User talk:ZuluPapa5

Within a Bayesian psychometric analysis, I am 110% certain that humankind is solely responsible for climate change; because, if not by material activity, then by conscious opinion manifesting as science.

— ZP5

Forgive me, Nihilism by its lonely sad self aggrandizement, causes illness to exist in me. For real, it exists that way. Happily, there is a cure.

— ZP5

"Human beings are selfish, small minded, violence-prone savages; civilization is a blight on the earth; the rising tide of chaos that surrounds us on all sides ensures that everything's going to fall apart any day now. Right? ..... Wrong, says Rob Brezsny. In fact evil is boring. Cynicism is stupid. Despair is lazy. The truth is that the universe is inherently our friend. Life is a sublime game create for our amusement and illumination, and it always gives us exactly what we need, exactly when we need it."

" ... in modern mechanized warfare there is no warrior, no chance to be a warrior (with dignity), just little human boys in different uniforms ... so what Bly went on to say is that most men in this country cannot grieve, cannot experience grief! Good Grief Charlie Brown! ... Now the crux of the matter as Bly sees it and as my father saw it and Spiritual God-Father Mr A. Green, the full blooded Cherokee tattoo artist who lived in the apt next door for my first 13 yrs ... The heart of the matter has to do with the "warrior" in themselves. This "warrior" is not the one who goes to war. No this "warrior" is the one who goes through life with a quite goal and sees it through "Come hell or high water" to use an apt a phrase."

— Father to ZP5, 8/23/1990

"Within the body of a True Believer or a Skeptic you will find a heart that may unite them. "

— Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My editing occasionally suffers from transpositions transportation and typos. I apologize if I have confused you. Please let me know if you suspect this to be an issue.

— ZuluPapa5

Welcome!

Hello, ZuluPapa5! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Characterizing Uncertainty in Climate Assessment

Just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia cannot include copyrighted material. If you want to write a proper article you can do so, but verbatim copying isn't appropriate (or legal). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:copyvio and WP:NPA. Vsmith (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, it was fair use, changed some and on the way to being better.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Boris, I've heard your call to create other lists and public opinion articles. I don't believe any wiki article should be based on solely on a categorical opinion. My interests are in creating a Characterizing Uncertainty article, focused on the most significant scientific event in human history. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring and removal

Re [1]. Please learn to distinguish refactoring (which is somewhere between frowned upon and forbidden, for talk page comments) and removal (which is permitted) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Your point taken, thanks. My point was about fairness and [WP:CIVIL]. Got to break now. Be well. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Scientific opinion on climate change. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

You get the warning because i can't see such a notification on your talk, and because you are at 3RR on sci op cc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cooling off ... from my attempts to defend a NPOV. If the POV-tag is being early reverted before talk, that is a valid indication the article has POV issues. Regards, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, actually its an indication that you haven't been able to convince people that your viewpoint is correct. Tags are there to be used when you have actually identified issues on talk (which you still haven't imho), they are not to be used as leverage to getting your will. (as it appears as if you do). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it indicated a fierce defense to a POV. Unless you are in denial, the whole talk page is filed with a POV dispute. Get real. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. tedder (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin Tedder corrupted the NPOV resolution process. The tag belongs in a state of on during a NPOV dispute. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm bemused about this whole "corruption" business. Here's the thing- either take it to WP:ANI or leave it alone. If you'd like to take it to ANI, and will not edit war with the {{npov}} tag on Scientific opinion on climate change‎, I'd be happy to unblock you personally. If, however, you intend on edit warring about the NPOV tag and disruptively screaming "corruption" on various inappropriate talk pages, the block should stand. tedder (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder ... ANI need not be bothered now by a valid POV dispute which you are in denial of. The suggested resolution paths is to leave the POV-tag on, declare your WP:COI. I pray you seriously reconsider your actions. Good faith to NPOV will be looked upon favorably. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Zulu Papa. Just to clarify on the three-revert rule - it's beside the point as to whether the tag is justified or not. The point of the three-revert rule is to prevent edit-warring. If you believe that the tag belongs, and other editors disagree with you, the place to solve the problem is on the article's talk page. The three-revert rule exists to prevent edit-warring, it exists to force people to seek alternate means of dispute resolution. Blocks are appropriate if people continue to edit war. If you believe this block is improper, you need to address the issue of edit warring. Guettarda (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ZuluPapa5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This 3RR block for my POV Tag addition is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. It is the result of corruption in the NPOV resolution process with regards to Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change. I hold that a valid POV-dispute exists with many editors. There is suspected evidence tampering (i.e. talk page changes) of my edits and misrepresentations that unfairly harming me. Civil WP:COI declarations are begin gathered at this stage in the resolution, which are being prevented by this block. I first placed the tag it should be on during the dispute and I was misrepresented by the blocking admin. Blocking me is disrupting a fair NPOV resolution process in this article. I pray for its fair removal (or significant reduction) with guidance appreciated from experienced NPOV defending admins.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring, not for POV issues. Your unblock request seems to indicate you would edit war once again if the block was lifted. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2009 (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.

I am at peace, although the article is dispute, the justice is in denial. Thanks for your comments Beeblebrox. Time off is doing me very well in exile. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The corrupt edit war, diff of users who changed POV tag with no talk, after Talk Page Warning [2], by admin who said not to change at all while when POV tag was off:

1. GoRight Added on - [3] Disruption block by admin, appeal granted
2. WMC Removed off - [4] no penalty for removing
3. ZP5 Added on - [5] 3RR block by admin
4. Tedder Removed off - [6] free and clear admin, no penalty for removing

Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• The GoRight POV tag on lived for 2:58
• The WMC POV Tag Removal lived for 1:58
• The ZP5 restore lived for 0:02

This trend was run in the article change model. The Article NPOV Commission preliminary predictions and external to article consensus is the article is "very likely" heading for a NPOV change. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, you never deserved this ingratitude [7] this after the ed walked away from here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My Conflict of Interest statement for Scientific opinion on climate change declared

1. No interests with any subjects or sources in the article.
2. Never maintained a POV except that of NPOV for the article.
3. No denials of any relevant, notable and reliable sources for the article.
4. No claim to ownership for any of the article content.
5. No relationships with any of the other editors, except in wiki.
6. No claim to eternal or nihilistic and absurd arguments.
7. United States citizen and in spiritual solidarity.
8. As of December 2, 2009 only POV claimed is the questionable existence of hat notes that have no source support and the necessity of a controversies section to balance the article.

With whom are you in spiritual solidarity? I've never encountered the term before. --TS 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tony, aren't you a foreigner? That's a clear COI for any climate-related article. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well ... no Mr name changer it is not. I had something nicer to say until the obvious disruption on my interpretation. (which will be removed, unless the ed would like to correct themselves.) It is my faith, I really appreciate you asking, I can not explain it here. The best I can offer you now is [8] Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. After five years at Wikipedia I still run across surprises. --TS 05:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Faith, actually TS I am extremely glad you brought this up. Because I am very amused by folks that place faith in objects that have no true bearing in reality. I always ask myself, why do these object of the mind have such great power over people? They only can be objectified in the mind, for there is no valid subjective and measurable proof of their existence, except by what power but that of faith. The next question becomes what is the attributed and reliable sources of the individual's or organization faith? What intentional purpose does the faith serve? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My opinion Humanity will have greater benefit from civility, over any rash attempt to control human consumption of the world resources. Good faith in humanity is what must persevere in any vision of apocalyptic climate scenarios. Climate change participants will live to the end of natural lives before the world ends. There is no fairness to the good faith in the future with hasty conclusion. I declare myself a "Climate Change Humanist".Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Human consumption is as likely as scientific opinion to be a cause for concern, because both are human activities. Human consumption can be measured, while scientific opinion changes. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A Question for You

I had posted this on my talk page while I was blocked but I didn't realize that you were also blocked. I am moving this here so you can respond:

Re: [9].

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "corruption" in this statement and edit summary? I think you may be using it to mean one thing and others are taking it to mean another. This may be a simple misunderstanding based on the meaning you intend for the word. --GoRight (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let me make this most relevant to Wikipedia and minimize redundancy for high fidelity.

