Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:32, 21 August 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Peroxisome, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  William M. Connolley 10:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Steven Milloy

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Steven Milloy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Ronz 01:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Using the talk page

Am I to interpret this, and your previous blanking of my request, to mean that you refuse to engage in discussion about your reverts on the talk page? MastCell 02:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, really - use the talk page

You are once again removing well-sourced material without bothering to use the talk page (). You may wish to re-read WP:BLP, particularly the section which states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." You may wish to tone down your constant complaints that well-sourced, mildly critical information is "defamatory", as they verge on a legal threat. There are avenues open to you if you disagree: you can go to the BLP noticeboard for outside opinions, or discuss things on the article talk page. If you continue to do neither of these and remove well-sourced content, that's a problem, and not a new one in your case, either. MastCell 21:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

your assertion that I am removing material without using the talk page is a falsehood. Why don't you read the talk page ? My comment on the talk page was up before your unfounded revert. Also, you have removed a completely accurate section without any justification, where I have edited to comply with your suggestion. Your comment about the AJPH editorial is flatly wrong, as set out above. THe paper does not state that Milloy's website is an example of such an approach- it merely states that numerous subjects are labelled as junkscience on the site. While there may be an inference to be drawn from the AJPH article, it is wrong to state the inference as a fact when the article does not. This is yet another example of you making incorrect edits to suit your point of view. Peroxisome 22:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

How about centralizing this on the article talk page, which you are now using. MastCell 22:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR - Final warning

Please stop edit-warring. Thanks. yandman 09:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

While you're at it, you may want to stop the personal attacks as well (e.g. ). Obviously, my edit was not "designed to be inaccurate and breach BLP". MastCell 17:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this user indefinitely for doing little or no productive editing while trolling talk:Steven Milloy at great length. Raul654 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=unfair and arbitrary block. I believe that the Steven Milloy page is biased, and have set out clear and cogent arguments on the relevant talk page. While it is clear that there is a majority of editors who wish to take a different view, it is bizarre to penalise me for not making an excess of edits on the main page, and merely arguing my case on the talk page. Incidentally, I believe that some of the comments on the page are potentially defamatory, and was in the midst of a fairly civilised discussion with Yandman on this topic. It is also worth mentioning that several of my edits on this page have been accepted, since they are in fact correct, if bitterly resisted by other editors. Finally, the admin asserts that I behave as WP:TROLL. This is obviously incorrect; i have clearly set out a basis for making specific changes in the text of the milloy article. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=unfair and arbitrary block. I believe that the Steven Milloy page is biased, and have set out clear and cogent arguments on the relevant talk page. While it is clear that there is a majority of editors who wish to take a different view, it is bizarre to penalise me for not making an excess of edits on the main page, and merely arguing my case on the talk page. Incidentally, I believe that some of the comments on the page are potentially defamatory, and was in the midst of a fairly civilised discussion with Yandman on this topic. It is also worth mentioning that several of my edits on this page have been accepted, since they are in fact correct, if bitterly resisted by other editors. Finally, the admin asserts that I behave as WP:TROLL. This is obviously incorrect; i have clearly set out a basis for making specific changes in the text of the milloy article. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=unfair and arbitrary block. I believe that the Steven Milloy page is biased, and have set out clear and cogent arguments on the relevant talk page. While it is clear that there is a majority of editors who wish to take a different view, it is bizarre to penalise me for not making an excess of edits on the main page, and merely arguing my case on the talk page. Incidentally, I believe that some of the comments on the page are potentially defamatory, and was in the midst of a fairly civilised discussion with Yandman on this topic. It is also worth mentioning that several of my edits on this page have been accepted, since they are in fact correct, if bitterly resisted by other editors. Finally, the admin asserts that I behave as WP:TROLL. This is obviously incorrect; i have clearly set out a basis for making specific changes in the text of the milloy article. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Peroxisome 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage any admin reviewing this request to thoroughly check out Peroxisome's contributions. This is a long-term tendentious single-purpose account dedicated to whitewashing BLP-compliant criticism of Steven Milloy. His recent contributions consist of dismissing consensus, refusing to follow WP:DR by going to the BLP noticeboard or WP:RfC to voice his concerns, and constant legal threats of defamation (, ). Given the fact that he has stubbornly resisted consensus while simultaneously refusing to follow WP:DR and instead arguing and threatening endlessly on the talk page, I think that trolling is an appropriate description of his behavior. MastCell 18:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put this very bluntly: MastCell is lying. He says that there is a concensus on the Milloy article, but that is blatantly untrue. Many editors have noted the article's extreme POV bias. Peroxisome is just one of them. I am another. Unfortunately, MastCell has several "allies" who seem just as determined as he is to ensure that this article remains a vicious and inaccurate attack piece -- and even repeatedly delete the article's warnings that its neutrality and accuracy are disputed.

MastCell & Raul654 also say that Peroxisome is a troll, but that is also blatantly untrue. Peroxisome has consistently worked to make constructive improvements to the article. Peroxisome is not an edit-warrior, he is a careful and consistent contributor to the article.

MastCell also says that Peroxisome has been "threatening" on the Talk page. That is another lie. Peroxisome has, to my knowledge, never done such a thing.

MastCell is a POV-pushing edit-warrior, who recently violated 3RR in that article, and who also has twice falsely accused me of violations. MastCell has also repeatedly violated WP:BLP by inserting false and possibly defamatory attacks on the subject of the biography of Steven Milloy. If anyone should be blocked, it should be MastCell, not Peroxisome! NCdave 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock