This is a Wikipedia
user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nsaa/User_talk_2010. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello Nsaa! Thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an
Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add
reliable,
secondary
sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 901 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{
unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 07:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You probably could have titled your new section (About "trick to hide the decline" – Disruptive behavior by removing well sourced comments?) better. Remember to assume good faith. Prodego talk 02:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Do NOT revert again. I just fixed all that stuff. ONLY repair what is broken. -- Scjessey ( talk) 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have nominated Glaciergate ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Scjessey ( talk) 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Amazongate ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Scjessey ( talk) 15:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Pachaurigate ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Scjessey ( talk) 15:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
You're welomce to raise an issue with me on my talk page. Once.
Once I've said "drop this dead donkey" that should be a hint that you don't need to say exactly the same thing yet again William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You are misusing your talk page by removing - no. I reject your assertion. If you think otherwise, and care to pursue it, find yourself an admin. Don't bother me about your incorrect interpretations of policy any more William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I redacted part of your comment here. Please remember to comment on the content, not the contributor. - 2/0 ( cont.) 16:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect E-mail-theft-gate. Since you had some involvement with the E-mail-theft-gate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 147.70.242.54 ( talk) 03:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I have granted autoreviewer rights on your account, as you have created numerous valid articles. This will have little or no effect on your editing, and is intended mainly to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information see Wikipedia:Autoreviewer, and feel free to ask if you have any questions. FASTILY (TALK) 00:14, 4 February 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. --
TS 13:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
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 the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Hipocrite (
talk) 13:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. -- GoRight ( talk) 15:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Please
do not attack other editors, as you did here:
Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident. If you continue, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
[6]
ScienceApologist (
talk) 17:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The discussions at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement are not meant to be general fora for discussion of other issues. Narrowly targeted productive comment at any thread is welcome, but please confine your comments to the substance of the request and closely related issues. For instance, if a request is made detailing edit warring by one party, it could be appropriate to provide context in the form of links to talkpage discussion or diffs of other parties engaged in the same edit war. It would not be appropriate, however, to bring unrelated issues to an already open request, discuss content issues, or engage in incivility or personal attacks. If someone else makes that you feel merits a reply but your reply would not itself be closely related to the original request, please raise make your reply at usertalk, open a new enforcement request, or start a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Thank you for your cooperation. A few diffs of posts that venture partially or wholly off topic, or would be better suited to other venues: [7], [8]. - 2/0 ( cont.) 03:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Arguing the quality of various sources is good, but some of this crosses over into debate over the topic itself rather than our encyclopedic coverage of it. - 2/0 ( cont.) 01:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't refer to me as a "vandal" just because I removed your tendentious restoration of anti-Wikipedia opinion from an article talk page. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed where I informed you that if you edit-warred the bad press-multi reference back on that talk page, I'd seek to have you barred from all reversions on all talk pages. I thought I'd put it here so you know that it appears that your nearly-sole contribution to that talk page is a repeated attempt to put back a defamatory blog piece. Don't do so again, or I will seek to have you barred from repeating this same action, over and over and over. Hipocrite ( talk) 09:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
In this tag, you ignore the fact that the immediately following sentence has a reference, and that that reference supports both sentences. I suggest you read the references to nearby sentences before spewing fact tags - it would save me time and you embarassment. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
In this edit, you left out a closing quote which is making it hard to understand your point. If you could fix this it would help. Thanks. JPatterson ( talk) 15:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that you will find this YouTube video highly enjoyable. Grundle2600 ( talk) 17:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Chaps, this is addressed to Nsaa and UnitAnode on your talk pages.
The issues are this edit and its follow-up. Please, it is unacceptable on any Wikipedia article talk page to address the editor, and particularly to attribute malicious motives to your fellow volunteers. You both know this, you're not newcomers.
I will give you the advice I give to everybody who departs from civil discussion into such personal attacks: go to dispute resolution. It is not optional. You must seek to resolve the problems by the appropriate methods. -- TS 03:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors as you have done
here. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Short Brigade Harvester Boris (
talk) 23:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no interest in the WMC article.