Corruption

1. impairment integrity of, virtue, or moral principle (i.e. violating WP:FIVE)
2. inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (i.e. WP:COI or worst)
3. a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct (i.e. WP:CIVIL feigned incomprehension and misinterpretations of semantics in commutation, re-factoring)
4. an organizational agency or influence that has unrealistic unanimous consent (i.e. WP:NPOV denial)

Corrupt

1. editing as if to degrade with unsound principles or moral values WP:NPOV
2. editing as if to subject (a user) to corruption or abuse WP:CABAL,WP:NPA
3. editing as if to alter from the original or correct form or version [[re-factoring, WP:IDHT]]
4. editing as if to become tainted or rotten to other user WP:CIVIL
5. editing as if to become morally debased to WP:FIVE
6. editing as if to cause disintegration or ruin to articles WP:VANDAL WP:FORK

Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, in reading through these is it fair to summarize your use of the words "corrupt" and "corruption" as meaning that you don't feel that the principles and ideals of the encyclopedia (as described in the policies that you reference) are being adhered to by some of the other editors? --GoRight (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick follow-up question, could you please elaborate on how it is you feel that Tedder has misrepresented you? Can you please point to a statement where he misrepresented you and why you feel it is a misrepresentation? Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll pile on- I've changed my reference to you; is that what you were offended by? If so, I'm sorry. If not, please explain in simple words, I'm obviously not getting it. tedder (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Apology acepted, thanks. I apologize for having to correct you. One thing, I suffered a 3RR block to my reputation however, I am finding the vacation agreeable. Can you help me here? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It started on the talk page [10] when the admin, took my words out of context put my name next to his statements and made them out as if my intention was to have the tag off. My intention was to have the tag on, that's why I placed it On after considerable talk. When you (GoRight) shared that intention, then an objective dispute was underway. After that, the admin unjustly enforced his own policy with regard to the tag (as pointed out above and ... he had a Tag Off bias, while his previous Talk indicated he was just going to monitor things.) The Admin should not have touched the tag to keep his word. After that, there are the clear regard to wiki policy and the tag itself as you have adequately pointed out, which strongly support leaving it on for reasonable disputes. Frankly, while I may have crossed the 3RR bright line, the justice was off, which is a larger offense to me. Ever greater to wiki. What is ironic, is that eds are calling for content and source checks, while at the same time there is denial of a dispute, as stated all over the Talk Page. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lessons learned about talk disruptor(s)

A NPOV taught by experienced talk disruptor(s)

1. Editors may claim you have no productive point and demand a point.
2. Editors may make unduly bold talk page assertions.
3. Editors may remove your talk (with or without notice) or obvious record.
4. Editors may misinterpret or transform your statements.
5. Editors may change the subject with no objective reason.
6. Editors may rudely interrupt a thread.
7. Editors may claim their disruption is justified by your obsession.
8. Editors may "whinge" to have you banned rather talk to you or correct themselves.
9. Editors may make typos or transpositions which confuse other editors
10. Editors may make mistakes of which the were not made properly aware. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning

It seems fairly clear to me that you have no productinve contribution at all to make at SOoCC. I'd have hoped that your recent block might have taught you a lesson; it would seem not. Please be aware of [11] William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Which lesson should I be taught? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(This space reserved and assumes good faith for William M. Connolley to answer.)

Peacefully moving on with Bold, Revert, Discuss (WP:BRD) time cycle measurements.

1. The Bold lived 0:04 on Cycle 1, Bold[12], Revert[13], Discuss occurred over 121 hours with ~232 talk page edits [14]
2. The Bold lived 0:01 on Cycle 2, Bold[15], Revert[16], Discuss occurred over 192 hours with ~620 talk page edits [17]
3. The Bold lived 0:18 on Cycle 3, Bold [18], Revert [19], Discuss [20] occurred over 336 hrs with 1024 talk page edits
4. The Bold lived 10:24 on Cycle 4, Bold [21], Revert [22], Discuss [23]
5. The Bold lived 0:07 on Cycle 5, Bold [24], Revert [25] Discuss [26]
6. The Bold lived 0:23 on Cycle 6, Bold [27], Revert [28] Discuss [29]
7. The Bold lived 0:25 on Cycle 7, Bold [30], Revert [31], Discuss [32]

# Changes occurring between protections. [33] (Note: Should I be satisfied with this?)

Note, must still allow greater time for talk when bolds live longer [34].

• This talk lived 0:21, Bold [35], Revert [36], Discuss

Some polite advice

Extended content

I have noticed you sometimes address other editors as "Mr X Y". In many circles both this form of address and the title "Mr" is considered rude and antagonistic. Doing it to people using their real names who are clearly entitled (or claim to be entitled, if you must) to be addressed as "Dr" (probably more than 50% of WP editors on Global Warming for example) is not courteous and violates WP:CIVIL. It is much better and more civil to stick to an untitled name. --BozMo talk 17:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Mr. are Dr. too. Point taken. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Corrected it. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello ZuluPapa5

Hi ZuluPapa5, welcome to Wikipedia. It seems you've met some of the Global Warming editors already. I'm a GW editor as well, and yes, I am using my real name, and no, I don't have a Ph.D. I live in Sydney, Australia; I have an honours degree in history and philosophy of science, and I am somewhat skeptical of the IPCC & other government positions on climate change. My primary interest is the defence of living scientists who are often professionally smeared by Wikipedia (and, yes, generally by these same editors who have or claim to have Ph.Ds). I'd be happy to chat with you privately in order to help you understand some of the mysterious rules of Wikipedia that can help you contribute positively, and help bring change to the culture of Wikipedia (something which is badly, badly needed). Go to my talk page if you'd like help or send me an email, alexharv074 at gmail dot com if you'd prefer just to vent. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you. I've been doing well reviewing policy, edit histories and drafting requested content for an article. I appreciate the offer for help. Let me review your page. It is most likely not appropriate for us work outside of wiki. The wp:blp issues concern me too. I am often puzzled how anyone could deny that the climate is changing as time does, to me it seems as if being skeptical of this is flat denial. Any yet, folks will also deny a neutral point of view. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies; I see you're actually a reasonably experienced editor, and it looks like you've done some very good work here. So, on wiki then, what is it exactly that you're disputing about with WMC et al? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair, to start see Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and [37]. I will help on BLP when I can. FYI, I have extensive arbitration and scientific experiences outside of wiki. BLP is vital to wiki humanity. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It is literally 4.35am in Sydney, and I have been dragged into an evening of very addictive Wikipedia activities! I'll be brief, Although I agree with you in principle in [38], I think that it is inevitable, and probably necessary, that editors who have a POV continue to edit on the articles related to their POV. Otherwise, I don't believe there would be incentive for anyone ever to contribute to Wikipedia at all. I think, everyone has a POV on any topic about which they are knowledgeable. By strict adherence to policies of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, and so on, however, I believe that the POV of individual editors can be moderated, and the articles can, and sometimes do, obtain good balance. What is far more problematic is when editors start censoring according to their POV, and this inevitably leads to conflict. I feel you have raised some very valid points above, which is why I stepped in to offer assistance. On the other hand, I believe we need to accept that things are not perfect here, and accept that the needed changes in culture can only be made gradually. At the moment, for instance, it seems that 3RR is a rule we just have to obey, and I strongly recommend adhering to it. I'll try to review Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change in more detail tomorrow. Alex Harvey (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your advice. Rest up well. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi ZP5, I've had a look at the dispute. I think WP:NOT#NEWS is a good policy, and that we could avoid all this arguing just by waiting for a while to see if the Scientific Opinion on Climate Change really does change as a result of CRUgate. My feeling is that it probably will change in the short to medium term, but the change will be subtle. Mike Hulme has suggested that the IPCC has run its course, and I won't be surprised if he's right. Roy Spencer, the skeptic, has already admitted that he doesn't think the instrumental temperature record is likely to change much. Lindzen's WSJ response suggests that he doesn't either. Pielke Sr of course has a marginal view that there is a warm bias in the instrumental record, and his group seems to be more optimistic than the others that it could change.

On another note, Awickert is a good editor, from my brief interactions with him. It looks like you totally lost your cool during the SOoCC discussions, which is something I've totally done a number of times.

From your contribs, it looks like you may be a practising Buddhist -- is that right? Or just interested in Buddhist history? If so, it is curious to see a Buddhist appear here suddenly amongst GW skeptics. Do other Buddhists find the AGW theory implausible? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Disappointed it seems like I lost my cool, it could have been handled better. My purpose was served.

