk) 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. Alex Harvey (talk) 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. WVBluefield (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Just a note after I saw your post on ANI. It's not at all clear that the removal material of dubious provenance from the talk page is vandalism, so please don't continue to revert other editors after you've hit 3RR. Also: I'll be refactoring the talk page again. Aside from the dubious ethics of publishing stolen material, the letter isn't a reliable source (given the lack of authentication) and would presumably be copyrighted so there's multiple issues at work here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don’t understand, the material was reproduced in a reliable source and I was only placing it on the talk page for the purpose of discussing its inclusion and other editors can still wipe out my talk page contributions on a whim? Does that make any sense whatsoever? WVBluefield (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've replied on the talk page in question (although I think you saw my comments already, so this might be redundant now). Hopefully we can hash this out there. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hashing it out is only half of it. I am sick to death of editors who think they can get away with whatever they want. WVBluefield (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Bleh. I'm not sure what to say here, since I don't think anyone was clearly in the right. I don't think you should have really kept reposting it, but OTOH, the people removing it should have explained why they felt it needed to go (or why they disagreed with you on keeping it). (I tend to think that if you're refactoring someone's comments, so you better have a pretty good reason unless it's blatantly vandalism). Not sure how you'd like to proceed, but my personal bet would be that the option involving the least drama would be to let the ANI thread die, and try and work on the talk page. I do think the whole incident is worth some kind of mention in the article, although I don't really know what it should look like yet. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for WP:Disruptive editing, WP:Edit warring and personal attacks..[9] Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Mojib_Latif

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 your disruptive editing, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. TParis00ap (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WVBluefield. You have new messages at TParis00ap's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, WVBluefield. You have new messages at TParis00ap's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Piece of advice

I know you're "new" here and all, but you should really consider the sage advice in WP:DTR. Hipocrite (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I templated them to warn them that I was filing a 3RR case against them. I though that was the MO around here. WVBluefield (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to inform an experienced editor about someting, per WP:DTR, write it, don't template it. Finally, your template does not state that you are filing a 3rr case, rather it states that if they continue you could file a 3rr case. Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll keep it in mind for the future. WVBluefield (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful if you could find something not WMC-related to do. It's not constructive to make snide, insulting remarks like this one. In general, if you feel that there is an issue with another user's conduct, address it politely and clearly in an appropriate venue. Don't take cheap shots. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind the next time WMC says something shitty to someone or edit wars and I dont see you calling him out for it. WVBluefield (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remind him yourself, but try to be civil as opposed to a dick. Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A personal attack on me while simultaneously condemning me for incivility ….. very nice ….. very nice. As I was saying, your Rodneyesque pleas of “cant we all get along” might not fall on deaf ears if you were a little more even handed with you “helpful advice”. WVBluefield (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying "can't we all just get along." Honestly, I wish you, and a host of other people who are interested in using this project to push their views would just shove off. I don't think you doubt for a second that you were, in fact, being a dick. Being a dick is not acceptable. If you are a dick, people, shockingly, might call you a dick. That might make them dicks also - but it certainly doesn't make you not a dick. Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My my, have I hit a nerve? Does my participation in the project upset you so much that you have to resort to such gutterisms to get your point across? Do yourself a favor, take a short holiday and stop digging this hole. WVBluefield (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

concerning your revert on climategate

dear wvbluefield, i'm writing because of your revert here [10], it seems to be a compromise betweens you and verbal. we had a discussion about the use of the term in the talk page: [11], which both of you ignored. please delete the 'sceptic', and take part in the discussion, if you would like to have in it. thank you. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility

This was unnaceptable, and should not be repeated. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the truth is ugly ... but I will be more cautious in the future. WVBluefield (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Dear WVBluefield, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Don't worry! It's been take care of it. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks!!! Basket of Puppies 20:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. WVBluefield (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Richard Lindzen. 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. Scjessey (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have begun a thread over at WP:BLPN, and the material is a pretty clear example of whats not allowed into a BLP. WVBluefield (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no excuse for edit warring. None whatsoever. If something is so evil that it must be instantly purged, request the assistance of an administrator instead of continuing to edit war. Trust me, I've had my ass kicked several times for just such an error, so I speak with experience. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough and I understand where you are coming from, but the policy states that removing negative material from a BLP does not count against 3RR. It has also been my experience that admins will overlook a 3RR violation if this was indeed the case. Thanks for the advice and it won’t fall on deaf ears. WVBluefield (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Clear violations of WP:BLP are exempt, but that material was, in my opinion, within the grey area that can lead to chilling effects. Hopefully BLP/N will provide some guidance while the article is locked. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Mooney quote

Please note that the passage you have attributed solely to Mooney is actually two separate quotes from two different professional journalists. I'm sure you'll correct this oversight. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. WVBluefield (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In the wars again?