As to my talk page: please don't interrupt conversations there. In fact, please read the notice at the top, and restrict yourself to only necessary posts there. If you have anything you feel you wish to discuss, you may leave me a neutral note on my page and invite me here William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
your comment at william connolley's page was extremely insightful. since he removed that comment, and is removing all comments which he finds inconvenient, i thought i would repost your comment here at your page. It contains much useful data, so I didn't want it to get overlooked. please feel free to be in touch. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 18:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Your comment:
I've removed several instances of soap-boxing and personal attacks from the above talk page. Please remember that the template and associated articles are under probation so a higher standard of conduct is expected. -- TS 20:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Template:Global warming controversy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Scjessey (
talk) 13:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a larger article on the overall climategate issue in incubation. This is an invitation for you to contribute. TMLutas ( talk) 17:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's acceptable to call an editor arrogant. I would remove/refactor that comment. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 14:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Template:Byline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Meisterkoch (
talk) 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I am contacting you because you are listed as a participant for WikiProject Norway, and the above-mentioned article is sourced by all Norwegian-language references. Moreover, the references do not appear to support notability; they might be mere trivial references to the subject. Since these sources are all offline, and I do not speak or read Norwegian, I'm hoping whether you can assist me in determining whether the article qualifies for speedy deletion. Many thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nsaa!
You did not complete the AfD nomination for
Baby shower (or Twinkle failed to do so). Would you like to complete the nomination? Honestly, though, I see no other possible outcome than (Speedy) Keep from the resulting debate :) Regards,
decltype
(
talk) 11:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
[37] I believe this article is under a 1r restriction, you seem to have done two today, would you please self revert your last edit, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 18:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
W.r.t. your placing Dave souza's initial presentation into a div box with visible references-- nice work. Until you demonstrated it there, I hadn't known that we had the capability to format a second, third, etc., "ref group" and reflist. ... Kenosis ( talk) 14:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
MLauba ( Talk) 11:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I must admit, you really confused me by reassigning Ticket:2010040910011249 to me; I assumed it was related to a ticket I had already handled. Maybe a bit more than FYI next time? :D We process typically a dozen or more articles a day through CP, so I'm afraid that I don't watchlist them or really remember their details.
Given that action and your note at Talk:Daniel Gajski, I just wanted to let you know that if a ticket comes in for an article that has already gone through WP:CP (or G12, for that matter) and the content has been removed, you should restore it in accordance with the FAQ and put the proper OTRS template on the article's talk page {{ ConfirmationOTRS}} is the best for text). I'll do it this time, but it's a pretty straightforward procedure. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering - have you ever substantially edited a page related to climate change, or do you merely revert other editors as part of various edit wars? If you have, could you point out one content edit you've made? Just checking something. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hei Nsaa, passing by Short Brigade Harvester Boris's talk page I noticed the discussion concerning two edits that you feel were objectionable. To attempt to explain further, 'Have you stopped beating your wife' is given as an example of an objectionable question, in that whatever the answer, it involves admitting to the beating - the phrase is used when someone feels that they have been given a loaded question to answer, it is certainly not an insult, more a request to rephrase the question. As to 'assume', the full phrase is "Don't assume as it makes an ass out of you (u) and me", which is rather lame, but certainly not an insult either. Both cases rely on the reader understanding the meaning, as to call someone a wifebeater or an ass would be insulting. Having spent a total of 7 years working in Norway over the years, I've had to explain a lot of unusual English idiom that I had used without considering my audience (generally including speakers of several other language as well as Norwegian), so I can understand any confusion that may have arisen. I hope that this helps. Mvh, Mikenorton ( talk) 21:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
[38] Guettarda ( talk) 23:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
[39] if you'd like to comment. Cla68 ( talk) 23:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an English teacher (my older brother is) and so I probably can't articulate why some of your grammer is incorrect but I can correct it for you. So, to help you in this function, I'll present a post of yours I just read and then attempt to fix it.