Here are my views on Buddhism, I hold no formal qualifications to teach Buddhism.

Buddhism was founded on empirical cause and effect observations for civil purposes to end suffering. (i.e. Karma where Dharma is the principle law). It generally avoids materialism (except for the Buddha's purposes), and extensively focuses on object of the mind.

All phenomena must be empty (i.e. scientific fact is pure NPOV).

Buddhist methods largely predate scientific methods, and have many similar qualities. Buddhism is literally a technology method.

I am a Dharma Protector, my Buddhist refuge name Tenzin Tashi means "Auspicious Dharma Protector". I seek refuge in the Buddha the Dharma and the Sanga (community) as governed by a reincarnated Lama (teacher).

The Buddha was skeptical of eternal-ism and nihilism, as they have no bearing on ending suffering.

My faith focuses on Tibetan_Buddhism#Skepticism_and_Devotion_to_the_Guru and Philosophical_skepticism#Ancient_Eastern_Skepticism. This form of skepticism has differences from traditional western interpretations. (mind vs. material) The wiki articles is a grain of sand in the ocean of knowledge amassed by the Tibetans on the topics on mind objects.

When Buddhism is not practiced correctly, it can lead to authoritarianism, like any other governing process (i.e. IPCC) IMO, the key is to be focused on what is best for humanity. Where Buddhism could be better is a reasonably appreciation of materialism to have a NPOV. (Neglecting materialism is a downside of preset day Buddhism. This could be because materialism leads to war.)

I should focus on another article, and return with a peaceful process. Because the scientific opinion on climate change is a changing mind object and not material fact. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No permission and other "deletable image" tags

Extended content

FYI, since I noticed you tagged a few signatures for no permission... the "deletable image" tags go directly on the file description page, not the file talk page. It is actually pretty rare that tags go directly on the file talk page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks, I looked but could not find how to get to that page. Might have missed the obvious. Should have noted my insert. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Articles for deletion nomination of Climate Assessment Uncertainty Characterizations I have nominated Climate Assessment Uncertainty Characterizations, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Assessment Uncertainty Characterizations. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Polargeo (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Why did you not talk on the talk page first before you tagged [39] and nominated. I suspect your nomination is rash and premature. Do you have a prejudice with this subject? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC) ZP5, asking about conflicts of interests or bias can be misinterpreted as an assumption of bad faith. It's best to just accept some things around here for the moment! (My own view is that everyone has a bias, one way or the other). Alex Harvey (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Polargeo good faith is restored (redacted my question). Alex Harvey, thanks and you are welcome to correct me any time. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Warnings

You left this on my talk page:

This is you second warning for disruptive talk. Your removal of talk [40] and not engaging in talk is being consider disruptive. Please do not make personal attacks on me by calling my comments "silly" in edit summaries. If you are noble, I ask you to please restrain yourself form from the article for 1 week. Other's comments are being addressed on the article talk page. I have no intention to threaten you, your recent actions may be consider disruptive, please reconsider them seriously and make amends where able. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

I don't want any more warnings from you. You are disruptive; you don't really know what you're doing; your warnings are pointless. I will ignore future requests from you to stay clear of articles; please don't trouble yourself with making them. And please don't make silly comments William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

May your ignorance be bliss. However, would you agree I must now take up this issue with others? I will decide what I am doing, not you my friend. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You do decide but, well, when you have been asked to stop posting on someone's talk page you need to decide to agree to it. I don't think you will get a whole load of sympathy beyond the obvious half dozen whose determined role in life is harrassing WMC (which is counter-productive to the project in my view). But you remain more than welcome to come to my talk page whenever. --BozMo talk 23:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. To be clear: if all you want is to be able to say "I posted a warning on his talk page as an attempt to settle the dispute but he ignored it, so I've posteed to ANI / started this RFC instead" then please consider your future warnings posted and ignored. You have, as I said, posted quite enough incomprehensible, insulting and pointless warnings William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For comprehension WMC, I suggest you relax, breath through it and focus on the mind, follow why the thoughts run as they dance around, stay with them as they dissolve away harmlessly. All will come to you in this way. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Indignation is one of the most rewarding of emotions, as well as one that automatically gives meaning to life . . . There is nothing like irritation to get the juices circulating and the mind working. Of all the ideas that have made me irritable and indignant in recent weeks, this one steams me the most. I disagree so completely that I am practically beside myself with paralyzing rage. And as I plunge my attention further and further into his ridiculous proposal, I feel the tension coursing through my body. I sense my mind becoming swampy, my perceptions distorted. There's a good chance that I am inducing in myself a state of stressed-out stupidity."

— In part by Theodore Dalrymple, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Assessment Uncertainty Talk

This section is for my sovereign User_talk:ZuluPapa5/CAUC page article and eds interested in such. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD Measurements

• Created here.[41]
• First talk here. WMC[42], P[43]
• AFD started here. [44], [45], [46]
• Article lived for xx:xx before AFD with only on x talk comments.

The AfD and so on

Hi ZP5, I think you still need to cool off from this a little. It seems you've edited Wikipedia for quite a while, but not in such a controversial space as the global warming pages. The rules here are more tightly enforced, by one side or the other, and I am guessing that many of them you will actually be new to you. I think William Connolley et al. are right that the article you're writing has problems, and I agree it would be better to draft it in a user space. I've done a little googling and I can see now that there's a literature out there on Bayesian analyses of uncertainty in climate change. Google scholar is bringing up 14,000 hits against "bayesian uncertainty climate change"; is there a review paper out there?

I guess, there are going to be a number of ways of analysing uncertainty in climate change, and we'd need to have an article on the more general topic before we create one on the more specific topic (which seems to be a Bayesian approach).

I just read one abstract that asserted there is a 1 in 40 chance of temperature exceeding 4.9 C by 2100 in a BAU emissions scenario, and 1 in 40 chance of exceeding 3.2 C if we aggressively reduce emissions. I'll have to say, this sounds to me like metaphysics. Quoting the article on the Greek philosopher Anaximander, the Earth floats very still in the centre of the infinite, not supported by anything. It remains "in the same place because of its indifference", a point of view that Aristotle considered ingenious, but false, in On the Heavens. I wonder, how many people said to him, "Um, how on earth do you know?"

Reading this abstract just now made me think of this. I've shaken my head right now at least 20 times, I'm serious, trying to get myself into the mind of a person who would try to figure out the probability of T being 4.9 in the year 2100 without first having figured out the exact value of climate sensitivity. It is, to me, totally bizarre. So... anyway... what exactly do you want to achieve with this article? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPCC would like folks to have consistent methods for characterizing uncertainty so that when it is reduced it can be measured and they can demonstrate progress. I would like to point out their specific progress. I just want these concepts adequately represented in Wiki. In truth, many proabilites are Baysian, because of how Sample Spaces are defined. Bayesian says greater things about sample spaces as they change. Where frequencies facts are involved, the sample spaces are rigidly set. Where there is no fact but opinion, the sample spaces can dramatically change. What I want to accomplish with the article is on the Talk Page To Do list. I'll cool off some, but will stay the this article. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Name calling

It appears you have now refered to me twice as POVFORK on Talk:Climate Assessment Uncertainty Characterizations This is extremely incivil. May I politely suggest that wikipedia is not the place for the personal essays of editors who blatantly cannot write, do not understand what they are writing, have no concept of wikipedia and then defend their essays with rudeness and stupidity. Polargeo (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologizes, I didn't realize this. There may have been some confusion. I only meant to question another single editor as POVFORK. Combining my statements in a single answer may have caused confusion. I am qualified to write on the topic at hand, thank you. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistake and apology accepted. If you are qualified to write on the topic why are you not writing in a journal? It is very poor practice to publish your own research on wikipedia. Even if your own research is an analysis of existing reports/papers this is unacceptable as it is a straightforward synthesis. Polargeo (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I did my best to redit what I found and make it consistent, by translating the content into standard semantics and syntatics to aid in reducing confusion. Although, I may have caused confusion too. Whoever gets an article right the first time on wiki? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my harsh reaction. I am independendtly minded and will not just jump after other editors. If I think WNC is wrong I will say so. I genuinely think the article should not exist at present and certainly not ever under the current name. I would think the best thing for you to do is to add small sections of 'summarized' 'balanced' information on uncertainty to the articles as they currently stand rather than adding new articles. Polargeo (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you might clarifying that the article is a "Content Fork" on the AfD. Because this particular issue crosses many disciplines, it would be best to have a separate article. The name could be better. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

ZP5 answers to GoRight Questions for ArbCom Candidate

:These questions were put forth here:

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Comments/William_M._Connolley

1. As I am sure you are aware, the proper application of WP:NPOV sometimes involves the inclusion of certain points of view that some may find disagreeable. As an arbitrator, would you seek to ensure that minority points of view are protected from being silenced by the tyranny of the majority? If so, what are the primary tools which you would employ in trying to achieve that goal?