You look to be heading towards, if you aren't already over, 3RR on Jim Inhofe. I hope you've learnt the lesson re relying on BLP from your previous experience. If I were you I'd look very closely and consider self-reverting William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am making more changes to the article that are sorely needed, no reverts. If there’s one thing I have learned here is that if the right people start looking over the articles I bring attention to, shit gets done. Thank you for your heartfelt and sincere concern. WVBluefield (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jim Inhofe#Protected

I have locked Jim Inhofe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for one week, as discussion seems to have devolved into edit warring. I would like to unprotect the article as soon as possible if discussion can be restarted. I am asking each of the participants to please affirm that until one week from today they will refrain from editing any material at that article that is related to climate change. The idea is to mimic the effects of the lock without the software enforcement. Unless there is a firm consensus at Talk:Jim Inhofe, please do not make any potentially controversial changes. I expect to block any editor who continues to edit disruptively despite assurances to the contrary. I am posting this message to all relevant talkpages; please do not take this as laying blame on any particular editor. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to draw your attention to ...

[12]. If I am somehow misinterpreting your position, please make that clear. --GoRight (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail news, special investigation

(WVBluefield, in case you're no longer reading the voluminous Wikilawyering on the Climategate discussion page, I'm cc:ing this here for you).

The Daily Mail has a news Special Investigation with an excellent analysis, including an excellent description that references among others McIntyre's analysis of the "trick...to hide the decline" which I previously submitted above. So this is an unquestionably RS that describes that analysis. The graph and a summary of the description should be included in the article. Here are some excerpts:

Derived from close examination of some of the thousands of other leaked emails, he [McIntyre] says it suggests the ‘trick’ undermines not only the CRU but the IPCC.

There is a widespread misconception that the ‘decline’ Jones was referring to is the fall in global temperatures from their peak in 1998, which probably was the hottest year for a long time. In fact, its subject was more technical - and much more significant...

Briffa knew exactly why they [IPCC] wanted it, writing in an email on September 22: ‘I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more”.’ But his conscience was troubled. ‘In reality the situation is not quite so simple - I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.’...

Finally, Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and ‘cooled’ them significantly. But alas, it created another, potentially even more serious, problem.

According to his tree rings, the period since 1960 had not seen a steep rise in temperature, as actual temperature readings showed - but a large and steady decline, so calling into question the accuracy of the earlier data derived from tree rings.

This is the context in which, seven

weeks later, Jones presented his ‘trick’ - as simple as it was deceptive.

All he had to do was cut off Briffa’s inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase.

On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated - but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines.

‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.

‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’

...as McIntyre points out, ‘contrary to claims by various climate scientists, the IPCC Third Assessment Report did not disclose the deletion of the post-1960 values’.

On the final diagram, the cut off was simply concealed by the other lines.

Flegelpuss (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not editors

Hi, WVB. The section of WP:NPA I was referring to was:

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor."

If you have constructive criticism, advice or comments on another editor, it is best to make those comments on the editor's talk page. Article talk page space is specifically for discussion on article improvement; not commentary on other editors. I'm happy to see you participating there, since we could definitely use outside input as the discussion has hit an impasse. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasnt a personal attack, and dont modify my talk page comments again or this will go to ANI. WVBluefield (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It was commenting on other editors. If you really wish to discuss other editors, I am willing to continue the discussion - just not on the article talk page. It really isn't the appropriate place. I'll move the comments here:

• I have to agree with Weakopedia that the discussion here made it hard for people to weigh in on this RfC. Both of you (Xeno and VT) should tone it down and give the talk page some space for other people to become involved. Now that I’m off my soapbox,
• ...don’t split hairs and argue semantics as it only destroys and degrades the tone conversation and turns people into adversaries.

I happen to agree with your comments, for the most part. I'd just rather keep the discussion at the article talk page on track. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you have re-inserted those comments on an article talk page? I was just re-reading your comments about degrading the tone of the conversation and turning people into adversaries. I'd like to request that you please remove those comments from the article talk page discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I wont be removing anything I wrote. WVBluefield (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. You continue to reinsert comments about other editors into an article talk page, even after they have been moved here for discussion. You reinsert them against an editor's objection, and refuse to remove them yourself when requested. You decline to give any reason why. I just want to make sure I understand the situation clearly before proceeding. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Don’t put words in my mouth. You claimed I made a personal attack, which is either an attempt on your part to deflect criticism of your behavior and the tendentious nature of your talk page (and main article) edits or it’s a simply a misperception on your part. Either way, I am not removing anything I wrote.

I consider this matter settled, so please dont bother me further about it here. WVBluefield (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)