This is so bad. I have no word for it. Why the heck should my language be subject to Atmoz comments at all? Why not just keep the discussion about what was discussed? I find it totally counterproductive and it harms Wikipedia. So yes give him a long block or a long topic ban for this so other people can start working. What do Atmoz try to achieve? Getting people angry so they make "mistakes" and can get them blocked/topic banned? Nsaa ( talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Corrected (hopefully!):
This is so bad. I have no words for it. Why the heck should my language be subject to Atmoz's comments at all? Why not just keep the discussion on topic? I find it to be totally counterproductive and it harms Wikipedia. So yes, give him a long block or a long topic ban for this so other people can start working. What is Atmoz trying to achieve? Getting people angry so they make "mistakes" and are then blocked/topic banned? Nsaa ( talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I tried not to rewrite them too much, but hopefully you find this helpful. Cheers. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 02:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Nsaa!! Here you reverted an edit that justified itself by referencing the talkpage. You said you didn't see it as in line with the section titled "Outcome" I believe what was meant was the similarly titled "Outcome again". Would you mind checking in on that latter section? If you still stand by your revert you have my blessing, if not, self-revert?-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 18:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
HI, just a note you commented on: User talk:137.219.252.3; just wanted to let you know that this is a university IP (JCU, Townsville, QLD, AUS) Everyone on the university outsources through it so for example; I saw a "message for me; from you" even though I personally never did anything to wiki. Thought you might want to know so you don't keep posting to that IP.
Template:Cite web3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hei Officer :) I mean this Schulz guy repeated the smear, doubnting I would be able to convey irony or sarkasm in a second language. I gave him a sort of example in my reply and insofar I dont see the need to bring him to court. I strongly believe he will try it the other way round. Polentario ( talk) 22:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Youre welcome. I translated no:Terje Rollem from Norwegian into German and expanded the articel, it has been mentioned on the main page as well, but I wouldnt go in the other direction. The Climatist Gang in the German WP tried an AfD against de:Gore-Effekt as well but its been accepted. So Signore Schulz has to provide more than hot air to get further. Lets see. Ha de bra ! Polentario ( talk) 23:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Per [41] at least some if not all of sources 8, 9, 10, and 11 use "Al Gore effect". Active Banana ( talk) 21:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted them all. We're discussing the lead on the talk page and you're changing it radically. Your other radical changes will need consensus. You don't have it. Try to get it first. Then change the article in those radical ways if you get consensus. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
In the absence of the filing party, or others, I would advise you that you have been named as a party at WP:CC probation/Requests for enforcement#marknutley & Nsaa. You may respond in the appropriate section, if desired. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 15:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Ratel ( talk · contribs) is currently indefinitely blocked for abusive sockpuppetry. You are of course free to present whatever diffs you like at your evidence section in the climate change arbitration, but I thought I might save you the time of gathering evidence with an eye to proposing remedies involving Ratel. Diffs involving Ratel might, of course, still be useful for highlighting the behaviour of others or the editing environment in general. Good luck, - 2/0 ( cont.) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The article Clive Crook has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JamesBWatson (
talk) 13:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up an anonymous user is insisting on putting the copyrighted AP story into the Erica Blasberg article. Since you removed it earlier today as well, I thought I'd give you the heads up. (Yeah, I'm an anonymous user as well, but some of us do realize what copyright is!) 68.146.81.123 ( talk) 21:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eamondevalera2 ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nsaa, I see we've both warned Knarum ( talk · contribs) with no response but continued actions at this article (well, mine may have been successful - no new personal attacks AFAIK). What do you think - time to bring it to AN/I? You and I had an ec just now btw, but since you only had removed his last edit didn't self-revert. Best, Finn Rindahl ( talk) 21:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Please don't undo a previously agreed merge without discussion. I've restored the merge; if you disagree, the talk page reemains open William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This edit summary is completely unacceptable, as is the use of rollback in your prior edit. You should not be soliciting others to help you out in an edit war with your ideological opponent in any circumstance. If you want his edit reverted, make your case on the talk page and establish consensus; do not further battleground behavior. NW ( Talk) 23:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Template:Reference help has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 12:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
These two edits, the welcoming of a disruptive, SPA sock puppet [54] and the editing of AQFK's subpage [55] show a lack of attentiveness on your part regarding the problem at hand. Viriditas ( talk) 22:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you're aware that in discussions at Wikipedia, it's generally considered pretty heavy-handed to comment on every comment made in opposition to your opinion. In light of the fact that the entire area of climate change is under the aegis of arbcom restrictions, can I ask that you ease up a bit in the move discussion? I'm willing to continue discussing the substantive issues here with you, if you'd like, but I think what you're doing over there is creating a hostile environment that's likely to scare away badly-needed fresh eyes.