Arbiters should be able to clearly bring out the POV from each disputant and help them to see and resolve contention according to wiki guidance. The good thing about the arbitration process is that it is designed to protect from the “tyranny of the majority” so that both sides may be heard. The primary tools are help from the clerks to keep things orderly, then there is adherence to the procedures them selves. They are not perfect, but the come closest to being fairly humane, in that both side get a clear and fair hearing without mob interruption or bias. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Can you describe for us some examples of the types of things that you consider to be valid WP:NPOV disputes? Under what circumstances do you feel it is appropriate to place the {{POV}} template on a given article, if ever?

When there is an ongoing WP:BRD cycle, the tag is valid, especially when there are considerably long D periods on the talk page. When greater than two editors are objecting with content, and others reverting, this is a valid reason to keep the tag up for peaceful resolution purposes to avoid edit wars. Specifically, when there are NPOV concerns for structural issues, content and source suppression within the article, the tag is valid. If the issues aren't addressed, they are ignored, then the tag is valid. The tag should remain for as long as an typical RFC period of 30 days, unless the issues are addressed. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

3. On the issue of WP:CIVIL you have indicated that the best you believe we can hope for is parliamentary language. If we had a Wikipedia-specific list of unacceptable words and or phrases, what types of things do you believe should be included? As an arbitrator would you be in favor of developing such a list?

Following WP:TALK is a good guideline because this exists as a result of WP:CIVIL. A list of unacceptable words would be exhausting. What is productive is that as discussions heat up, then civility and procedural structure must increase to obtain a peaceful resolution. A “List of Motions” (to be seconded) pertaining to WP:RS, WP:V to civilly establish disputed content within WP:BRD seems a most relevant start to me. When the “tyranny of the majority” may disrupt civility, then mediation or ArbCom must be employed to maintain civility. Parliamentary procedure is a good guide for formal motions and debate; however, is would have to be adapted to support WP:5. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

4. Many people believe that humility is an important trait for any leader or person of authority. Looking back on all of your experiences here at Wikipedia, have you ever felt humbled in any way and if so would you care to briefly relate what you consider to be your most humbling experience here? (Obviously it is OK if you prefer not to respond.)

"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18. With so many good editors on Wiki (including guides and essays); there are countless chances to be humanized. To prevent pride, I seek to place gratitude on others. The Wiki mission and principals must always come before me. Whenever another person or org mission is held above wiki, there is a minor threat to wiki’s non-profit status as granted by the government. Fortunately, the laws of cause and effect are active in wiki’s edit histories. I have faith that when reasonable eds get together, Wiki will resolve all forms of individual editor pride. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

5. You have obviously been very involved in the Global Warming related articles. Given your significant level of involvement in that area, should a case come up related to Global Warming would you be likely to recuse yourself, or not, for that case?

The actual candidate answered here [47]

Perhaps a mistake you made?

Extended content

This edit doesn't appear to do anything other than edit someone else's comment. Perhaps you made a mistake? Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC) The edit was intended to remove my person from an escalating attack. The attack has no bearing in specific content, it was not over sources, nor was there any relevance made to wiki policy. The editor making the original statement, choose to ignore me (see above), and yet he also chooses to take my name in vain for arguments which may not be resolved but for escalating a dispute. I chose to peacefully remove myself from such attacks and prefer to stay focused on specific content issues where sources are involved. This is my claimed right. If the original editor is truly concerned for behavior, he may talk to me on this page. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC) WP:HARRASS I need to go to bed but I thought I would point out that [48] was reverting a good faith removal of really bad English. The article may deleted anyway but you need to write in clear English and make a big effort to be understandable. On the WP:HARRASS I raised this softly with you before [49] some of your comments were very hard to understand but the things which were "close" to WP HARRASS taken together were (1) leaving repeated "warnings" on a user talk page which is an aggressive way to raise any issue (2) diffs with edits summaries implying you thought he was "corrupt" [50] also "disruptive" and (3) interjecting yourself into two arguments between him and third parties which is kind of what you did e.g. with GoRight's questions (4) moving the focus of your editing entirely into pages where he was already editing without looking back at your habitual articles. However I don't think you crossed the line into harrassment but I say just came close. WMC complained about you to an admin who had just blocked you. I think that's legitimate and less "in your face" than warnings. However you may regard some of his complaint as invalid and clearly some of his edit summaries and talk page comments were rather terse. --BozMo talk 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC) I would recommend that you take some of what BozMo has to say to heart. I understand that the process here can be frustrating, believe me I know all about that, but you must not appear to be antagonizing someone excessively (not that I am saying that you have been doing so). Others will use everything you say against you and if they can point to a long litany of such behavior it may come back to hurt you. A few push backs on the more obvious incivilities is sufficient to make your point. For the rest your best course of action is likely to be to simply ignore them. Don't let your antagonist know that they are bothering you at all. On the use of the word "corrupt", while I believe that you are using it in a technically correct manner you have to understand that the majority of people will interpret this as meaning that you are equating someone with being a criminal. I don't believe that this is your intent, so it may be better to avoid using the word corrupt and find a different manner in which to express your thoughts. --GoRight (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Acknowledged. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please record your issues ...

If you have any specific issues that are not adequately covered by the 4 I articulate at [51], please briefly summarize them under your post in that section. We need to be concise but thorough. --GoRight (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, will outline in time. For me, they all start with NPOV and breakout from there in a structural argument. Good work on sticking to it. As you may realize, the NPOV issues can be addressed with the cognitive bias approaches I am writing about. [52] Simply replace the word "uncertainty" with "NPOV". These are righteous dispute resolution methods in application to wiki's mission. Please do not let eds force you across any reasonable lines of civility. I will admire your patience. Kindly, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how things can start with NPOV - NPOV is something that RESULTS from issues with an article - This may be part of the reason why the debate is going in circles, people are perhaps looking for you to outline what the NPOV issues are, and (ideally, for better comprehension of those issues) indicate a specific corrective action for each that might resolve the issue. If arbitration will soon be pending, it would be useful to everyone if you could clarify what the underlying issues are. (I am aware you've made some attempts here in the past, which is why I suggest you propose what you would see as nominal corrective actions.). It also helps to reference which subsection(s) of which policy or guideline supports your contention. Finally, keep in mind that NPOV relates to article CONTENT, not what is or is not a suitable article topic (but does touch on article titles in limited circumstances. Jaymax (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

All starts from the sources my friends. I have listed them from recovered Talk Archive Pages 6 and 7 here [53]. You two have my permission to add to the list from those that appear as if a POV neglected them. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Has my summary at Scientific opinion on climate change ...

Adequately represented your concerns? If not please, please let me know.

Also, note that Jaymax has a short-term proposal on the plate and wants to know if this satisfies the concerns sufficiently to justify removing the POV tag. I want to make sure that your concerns are addressed before I respond.

