Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 14:15, 19 February 2010 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 5d) to User talk:Gerardw/Archive/2010/February.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Meet The Press /Archive/2009/January /Archive/2009/February /Archive/2009/June /Archive/2009/July /Archive/2009/September /Archive/2009/November /Archive/2009/December /Archive/2010/January

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Re: WQA

Thanks for the reply. I read the instructions more carefully and felt that both incidents, while inappropriate, are potentially one-time events (starting after the end on the user's temporary ban). I consider the personal attacks separate in nature to the vandalism of the discussion page. The user in question has not responded to my initial reply to his personal attacks or (more importantly) acted out further on the AfD discussion page. Therefore, I feel that the WQA should be removed unless another action occurs. Is it appropriate to remove/delete the WQA from the Wikiquette page or should I leave it there and strike it with an explanation for its retraction? What is the correct procedure? Any advice would be appreciated!Luminum (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Either would be fine, or it could be marked as resolved. I took care of it ] Gerardw (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!Luminum (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Kary Mullis

No, it's not an editing dispute, it's a case of sneaky vandalism specifically "adding plausible misinformation to articles" and "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages". That is not the opinion of "some ip editor" that is the opinion of a retired-administrator with in excess of 60,000 edits, two FAs and multiple DYKs to their credit. Thanks.163.1.147.64 (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Automyte

Thanks for commenting. It is plain to see from the diffs supplied at the current Wikiquette alert regarding this user that I am not the only user disputing Automyte's 'contributions'. I would indeed prefer that the user discuss at article Talk pages, but they have never attempted to. If you would like to confirm to User:NJA who previously blocked Automyte for edit warring, feel free. If you believe that the external links Automyte would like to add to the articles are in fact notable and appropriate, please discuss.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have previously asked at the user's Talk page to discuss. Per your suggestion, I have now created a section on the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And now they've said that you should also be banned for edit warring.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel

continues to accuse those who seek consensus of "trolling". THF (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So you think that was an appropriate way for that editor to seek consensus? Yes or no? Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

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

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 21:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)