jps ( talk) 02:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia
user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nsaa/User_talk_2010. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello Nsaa! Thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an
Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add
reliable,
secondary
sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 901 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{
unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 07:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You probably could have titled your new section (About "trick to hide the decline" – Disruptive behavior by removing well sourced comments?) better. Remember to assume good faith. Prodego talk 02:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Do NOT revert again. I just fixed all that stuff. ONLY repair what is broken. -- Scjessey ( talk) 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have nominated Glaciergate ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Scjessey ( talk) 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Amazongate ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Scjessey ( talk) 15:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Pachaurigate ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Scjessey ( talk) 15:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
You're welomce to raise an issue with me on my talk page. Once.
Once I've said "drop this dead donkey" that should be a hint that you don't need to say exactly the same thing yet again William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You are misusing your talk page by removing - no. I reject your assertion. If you think otherwise, and care to pursue it, find yourself an admin. Don't bother me about your incorrect interpretations of policy any more William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I redacted part of your comment here. Please remember to comment on the content, not the contributor. - 2/0 ( cont.) 16:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect E-mail-theft-gate. Since you had some involvement with the E-mail-theft-gate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 147.70.242.54 ( talk) 03:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I have granted autoreviewer rights on your account, as you have created numerous valid articles. This will have little or no effect on your editing, and is intended mainly to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information see Wikipedia:Autoreviewer, and feel free to ask if you have any questions. FASTILY (TALK) 00:14, 4 February 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. --
TS 13:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
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 the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Hipocrite (
talk) 13:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. -- GoRight ( talk) 15:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Please
do not attack other editors, as you did here:
Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident. If you continue, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
[6]
ScienceApologist (
talk) 17:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The discussions at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement are not meant to be general fora for discussion of other issues. Narrowly targeted productive comment at any thread is welcome, but please confine your comments to the substance of the request and closely related issues. For instance, if a request is made detailing edit warring by one party, it could be appropriate to provide context in the form of links to talkpage discussion or diffs of other parties engaged in the same edit war. It would not be appropriate, however, to bring unrelated issues to an already open request, discuss content issues, or engage in incivility or personal attacks. If someone else makes that you feel merits a reply but your reply would not itself be closely related to the original request, please raise make your reply at usertalk, open a new enforcement request, or start a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Thank you for your cooperation. A few diffs of posts that venture partially or wholly off topic, or would be better suited to other venues: [7], [8]. - 2/0 ( cont.) 03:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Arguing the quality of various sources is good, but some of this crosses over into debate over the topic itself rather than our encyclopedic coverage of it. - 2/0 ( cont.) 01:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't refer to me as a "vandal" just because I removed your tendentious restoration of anti-Wikipedia opinion from an article talk page. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed where I informed you that if you edit-warred the bad press-multi reference back on that talk page, I'd seek to have you barred from all reversions on all talk pages. I thought I'd put it here so you know that it appears that your nearly-sole contribution to that talk page is a repeated attempt to put back a defamatory blog piece. Don't do so again, or I will seek to have you barred from repeating this same action, over and over and over. Hipocrite ( talk) 09:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
In this tag, you ignore the fact that the immediately following sentence has a reference, and that that reference supports both sentences. I suggest you read the references to nearby sentences before spewing fact tags - it would save me time and you embarassment. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
In this edit, you left out a closing quote which is making it hard to understand your point. If you could fix this it would help. Thanks. JPatterson ( talk) 15:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that you will find this YouTube video highly enjoyable. Grundle2600 ( talk) 17:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Chaps, this is addressed to Nsaa and UnitAnode on your talk pages.
The issues are this edit and its follow-up. Please, it is unacceptable on any Wikipedia article talk page to address the editor, and particularly to attribute malicious motives to your fellow volunteers. You both know this, you're not newcomers.
I will give you the advice I give to everybody who departs from civil discussion into such personal attacks: go to dispute resolution. It is not optional. You must seek to resolve the problems by the appropriate methods. -- TS 03:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors as you have done
here. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Short Brigade Harvester Boris (
talk) 23:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no interest in the WMC article.