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ... covered most of it which is difficult considering the interruptions. I would say the name change issue (because "opinion" in the title should be avoided) and potential source suppression issues could be covered better. It's content time. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request

Extended content

I'll try, but I'm pretty backlogged with stuff at the moment (Resolute (talk · contribs) and Brianboulton (talk · contribs) have both made requests of me recently, and I owe them both favours), and that's not really within my area of expertise. If I get a chance, I'll try to provide some thoughts, but no promises. Steve Smith (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Ok thanks. Would appreciate your views (as the hat notes seems to be excluding views). Sincerely. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) See my talk page, where William M. Connelly has chimed in. I'm inclined to agree with him; it looks like what the article needs, if anything, is content dispute resolution, which is not what peer review is for. I haven't examined the dispute in any detail, so I may be off-base in my suggestions, but have you considered WP:RFC, WP:MEDCAB, or WP:MEDCOM? Steve Smith (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Ok ... these are under consideration. Thanks for your time.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"RV STOP EDIT WARRING"

I suggest that if you wanted an edit war to stop, the best way to do so is to try to find a solution that all parties agree with, not to frequently revert to the version you think is best and ask the other "side" to stop edit warring. I don't think that works. Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Think again with the facts ... I am tracking my BRD edits above with measurement which don't seem to support your accusations. The war will stop when the warriors calm done to reason. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You are one of the warriors. You need to lead by example. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The example I have lead demonstrates a preference for BRD with peaceful talk. I appreciate your concerns but, they don't stand up to the simple facts. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But they do - you reverted the article stating "stop edit warring." That dosen't work. Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And you started the Discussion .... that's called BRD. Thanks for starting the discussion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I already asked a few other people this morning, please try not to edit war right after an article leaves protection; diff. Could you please in the future make explicit reference to a specific talkpage section when making reverts at that article, starting a discussion if necessary? Please note that NPOVD is an essay, while WP:EW is policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, felt like I had to speak up on this to meet the intent of your message to me. I had no intention of a second revert. Should I make an "make explicit reference to a specific talkpage section" in the edit summary? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Final warning - editing others talk page comments.

You should consider this your final warning. Do not edit other people's talk page comments. "ZP5" is not a "personal attack." I have warned you about this before - I don't intend to warn you again. If you feel that someone is making personal attacks directed at you, I suggest you raise it with a neutral admin. Hipocrite (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is your first warning. How should I treat personal attacks on me? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

By removing the attack, not by replacing your name with some wierd statement that dosen't remove the attack at all. Or just grinning and bearing it. Hipocrite (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing myself from the attack is not "wierd" is is my right and in accordance with the wiki desires to peacefully step away from an attack (in addition to my personal religious (non waring) faith). I am about to pursue a third opinion on the subject!! The attacking editor has a long history of this kind of foolishness, which may only be designed with his sole purpose to block me; that's personal when I am taking great pains to be peaceful with objective measurements. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, H, you can't come here demanding such a thing when you just did it yourself. What are you thinking? That said, ZP5, you might want to take a break for a while. Don't let the regulars get to you, you have to maintain a thick skin on the AGW pages. It may not be right, but it is reality. Also, I recommend letting others remove the PA's against you when they feel it is appropriate. The best course of action, IMHO, is to ignore them as much as you can and to simply push back in your own comment when you can't. --GoRight (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks GoRight, point taken. I am going to retreat to my yogi cave to realign my forms of peaceful existence. Keep up the good work! I sincerely hope we can avoid ArbCom. Speak-up here if I miss something important. Best regards.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Extended content

Requesting personal attack advice after claiming that a user is trolling (without diffs/evidence) is unhelpful, and borderline unacceptable. If you cannot substantiate your claim, you need to strike it. To substantiate a claim about trolling, WQA is unlikely to be an appropriate venue in which case you are advised to escalate this to the appropriate venue - RfC/U to establish the issue. It is acceptable to create a page that is intended as a draft RfC/U as I noted at the discussion. WMC's page is clearly marked to this effect and he is entitled to present the evidence in the manner in which he wishes at the time of filing an RfC/U - you simply need to be ready to respond at that time. Unless you intend on aggressively attempting to change what is acceptable on Wikipedia, that is not an issue. Some of the things he has called you is certainly a possible issue - that the parts others found to be an issue have since been refactored or removed moot that concern. If you believe that WMC is going to continue in that style of commentary, then again, please use RfC/U to establish that problem. Bringing up an user's history of being a desysopped admin certainly comes close to an attack as it attempts to cast aspersions on one aspect of the user's contributions with another aspect. If anything, it is your approach that appears to require some modification. I'm not sure what you are expecting - but you've been given advice on how to deal with the issues you seem to be having. Rejecting that advice and insisting that the WQA stays open is unproductive. I agree that it may not be a correct conclusion to mark the WQA resolved, but it is certainly fully appropriate to mark it stuck where the parties clearly have not and are unlikely to come to an agreement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Answers My filed claim was for PA "advice and intervention". He escalates attacks without talking and ignores talk, which is unacceptable. His attacks have no objective reference for me to reasonably address. They are themselves ironically "non-specific" and incriminatory by their own self-nature. The user's history provides its own context. I presented no threat or attack. I expect to be treated fairly, respectfully and civilly, like any other user, WP:CIVIL. Question: Why can't you address the specific nature of my complaint on the complaint page? It seems you have just complained about my complaint here, which I have now respectfully answered. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Let it go, it's better if someone else files

Zulu, although I sympathize with your situation regarding WMC, please do not pursue the case against WMC. If it's you who creates the RFC, it will only open the door to more attacks on you, and WMC will be able to turn it around and make it about you rather than him. I am putting together a detailed RFC/U which I hope to post in the next week or so, which will include the attacks directed at you as well as a bunch of others I've collected. This situation is well beyond you versus him, and if you post an RFC/U it will simply distract from the more general case. Thanks. ATren (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged, I have spoke my peace for now. There are other options per "own" to combine or consider. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Post note: The best we can hope for is parliamentary procedures Censure_(motion) where the due process notice with specifically identifed and civil charges are required. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry if WMC decides to actually file the RFC/U, it's not that big of a deal. I refer you to [54]. Pay attention to how Abd collected evidence and presented things. It was a huge help. If this comes to pass all of the !Cabal will likely pile on but you will also have people to help defend you. Be aware of WP:ATTACKPAGE. Also be aware that WMC will be held to a different standard than you, as is Raul654 in my case.

I also direct you to [55] and [56] for examples of how to play this game. Note the boilerplate at the top of the pages. Your best option right now is to be aware of WMC's threats, to prepare for them by collecting evidence along the way, but not to take any action. It may turn out that is all it is, a threat. He is likely just WP:BAITing you so don't give him the pleasure of having done so. --GoRight (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I intend to stay focused on producing good content and to avoid silly childish RfC games. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the organization of your new page at [57], but you have accidentally created it in the discussion page rather than the article page (actually user page right now). You will probably meet resistance on this effort since the entrenched interests are more interested in preserving the status quo than in improving things ... at least it appears that way from my POV. --GoRight (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ... you may edit it. Well, lets see ... I guess folks could just stay and invest their precious time into escalating with silly waring rules. Seems like that Science page will always have narrow view waring mastodons. If I want space and balance must start fresh. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 Erledigt I corrected the draft to the proper location and added redirects for the old one. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Topic co-ordination link

That template is really intended to go on the talkpage of relevant articles, not the article pages themselves. We already have Template:Global warming to aid in reader navigation, you might see if that needs to be reorganized for clarity of presentation. I am also not convinced that the individual article talkpage Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change is the best place to discuss coordination of several articles - have you tried starting a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment? That seems to me to be the best place to centralize discussion after notifying the editors at each article that the issue is being raised. You might even try starting a Global warming taskforce, though I confess I am unsure of the processes involved. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. Seems like Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change is as good as any place to get started, because "Scientific opinion" is and should lead the way. Your help would be beneficial here see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide. I do not expect folks will take kindly if I try to lead something, but I will if must be. The articles could be better coordinated to help sources find a good NPOV home. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#add IPCC context and mission per talk?

Thank you for referencing talkpage discussion in this edit. However, could you please be more explicit in your edit summaries? A link to the relevant talkpage section would be ideal, or a section number if you need more characters than are available in the summary box. If you could please point to the relevant discussion in the new section linked above, I would appreciate it; currently, I see relevant comments by you but no in depth discussion or consensus. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Locked, I have blocked you for 31 hours foredit warring. The abovementioned edit was questionable, but as I found some attempt at discussion without outright rejection I was willing to assume good faith that you had misinterpreted silence as consensus for a non-controversial change. However,your response to being reverted was to attack other editors and indulge in sarcasm.This comment to the continuing discussion is a bit terse, but could be considered productive. It could also be taken as obstructionist; please try to avoid such ambiguities in future.

