Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This is all very predictable. Note that the admin who denied the unblock request cited 3 diffs -- 2 of which are exactly the same diff is a redirect of an improper merge. If a redirect is a violation of BLP then the editor who I was redirecting is also an egregious BLP violator.

The actions that have been taken since the article went to mainspace is why the article was written in the first place and why the subject is notable and sourced in secondary sources.

Now an SPI? LOL.

Oligarchy is right. (actually an old post but forgot to sign way back when -- wondered why this post never got archived) Minor4th 17:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to leave this unsigned? Perhaps to save it from the depredations of the archive bot? ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know it wasn't signed and kept wondering why that one post never got archived. Signed now. Minor4th 17:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For being brave enough to change your mind in the midst of the most acrimonious editing environment I've encountered in two years at Watts Up With That?, I award you this barnstar. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Minor4th 02:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved. We need more good examples like yours. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Because you got a (well deserved) barnstar from SA. You must be doing something right, so keep doing what you're doing! ++Lar: t/c 03:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks. Ok, now where are the cookies?  :) Minor4th 04:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to review someone's edits, or at least take a look at their talk page, before you start issuing threats. — kwami (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami, why do keep calling the article a POV fork? If you're going to be taking administrative action related to it, you probably should try to be a neutral party. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a threat, and it wasn't incivil. It was a stern explanation of my intent if the action was not corrected, and it was warranted under the circumstances. When I clicked the new section tab, there was no discussion on your talk page about this. Feel free to delete it if it bothers you, so long as the message was delivered and read. Thanks. Minor4th 07:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was incivil. You took a combatitive approach that, in the end, was not needed. All that was needed was some good faith discussion. You could have started with the good faith discussion, but instead you started with the threats if you didn;t get your own way. Which of course had already happened by the time you posted to Kwamis talkpage. So not only do you look like a big meanie but also a bit silly for jumping in after the matter had been civilly solved with your incivil warnings. You should try and calm down a little before posting, in general, because this kind of approach generally leads to incivility from your "opponent" also (and well done Kwami for not responding in kind). Weakopedia (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but thanks for your input.  ;) Minor4th 08:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should be hatting discussions that heavily you are involved with. That is what clerks are for. Lets let them decide where the hat goes.--*Kat* (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've raised this with the clerk, and also M4th re-instroduction of PA's into the header William M. Connolley (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of you should be adding and manipulating headers in the middle of a discussion. That's what clerks are for. Let's let them decide where to add headers. William, arent you under a refactoring restriction? Oh what the hell difference does it make now, right? Minor4th 12:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kat's right. I should have removed the word 'malicious', and you should not have hatted it. Stop this now please. On behalf of the Arbitration Committe, Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal. But not surprising Minor4th 13:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about the headers, but I was only trying to make the section easier to navigate. I wasn't trying to hide any of the conversation.--*Kat* (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I accept that explanation. Minor4th 13:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what clerks are for - yes, that is why I contacted one. Now, are you prepared to issue any apologies for you PAs? Or should I interpret Unreal. But not surprising as you still asserting that the redirect was indeed malicious? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take the bait, Minor4th. Cla68 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What bait?  ;) Minor4th 14:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, have you popped up again. I'm sure M4th is capable of answering without your hand-holding William M. Connolley (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone needs a hand to hold on to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I was wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if you still edit climate change articles. Anyway, for you and any skeptics lurking here is an article that could really use some skeptic if not denialist bashing, see Climate change in Maldives. It seems that what is is in fact political advocacy is stated as fact. If any skeptic here wants earn the community's admiration and show his skills in producing NPOV text this would be a good place to start. Not too much traffic with that $3 "climate tax" pending. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Or maybe you would just want to rename it to Maldivian advocacy for climate change alarmism or something. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Maldives...is in desperate need for help and solutions. Luckily, the President of the country has stepped up to the plate in the last couple years and really devoted his career to save the Maldives." Jesus Christ, who writes such a thing? Might be easier to rewrite the article from scratch. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were a really good copy editor, you would remove nothing. You just attribute it and call it what it is, political advocacy. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formally, I think, I ought to inform you of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed_decision#Proposed_FoF: Minor4th has_been_disruptive William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]