As to my talk page: please don't interrupt conversations there. In fact, please read the notice at the top, and restrict yourself to only necessary posts there. If you have anything you feel you wish to discuss, you may leave me a neutral note on my page and invite me here William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
your comment at william connolley's page was extremely insightful. since he removed that comment, and is removing all comments which he finds inconvenient, i thought i would repost your comment here at your page. It contains much useful data, so I didn't want it to get overlooked. please feel free to be in touch. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 18:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Your comment:
I've removed several instances of soap-boxing and personal attacks from the above talk page. Please remember that the template and associated articles are under probation so a higher standard of conduct is expected. -- TS 20:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Template:Global warming controversy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Scjessey (
talk) 13:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a larger article on the overall climategate issue in incubation. This is an invitation for you to contribute. TMLutas ( talk) 17:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's acceptable to call an editor arrogant. I would remove/refactor that comment. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 14:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Template:Byline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Meisterkoch (
talk) 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I am contacting you because you are listed as a participant for WikiProject Norway, and the above-mentioned article is sourced by all Norwegian-language references. Moreover, the references do not appear to support notability; they might be mere trivial references to the subject. Since these sources are all offline, and I do not speak or read Norwegian, I'm hoping whether you can assist me in determining whether the article qualifies for speedy deletion. Many thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nsaa!
You did not complete the AfD nomination for
Baby shower (or Twinkle failed to do so). Would you like to complete the nomination? Honestly, though, I see no other possible outcome than (Speedy) Keep from the resulting debate :) Regards,
decltype
(
talk) 11:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
[37] I believe this article is under a 1r restriction, you seem to have done two today, would you please self revert your last edit, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 18:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
W.r.t. your placing Dave souza's initial presentation into a div box with visible references-- nice work. Until you demonstrated it there, I hadn't known that we had the capability to format a second, third, etc., "ref group" and reflist. ... Kenosis ( talk) 14:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
MLauba ( Talk) 11:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I must admit, you really confused me by reassigning Ticket:2010040910011249 to me; I assumed it was related to a ticket I had already handled. Maybe a bit more than FYI next time? :D We process typically a dozen or more articles a day through CP, so I'm afraid that I don't watchlist them or really remember their details.
Given that action and your note at Talk:Daniel Gajski, I just wanted to let you know that if a ticket comes in for an article that has already gone through WP:CP (or G12, for that matter) and the content has been removed, you should restore it in accordance with the FAQ and put the proper OTRS template on the article's talk page {{ ConfirmationOTRS}} is the best for text). I'll do it this time, but it's a pretty straightforward procedure. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering - have you ever substantially edited a page related to climate change, or do you merely revert other editors as part of various edit wars? If you have, could you point out one content edit you've made? Just checking something. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hei Nsaa, passing by Short Brigade Harvester Boris's talk page I noticed the discussion concerning two edits that you feel were objectionable. To attempt to explain further, 'Have you stopped beating your wife' is given as an example of an objectionable question, in that whatever the answer, it involves admitting to the beating - the phrase is used when someone feels that they have been given a loaded question to answer, it is certainly not an insult, more a request to rephrase the question. As to 'assume', the full phrase is "Don't assume as it makes an ass out of you (u) and me", which is rather lame, but certainly not an insult either. Both cases rely on the reader understanding the meaning, as to call someone a wifebeater or an ass would be insulting. Having spent a total of 7 years working in Norway over the years, I've had to explain a lot of unusual English idiom that I had used without considering my audience (generally including speakers of several other language as well as Norwegian), so I can understand any confusion that may have arisen. I hope that this helps. Mvh, Mikenorton ( talk) 21:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
[38] Guettarda ( talk) 23:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
[39] if you'd like to comment. Cla68 ( talk) 23:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an English teacher (my older brother is) and so I probably can't articulate why some of your grammer is incorrect but I can correct it for you. So, to help you in this function, I'll present a post of yours I just read and then attempt to fix it.