Here you reference the WP:BRD essay. In most circumstances, I am of the opinion that that editing model is a good compromise between limiting edit warring and getting the work of article building done without getting hung up on waiting for indifferent input. In actively edited controversial articles, however, best practice shifts towards prior discussion. With this article in particular, given its recent history of edit warring and protection, I do not see any reasonable expectation that reinserting contested material with the edit summary 1RR .. Get real ... see Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#add_IPCC_context_and_mission_per_talk.3F could be considered part of the consensus-building process. There was not at the linked section any identifiable consensus to include the material. This is edit warring. Please wait for consensus at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change before editing the article after this block expires; further edit warring will lead to escalating blocks. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

2over0, you have made many judgmental assumptions which have assumed bad faith on my part. Please reconsider and remove the block. I will abstain from the article and talk for 48 hours. Kindly, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The lesson I have learned is to slow down and let greater time for consensus talk to occur (and to site it), I apologize for progressing too fast. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be fair and consider that WMC complained to you and did not follow your specific instructions "to include a compromise proposal." in Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#add_IPCC_context_and_mission_per_talk.3F I had to progress a compromise myself. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5, you were Edit warring by any reading of that policy. You did not break the bright line of WP:3RR, but you have been around long enough now to understand that consensus is not built by repeatedly inserting the same material while accusing other editors of discussing in bad faith. The advice to offer compromise (best practice) was given to remind editors that quality articles can be built by people who disagree quite strongly; often an acceptable compromise can be found, and actively seeking one can be more productive than simply explaining the disagreement or, worse, merely expressing that disagreement exists. The request to start or renew talkpage discussion was made both because it is best practice and to increase the behavioral distance between edit warring and normal editing.

I do not feel comfortable unblocking you while you persist in shifting the blame for your behavior to other editors. I understand that editing here can be frustrating at times, and that it can be easy to get carried away. If not, there would never be any need to lock articles, as everyone would would move the conversation to the talkpage without getting embroiled in an edit war first. When this block expires in a few hours, please be extra careful to seek consensus at the talkpage before editing, and do not re-revert if another editor disagrees with your change. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's disappointing ... how much simpler can I say "The lesson I have learned is to slow down and let greater time for consensus talk to occur (and to site it), I apologize for progressing too fast." ... except to say I will never seek to edit war again. War is such a negative term (I would like to avoid) and there is so much negativity going around ... do you agree? Seems you may have taken an easy distraction out, I will talk with you directly after 48 hrs. Regards Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You remain free to appeal this block in the usual way, using {{unblock}}. Reviewing admin: please act as you deem best, but I would appreciate a summary of your reasoning one way or another either here or at my talkpage. I will not consider it wheel warring if you act without first consulting me. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have no desire but to appeal to you. My gut instinct says trust this admin. You went to great effort to explain a fair method of proceeding, in which I ran afoul. I appreciate and respect your effort here. My appeal is that justice on wiki can be one-sided with retribution and I can only pray for fair restoration. My faith demands that I abandon war, and so with your decision, I must likely abandon proceeding. Sincerely, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion with complainer

(This section added after talk start for better order.)

Can you explain why it was necessary for you to be blocked before you realised this? You were given clear warnings beforehand, which you ignored (article talk page, and this [58] which you simply removed) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My impression is ... persistent attempts to advance alternative soultions per BRD without adequate time for talk which left a perception of edit waring. I should have let the talk progress further than I did. A warning to slow down and in addition, it might have been better for someone else to propose compromises, could have prevent my block. Also, I could have assumed better faith in my fellow editors to provide compromises. Am I on track with your perception, WMC? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you on track? No, not at all. You appear to be putting the blame for your block on other people for failing to propose compromises. The ruling on that page is quite clear, and no-one has complained about the ruling itself. Everyone else is keeping to it (apart from GC, who got blocked too). Don't edit war; don't add contentious material, discuss first. BRD is not an excuse for breaking the rules; you appear to use BRD as your excuse for all misbehaviour. You are still doing so; you are talking of leaving a perception of edit warring and failing to admit that you *were* edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well I accepted my errors and kept to 1RR, what else can I do except make an appeal. Would you not accept any responsibility here, after all you have been significant to all the "wars", the protections and the rules. It is difficult to move forward when all I here are terse "no, no, no," where are your compromises in talk? .... Would you like me to make a dif list for you of all your nos in this article [59], since you created it? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't accept your errors and you didn't keep to 1RR. You kept on reverting until you were blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, no .... creates the causes that leads to a great big 478 NOs [60], will you ever change. No wonder other eds seem like a waste of your time, you have an abundance of dissatisfied nos to offer Wiki. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, there are 426 watching the editors talk page, just a wee bit less than to returned NO! Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

Just FYI.

[61]. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking a break now. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

This is likely a good idea.

I have been staying away from that page for the past few days, so I am not up to speed on what has been happening there. I am certain that 2/0 would make the point that you pointing fingers at WMC won't excuse your own behavior, you need to strictly adhere to the terms set forth no matter how frustrating they may seem. Obviously others will point out every little thing so you have to be extra careful in these situations.

I see above that you pledge to abstain from editing the SOoCC article and it's talk page for 48 hours which is more than the current block. As long as you adhere to that I would hope that 2/0 would see fit to unblock you so that you might be able to contribute elsewhere during that time. This will, perhaps, divert your attention and reduce your frustration levels which would be a good thing.

If you believe that there is objective evidence that WMC has violated the terms set forth by 2/0 at that article please provide a list of relevant diffs here (sans any commentary) for our consideration. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

See [62] Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

Hi GoRight, my block appeal will stay with 2/0. However, I would like to prevent this issue from becoming part of a RFC/U against me. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate change stuff

Hi. I'm reluctant to get involved in the climate change debate because I know it would be painful. My point of view is that the evidence for climate change (or rather 'man-made climate change') is not as concrete as climate change alarmists would have us believe. This means (in my view) that the relevant articles should reflect an appropriate degree of doubt and uncertainty, which they currently don't. There is also the issue of the Connolley conflict of interest. Is there one? I've looked at a few of his edits and they seem reasonable. I love SUV's (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, it is currently a painfull experince. My concern for the editor largely rests in the uncivil way climate issues are being advanced in conflict to wiki principles. As you may see above (and I am yet no perfect example) civil humanity must survive before any form of global travesty. I share a view that remorseful confession and restorative correction are necessary for civilities survival. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

On which subject I am still really trying very hard to assume good faith with you but edits like [63] do not help. This looks like wilfully misunderstanding. You completely changed the meaning rather than just clarified a source as your edit comment implied. But elsewhere you seem to be trying to reach compromise and make peace. I am struggling to understand where you are coming from --BozMo talk 20:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the source and the text and sought to improve the article. I am open to reconsider. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change

Thank you for this. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok .. thank you I have a new appreciation to avoid WP:ninja editing. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, and please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

CC Probation

I have recorded my objections on the AN subpage as well as on Ryan's talk page. Depending on his response I intend to enter a new arbitration request regarding his premature closing and implementation of these sanctions. Since you have expressed a similar set of concerns would you be interested in being a named party to such a request? --GoRight (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, the existing probation could be done better with the unique issues to this project, in particular with attention to the arbcom ruling on psudoscience / fringe remedies. The abuse of due weight requires attention. I may not be very active today, but will give it me bests. Seems like you were held up for an early test case, where it became clear that "discretion" requires calm deliberation. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change Probation and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --GoRight (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

ZP5, You are aware that the Climate change articles are on probation to try to improve conduct there. Please could you take this as a warning against the tone and wording of your comments at Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Including_criticism_from_NIPCC. You are obviously entitled to present ideas to improve the article in a civil fashion but in particular your comments implying people who disagree with you are biased ("Non-bias Wiki editors know...") talking of editors who disagree with you as "negative editors" who display "toxic negativity" and commenting that their "nihilistic stench is contributing to an ugly wiki environment" [64] are not acceptable. Almost all of the generally abusive attacks on this page seem to be coming from you (since you comment on the ugly wiki environment) and you should desist from any kind of comment there implying lack of good faith or negativity of spirit on the part of those who disagree with you. If you are frustrated with slow progress in getting your arguments included then take a wikibreak don't start abusing those who disagree with you. --BozMo talk 19:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you suggest we encourage editors to make productive comments that avoid negativity without a stated purpose? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair question, but I think you have plenty of polite options along the lines of "could we find a more positive way forward" before resorting to "toxic negativity" & stench etc. --BozMo talk 08:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To make sure you're aware of the terms: a detailed description of the terms of article probation on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other articles may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. --TS 20:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: Negativity removed [65] Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate you removing the comment. --BozMo talk 08:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Following discussion at #Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#add IPCC context and mission per talk?, you have done a good job of referring to a particular talkpage section when making a potentially controversial edit. For this I applaud you. Your edit here is certainly a good faith edit intended to improve the article and follow Wikipedia norms. The linked discussion seems to have run its course without a strong consensus, but the relative brevity of the text you added indicates that you acknowledged the concerns raised by other editors at Talk:Global warming#Ocean CO2 feedback. This edit, however, is directly contradicted by the discussion at Talk:Global warming#Hatnote Upgrade. Performing an edit that the consensus of your fellow editors have explicitly rejected is edit warring, and I have blocked you accordingly. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You gave no warning for this block! There only discussion thereTalk:Global warming#Hatnote Upgrade was mine until I added the content. I did not revert at all. The assumption you present above is that I added without consent .... check the time line [66], [67], nearly 2 days passed and I was talking [68], [69], [70]. I had clearly announced my intentions to add this, and there was silence for 2 days until I added it. I feel offended by your block, and demand an apology.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason}}

