Do not re-insert material that has been challenged on the basis of being a WP:BLP violation, as you did here. That sort of behaviour can get you blocked. Guettarda ( talk) 18:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
(Macai, 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) 06:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you know Nightmote ( talk · contribs)? Viriditas ( talk) 06:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page SCUM Manifesto has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 07:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
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
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. --
ChrisO (
talk) 08:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You've been here long enough that you know this is not acceptable. Hipocrite ( talk) 01:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, you will be blocked from editing. I don't know what else to call it but vandalism. You blatantly violated copyright/licensing to circumvent the article's move-protection. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
You might want to explain your rationale @ AN/I Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Following your complete disregard for the article probation on climate change articles that I notified you about yesterday, I have made a request for enforcement against you. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Macai. -- ChrisO ( talk) 10:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Please understand that treating your fellow volunteer editors with such callous disregard is simply unacceptable. When other people disagree with your edits, please seek consensus with them at the relevant talkpage or follow other steps in the WP:dispute resolution tree. Your contributions to articles and discussions unrelated to the topic of climate change continue to be welcome, but if you return to editing climate change articles disruptively next month, you will be banned for a much longer period or blocked entirely. - 2/0 ( cont.) 04:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Please redact your sarcastic comment at the bottom of Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Time_to_remove_the_badge_of_shame and refactor your earlier comment to remove your assumptions of bad faith. Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 11:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If you make another disruptive sarcastic comment like the ones I asked you to redact and the one made here, I will ask you be banned from any further interactions on Climate Change talk pages. Please redact your disruptive comment. Thank you. Hipocrite ( talk) 11:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that following me around to other articles that you have not previously edited is a serious mistake. I am attempting to make a clean break from climate-change, but if climate-change warriors like yourself start following me around, I'll be forced to seek to have you prevented from wikistalking me - stop now. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Mind the 1RR on that article. You've committed several technical violations in the past day, though it's not a big enough deal to report (not yet, anyway). Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 20:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for not including that statement in these two sections. I was having computer trouble and failed to check that the correct version had posted. I was remiss in not checking this, and can only plead that I am busy off-site this week in asking your forgiveness. 2over0 public ( talk) 01:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the first link in the "Why I believe I did not do what I was sanctioned for" section is broken. I think this [2] is the link you meant to use. Now I'm going to read through the rest of it. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I would advise you that I have collapsed the above discussion as an unsuccessful appeal - given that I felt there was not sufficient consensus to overturn the decision, and that no fresh comments had been given for a couple of days. It is possible to appeal to other bodies, and I suggest you make a request at ArbCom (since an Admin's Noticeboard is unlikely to produce a consensus either) in relation to both the severity of the sanctions and the miscommunications between the rationale provided at the time and subsequently. You might wish to provide a link to these comments as well as to the Probation enforcement discussion. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Restoring unsourced edits made by an SPA right after the arbcom case has closed, shows that you don't get it. I'm going to therefore ask that you stay away from this article, based not just on your recent edits, but your history of contributions to it. Viriditas ( talk) 23:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I accidentally created those pages which were all deleted, but now have created two pages which I think provide some useful information and which have not been deleted after a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deerekid1 ( talk • contribs) 12:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hell, you may be blocked from editing. See also sections are not for personal commentary. Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Macai ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Turns out, someone guessed/cracked my password and went on a vandalism spree with my account. I'm very sorry about that. I have changed my password to something nobody will ever guess. If it's at all possible, lifting the block, even tentatively, would be quite nice.
Decline reason:
Unfortunately, we cannot unblock hacked accounts. WP:GOTHACKED should explain why. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 17:34, 30 December 2011 (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.
Do not re-insert material that has been challenged on the basis of being a WP:BLP violation, as you did here. That sort of behaviour can get you blocked. Guettarda ( talk) 18:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
(Macai, 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) 06:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you know Nightmote ( talk · contribs)? Viriditas ( talk) 06:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page SCUM Manifesto has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 07:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
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
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. --
ChrisO (
talk) 08:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You've been here long enough that you know this is not acceptable. Hipocrite ( talk) 01:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, you will be blocked from editing. I don't know what else to call it but vandalism. You blatantly violated copyright/licensing to circumvent the article's move-protection. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
You might want to explain your rationale @ AN/I Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Following your complete disregard for the article probation on climate change articles that I notified you about yesterday, I have made a request for enforcement against you. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Macai. -- ChrisO ( talk) 10:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Please understand that treating your fellow volunteer editors with such callous disregard is simply unacceptable. When other people disagree with your edits, please seek consensus with them at the relevant talkpage or follow other steps in the WP:dispute resolution tree. Your contributions to articles and discussions unrelated to the topic of climate change continue to be welcome, but if you return to editing climate change articles disruptively next month, you will be banned for a much longer period or blocked entirely. - 2/0 ( cont.) 04:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Please redact your sarcastic comment at the bottom of Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Time_to_remove_the_badge_of_shame and refactor your earlier comment to remove your assumptions of bad faith. Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 11:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If you make another disruptive sarcastic comment like the ones I asked you to redact and the one made here, I will ask you be banned from any further interactions on Climate Change talk pages. Please redact your disruptive comment. Thank you. Hipocrite ( talk) 11:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that following me around to other articles that you have not previously edited is a serious mistake. I am attempting to make a clean break from climate-change, but if climate-change warriors like yourself start following me around, I'll be forced to seek to have you prevented from wikistalking me - stop now. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Mind the 1RR on that article. You've committed several technical violations in the past day, though it's not a big enough deal to report (not yet, anyway). Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 20:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for not including that statement in these two sections. I was having computer trouble and failed to check that the correct version had posted. I was remiss in not checking this, and can only plead that I am busy off-site this week in asking your forgiveness. 2over0 public ( talk) 01:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the first link in the "Why I believe I did not do what I was sanctioned for" section is broken. I think this [2] is the link you meant to use. Now I'm going to read through the rest of it. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I would advise you that I have collapsed the above discussion as an unsuccessful appeal - given that I felt there was not sufficient consensus to overturn the decision, and that no fresh comments had been given for a couple of days. It is possible to appeal to other bodies, and I suggest you make a request at ArbCom (since an Admin's Noticeboard is unlikely to produce a consensus either) in relation to both the severity of the sanctions and the miscommunications between the rationale provided at the time and subsequently. You might wish to provide a link to these comments as well as to the Probation enforcement discussion. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Restoring unsourced edits made by an SPA right after the arbcom case has closed, shows that you don't get it. I'm going to therefore ask that you stay away from this article, based not just on your recent edits, but your history of contributions to it. Viriditas ( talk) 23:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I accidentally created those pages which were all deleted, but now have created two pages which I think provide some useful information and which have not been deleted after a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deerekid1 ( talk • contribs) 12:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hell, you may be blocked from editing. See also sections are not for personal commentary. Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Macai ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Turns out, someone guessed/cracked my password and went on a vandalism spree with my account. I'm very sorry about that. I have changed my password to something nobody will ever guess. If it's at all possible, lifting the block, even tentatively, would be quite nice.
Decline reason:
Unfortunately, we cannot unblock hacked accounts. WP:GOTHACKED should explain why. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 17:34, 30 December 2011 (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.