This is so bad. I have no word for it. Why the heck should my language be subject to Atmoz comments at all? Why not just keep the discussion about what was discussed? I find it totally counterproductive and it harms Wikipedia. So yes give him a long block or a long topic ban for this so other people can start working. What do Atmoz try to achieve? Getting people angry so they make "mistakes" and can get them blocked/topic banned? Nsaa ( talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Corrected (hopefully!):
This is so bad. I have no words for it. Why the heck should my language be subject to Atmoz's comments at all? Why not just keep the discussion on topic? I find it to be totally counterproductive and it harms Wikipedia. So yes, give him a long block or a long topic ban for this so other people can start working. What is Atmoz trying to achieve? Getting people angry so they make "mistakes" and are then blocked/topic banned? Nsaa ( talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I tried not to rewrite them too much, but hopefully you find this helpful. Cheers. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 02:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Nsaa!! Here you reverted an edit that justified itself by referencing the talkpage. You said you didn't see it as in line with the section titled "Outcome" I believe what was meant was the similarly titled "Outcome again". Would you mind checking in on that latter section? If you still stand by your revert you have my blessing, if not, self-revert?-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 18:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
HI, just a note you commented on: User talk:137.219.252.3; just wanted to let you know that this is a university IP (JCU, Townsville, QLD, AUS) Everyone on the university outsources through it so for example; I saw a "message for me; from you" even though I personally never did anything to wiki. Thought you might want to know so you don't keep posting to that IP.
Template:Cite web3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hei Officer :) I mean this Schulz guy repeated the smear, doubnting I would be able to convey irony or sarkasm in a second language. I gave him a sort of example in my reply and insofar I dont see the need to bring him to court. I strongly believe he will try it the other way round. Polentario ( talk) 22:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Youre welcome. I translated no:Terje Rollem from Norwegian into German and expanded the articel, it has been mentioned on the main page as well, but I wouldnt go in the other direction. The Climatist Gang in the German WP tried an AfD against de:Gore-Effekt as well but its been accepted. So Signore Schulz has to provide more than hot air to get further. Lets see. Ha de bra ! Polentario ( talk) 23:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Per [41] at least some if not all of sources 8, 9, 10, and 11 use "Al Gore effect". Active Banana ( talk) 21:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted them all. We're discussing the lead on the talk page and you're changing it radically. Your other radical changes will need consensus. You don't have it. Try to get it first. Then change the article in those radical ways if you get consensus. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
In the absence of the filing party, or others, I would advise you that you have been named as a party at WP:CC probation/Requests for enforcement#marknutley & Nsaa. You may respond in the appropriate section, if desired. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 15:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Ratel ( talk · contribs) is currently indefinitely blocked for abusive sockpuppetry. You are of course free to present whatever diffs you like at your evidence section in the climate change arbitration, but I thought I might save you the time of gathering evidence with an eye to proposing remedies involving Ratel. Diffs involving Ratel might, of course, still be useful for highlighting the behaviour of others or the editing environment in general. Good luck, - 2/0 ( cont.) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The article Clive Crook has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JamesBWatson (
talk) 13:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up an anonymous user is insisting on putting the copyrighted AP story into the Erica Blasberg article. Since you removed it earlier today as well, I thought I'd give you the heads up. (Yeah, I'm an anonymous user as well, but some of us do realize what copyright is!) 68.146.81.123 ( talk) 21:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eamondevalera2 ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nsaa, I see we've both warned Knarum ( talk · contribs) with no response but continued actions at this article (well, mine may have been successful - no new personal attacks AFAIK). What do you think - time to bring it to AN/I? You and I had an ec just now btw, but since you only had removed his last edit didn't self-revert. Best, Finn Rindahl ( talk) 21:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Please don't undo a previously agreed merge without discussion. I've restored the merge; if you disagree, the talk page reemains open William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This edit summary is completely unacceptable, as is the use of rollback in your prior edit. You should not be soliciting others to help you out in an edit war with your ideological opponent in any circumstance. If you want his edit reverted, make your case on the talk page and establish consensus; do not further battleground behavior. NW ( Talk) 23:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Template:Reference help has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 12:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
These two edits, the welcoming of a disruptive, SPA sock puppet [54] and the editing of AQFK's subpage [55] show a lack of attentiveness on your part regarding the problem at hand. Viriditas ( talk) 22:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you're aware that in discussions at Wikipedia, it's generally considered pretty heavy-handed to comment on every comment made in opposition to your opinion. In light of the fact that the entire area of climate change is under the aegis of arbcom restrictions, can I ask that you ease up a bit in the move discussion? I'm willing to continue discussing the substantive issues here with you, if you'd like, but I think what you're doing over there is creating a hostile environment that's likely to scare away badly-needed fresh eyes.
jps ( talk) 02:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)