Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 21:15, 18 February 2010 (==Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident== {{subst:uw-probation|Climatic Research Unit hacking incident|Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation}} -- ~~~~). 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.

Thank you!

Thansk for sticking up for me. This whole mess got started because I tried to do the same for an Anon user, and was then accused of being a sockpuppet. It's nice to know that, while my experience has left me in such a way that I doubt I will ever return to this site, let alone the community, that there are still some good guys left int he fight! Thanks, Srwm4 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for the kind words. I really try not to see it so much as a fight so much as trying to keep Misplaced Pages a pleasant place to work. Except for places like ANI, you really don't have to defend yourself or continue a conversation you don't want, so you might find more pleasant just to fade away while concurrently requesting deletion of your pages via the Right to Vanish process. While you are still here, I think you'll find edit summaries such as this one ] counterproductive overall. Gerardw (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You re Asperger's/Autism

Thank you for your help with the Asperger's/Autism merge debate. Happy to have that in the past. Though apparently the IP user couldn't leave the Wikiquette alert alone either. (shrug) Anyhow, thanks again! Doniago (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I was notified of the discussion there because I am allowed to place input, just as you are? Or are you further trying to devalue any input placed by an anonymous user?? Inquiring minds, all that. Oh, I corrected your grammar aswell, "You're" welcome.

You were wrong to close that discussion and you know it. Ending discussion after 10 hours claiming no consensus is academically dishonest, and barely gave the community a chance to comment. The quick stifling of a discussion results in the one-sided nature of wikipedia, and furthers its alienation from any real academic community. 70.124.70.19 (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

96.236.176.181 (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A user just removed the archive tags on the merger discussion claiming that it had been closed too early. While I feel expressing my opinion on whether the discussion should have been closed would constitute a COI, I'm not clear on whether users should be removing those tags. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd let it go. It was an early close -- me being WP:BOLD, mostly just to let things simmer down. I won't do anything, including commenting further unless someone advances a new argument. The time for further action will be if/when someone claims there's a consensus to merge; there are so many opposes that I see that as unlikely. If there really is a consensus to merge then it should be merged, otherwise object then. Gerardw (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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)