Thank you 2over0, my faith is restored, apology accepted. My anger is recovering. I appreciate your review of the time line. With the whole project under probation, I suspect even additional cautions must be taken. I must make discussions redundantly clear.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There may be a technical issue with my block remaining after it was removed. This is preventing me from correcting myself. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

GW

" Please explain ZuluPapa5, but you haven't explained (1) why it's an "upgrade", and (2) an explanation why the article should use the text. You've been here long enough to realize where the disagreements are going to be, and it would be rather courteous of you to have considered starting this with a rebuttal. "Taking extra precautions to avoid a dispute." I think this is an admission there's a dispute and that this is a new tactic to bait editors and avoid logical discourse. ”

I'm sorry Zulupapa5. I did have a reply for you on Talk:Global warming#Hatnote Upgrade yesterday and I've left it here instead. m:DFTT. I'm not sure if you've read The Last Lecture by Randy Pausch, but he had a saying, and it goes: "[...] when you’re screwing up and nobody’s saying anything to you anymore, that means they gave up. [...] Is that when you see yourself doing something badly and nobody’s bothering to tell you anymore, that’s a very bad place to be. Your critics are your ones telling you they still love you and care."[71] I don't want to preach to you, but we are really close to that bad place. This probably the last time I'm going to ask you, what do you thinK? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting (Randy Pauusch is new to me), however I had faith in the other editors to follow the discussion and provide meaningful responses. WP:revert says " if another editor reverts your change without any apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's or your user's talk page." and "Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement." You seems to indicate I should expect anything I contribute would be disputed. Is that me "screwing up"?

Now philosophically, I do believe there is the most to learn from critics, however their direct message, or absence of a direct message,in this case, may teach greater things than they intended. When editors have no further productive talk, then they have dispute resolution available to them. Very few seem to have the humility to admit mistakes. Others may try to change the subject. Some will try to close the discussion. Some will go off outside of the bounds of time tested wiki guidance. Time must cure all. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

More on GW

I see you have been having a hard time on the GW and related articles. There seems to be a team of editors using varying tactics to exert complete control over this article, removing all dissenting opinion. Have a look at the latest deletions of my text. What do you think, and what to do about it? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I believe there is excessive negativity going on by some editors (possibly in POV teams), and the proposing editors must now take time to have RS material with secondary RS to support the original RS material. The reverters can simple say "no" or "not", but they have a WP:IMPROVE responsibility to be constructive and when avoiding this they may be edit waring. In all, the reverters must also have a RS to support their views for continued reverting, simply being consistently negative on vested interests is abuse. It's a difficult case to cure, stick with it for the long term and stick to finding abundant sources. You'll have to provide some diffs for me to review, but I've seen unreasonable reverts, with not real faith in making the proposed text better, all around these articles. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

This was gracious. Awickert (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure ... I was tempted to nickname the IP editor "RightGo" for fun; however, after vacation ... aiming for greater personal dignity. Frankly, it would be interesting to see what diffs the editor has to make a their point. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good move... too many dramahz there already. I'm actually mostly disappeared from global warming of late; takes a considerable time commitment to keep up on it. Awickert (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Griefing

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. Must maintain good faith.

It should not be necessary to remind you that Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation and all of the associated talk and subpages are subject to the same probation terms as the climate change articles and talk pages. As such, this sort of post is entirely inappropriate.

If you wish to request enforcement action regarding any editor of climate change articles, then post a request for enforcement at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. If you wish to request comment on a broader pattern of user conduct, please use Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Do not use the probation enforcement talk page as a platform for personal attacks, implicit accusations of bad faith, or other soapboxing. Calling WMC a "bored editor", implying that he's a "griefer", and not naming him in your report (why?) are not constructive things to do.

This is a final warning that if you choose to further abuse the probation talk pages with namecalling and other attacks, I will ask for enforcement action regarding your own conduct in this area. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Any comment on the content of his complaint? It seems quite hypocritical of you to criticize this editor for complaining about another editor's incivility, without saying a word about that incivility, don't you think? ATren (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me say this again "My post here is intended as a warning and seeks comment from other editors on civil enforcement for persistent Griefing''." The editor in the example does not want warnings from me on their talk page so i posted it in an appropriate place. TenofallTrades, you may have misinterpretation my intentions. I did not name the editor so i would avoid a personal attack. Now, let me correct myself for your concerns and you may reconsider you final warning. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out what is even going on here. From what I can see WMC started closing the discussions, musing "I wonder if I can get away with this?"[72] That you would then revert this as disruptive seems about what one would expect; WMC's second revert seems more problematic. On the other hand there seems to be a good deal of sniping on both sides. If you want to resolve situations of this nature, please consider Cla68's or my advice on the other page, but keep in mind that any amount of sniping, sarcasm, and so on turns the whole thing, at best, into a game of who has more supporters, since neutral outsiders will have no interest in getting involved. The fact that long-term editors get away with it does not mean that it is accepted. It's quite simple advice, and yet it's amazing the amount of frustration that's caused by people who disregard it. Mackan79 (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, yes WMC collapsed without talk (possible bating), I challenged on the enforcement talk. Then I experience the greifing behavior throughout the day and comment on the enforcement talk page (my comment could have been done even better.) Then ironically, TenofAllTrades collapses it and makes accusations and warnings on my behavior, before I can make any corrections. I made corrections (which were reverted) and attempted to talk. As of now TenofAllTrades appears to want me to escalate without talk or reform, much like they have. Then goes on to accuse me of making threats during my talk. TenOfAllTrades seems to have lost faith in me. Good advice about the sniping sarcasm. I would like to raise awareness about greifing concerns for enforcement, the essay seems relevant. Might reopen a new thread. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out what "griefing" means. Granted I'm probably older than most of you and am not up to date on the latest expressions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Griefing then Griefing. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Assume you read the essay, right? The home boy rappers sing about lovers and hatters ... guess which one a griefer is? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

• First, it would be good to remove your final warning because I have sought to correct myself. (Are you interested in civil reform or escalated blocks?)
• Second, I intended the section to be a new thread and corrected it, which you reverted.
• Third, I go on to make another productive article [with sources] and you delete it.
• Fourth, I am interested in productive talk, and not interested in "loopholes" as you accuses.
• Fifth, I trust WMC; however, I am concerned concurred about the editors disruptive behaviors much like you are concerned about mine.

Finally, I would like to believe I am receiving a fair deal by you; however you seem intent on escalating a simple personal attack dispute, which I seek to correct and gain meaning from. Why should I trust you to be fair with me? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your list is misundertands my comments and misrepresents your past actions. I don't think anything productive will come from this discussion. If you have an enforcement issue you wish to raise, you've been pointed to the correct venues for so doing. If you wish to challenge my administrative actions, please post to WP:AN/I. Please don't beat the dead horse any further on my talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How can I misrepresent myself, when I answer your concerns? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Re this edit, if you want probation enforcement in relation to another editor's conduct please file a formal request at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Please don't misuse the associated discussion page for personal attacks or casting aspersions at another editor's conduct. --TS 19:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I got that message here [73] For the fifth time, the intent was to discuss the greifing essay (Why don't you here this?). My main concern is how to address a group of editors who may be causing grief? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You should use Wikipedia talk:Griefing to discuss the essay, but beware of using concrete examples which are likely to be interpreted as a personal attack on the author of the edits. The solution here is dispute resolution. You can't use this "I just want to discuss an essay" excuse, it's been rumbled. --TS 21:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, I wanted to talk about the essay in regards to enforcement (Is this a viable topic kind of stuff) ... and was shut down for all kinds of dramatics excuses which I tried to correct and then others created additional dramatic excuses to shut down the talk. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I've been meaning to say I've noticed a change in your comment for the better, you seem to be trying to help editors to productive outcomes, which I admire. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer is that you cannot enforce an essay. It's just the opinion of one or more people. The page in which you tried to discuss the essay is not for discussing random essays, whether for "enforcement" or otherwise. --TS 21:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The page seems like a place to discuss enforcement concerns that aren't specifically user related (although it has a contrary history with certain other editors). You seem to be saying the issues raised in the essay can not form a reasonable basis of enforcement, assuming perfect diff support ... is that true? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Understand please that I cannot begin to imagine why you would think that page was a suitable place to discuss the Griefer essay, nor why you would think that it was acceptable--outside dispute resolution r enforcement of sanctions--to make statements about other editors that amount to personal attacks. But could you explain why you chose that page rather than Wikipedia talk:Griefing, and why you chose to compare an identifiable editor to a "Griefer"?

I am definitely saying that the essay is not a reasonable basis for any kind of enforcement. It's an opinion piece. That's what an essay is. --TS 21:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, here is why I chose to talk about it there ... I found the essay. It made sense to what I had previously observed and experienced that day in the climate change articles. I was previously told to place no further warning on WMC's talk page as they were all accepted. After seeing folks waste much time on incomplete or unnecessary enforcement cases, I wanted to hear the enforcement community feedback on the the essay's relevance to enforcement. Including how to address a group issue. Really just wanted to find out the best way to apply the article for additional context in any future enforcement, should that be necessary. I would have hoped the talk would have severed as a warning (like a talk page notice should) to prevent the need for future enforcement and perhaps transform "grief" in to joyous editing. I guess my decision to talk there was influnced by the fact I was talking about collapse box abuses earlier which seemed to cause greifing and then collapse box abuses. The Wikipedia talk:Griefing page would seem appropriate for seeking feedback too, especially if I were focused on improving that article and not the enforcement results. Unfortunately, my attempt to provide real context was taken as a personal attack and then applied (with collapse box, revert and section blanking drama) to derail my initial effort to improve enforcement by discussing the essay. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Task force

I saw the climate change taskforce thingy and figured i`d keep an eye on it. Would you be so kind as to let me know if i did it right :) [74] Should my name be in there instead of the ctf link? --mark nutley (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Add your name here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Environment/Climate_change_task_force#Participants like everone else. Take on a task if you like. Bests with it. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Threat warning"

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. Confirmed threat

The comment you have complained about was exactly that. If you are going to continue to assume bad faith about everyone who opposes your skewed point of view, you are going to find yourself blocked for it. No I will not be refactoring anything, by the way. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC) see: [75] Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

Please consider signing our proposal.

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) 15:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion behavior

If you are in active discussion with someone, this sort of thing is not exactly kosher. Please refrain from modifying others' posts, especially if you are involved in the discussion. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

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: [76], [77]. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

These posts were specific to the involved editors and the General Sanctions, I fail to see how they are off topic in any way. I appreciate and share your concerns, there have been many off-topic posts there from other editors, and I have tried to keep eds on topic; however, I feel like we have a dispute here on my account, how should we resolve this issue 2over0? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I intended that this be taken as a notification, not a warning. I would appreciate it, though, if you would refrain from commenting on closed discussions, as here. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Godwin's law

Er, did you just call the IPCC a bunch of jack-booted thugs here? Hyperbole is covered by WP:BLP ... - 2/0 (cont.) 04:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny ... Since when does BLP apply to unnamed public figures in an offical global corporate governmental organization? It's harmless hyperbole. Much like your "jack-booted thugs" comment. Actually, the fascism to suppress challenging information while keeping on a single minded mission, has me concerned, all be it well meaning, the IPCC result may be simply uncivil. Somewhat like the microcosm we experience here in wiki with source suppression when eds are suffering strong attachment to a POV. See the Four_noble_truths for the Buddha's solution to suffering attachment (because we are suffering this POV attachment in ourselves an largely from others in the Climate Change articles forcing a POV.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My revert

I've taken the liberty of closing your re-open of the WMC enforcement request. I wouldn't and won't object to re-opening the case for a concrete reason but re-opening after a close has been agreed does, in my opinion, require there to be an actual, concrete problem to discuss. Feel free to re-open it or to open a new case if and when that happens. --TS 02:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Strike-outs added so as to avoid encouraging you to risk being blocked following Jehochman's warning. --TS 02:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Feb 2010

Please don't interfere with an administrative close of an enforcement request thread. Next time you do, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Jehochman ^Brrr 02:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Lar (and others would obviously agree as Jehochman does here) is asking that you be reverted on your reopening the discussion and that you cease and desist for such actions in the future. I recommend taking his advice. I also recommend that you go self-revert as a sign of good faith assuming someone else hasn't by the time you read this. --GoRight (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC

Re Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement please do not revert closure again. The discussion started by that report has moved on to a more general and probably more productive course, and the function of that page is not as a substtitute for user RfCs, a respository for grudges, diff mining or repeatedly raking over the past. Feel free to raise and RfC if you like but the report by Cla68 is closed as having prompted measures to address the wider problem. It is no longer just about one individual, however muc h you might want him gone from this topic. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The intention was to address a "repeated" behavior by WMC. I don't appreciate your accusations (and ask you to remove them from here, and state what things are not what the are not) and I never intended to revert again. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change probation

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. The accusations were unsubstantiated by others.

You've been notified of the climate change probation, obviously. You are in violation of two conditions:

• Avoid making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article;
• Avoid repeatedly discussing other editors, discuss the article instead;

I recommend you go make productive, non-controversial edits for a while. If you persist in behavior that constitutes ideological struggle and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, your editing will be subject to a restriction or block. Consider this a final warning. I could restrict you right now, but I'm giving you a warning instead, per assume good faith. Jehochman ^Brrr 21:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please point me to a diff. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• You most certainly do owe ZP5 some diffs here, Hochman. Making block threats without such diffs is very poor form indeed. Scottaka UnitAnode 22:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs) - check any recent contributions to the area of dispute, and you will see that they are purely tendentious and controversial. There is no sign of this editor working collaboratively to improve article quality. Jehochman ^Brrr 23:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  That's a copout. If you're not willing to diff such a warning, you need to withdraw it. Vigorously advocating a position != "tendentious and controversial." Diff it, or remove it. Scottaka UnitAnode 23:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't respond to belligerence. The warning stands. The user's recent contributions are replete with battle-type behaviors in the climate change conflicts. They have been repeatedly lobbying for sanctions against WMC, which have been rejected. This sort of frivolous and repetitive complaining needs to stop. I am sure they remember the comments they made earlier today and yesterday. Samples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=346500599

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=346210147

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=346129043

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=346093296

Check just about any of ZP5's contributions to CC area and you'll find the same sort of tendentious arguing, and no movement at all towards actually writing and improving articles. Jehochman ^Brrr 23:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• You deal in belligerence quite often, Hochman. And the fact that you just diff-dumped, without any explanation of what was wrong with the given diff, as well as not even an attempt to properly format those diffs, tells me all I need to know about your "warning." Scottaka UnitAnode 00:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  I really don't care very much what you think. ZuluPapa5 may ask me for any explanations they may need, and I'm glad to help them. If I am going to go to the effort of pulling a bunch of diffs, then I'm going to block them. My purpose here is to informally steer the editor into a better mode of contribution. At this point you're just trying to make my job difficult, and I don't appreciate it at all. Jehochman ^Brrr 00:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  You don't have a "job", Hochman. You're a volunteer, just like me. You just have a few more buttons at the top of your screen. And when you drop a warning on someone, you have an obligation to give a half-way decent explanation (including supporting diffs) of what the hell you're warning them for. You can say that you "don't care" all you want. You can call me an "interloper" in edit summaries all you want. I have every right to question the way you are throwing your weight around in the GW-area, and if you don't like that, that's not my problem. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

CLOSED as inappropriate and unsubstantiated by others. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis link

This is overdue thanks for posting that very useful link on The Real Global Warming Disaster discussion page re: WP guidelines for writing articles about non-fiction books. It gives us all a clear framework for the Real Global Warming Disaster Article (as well as others). I hope to get around to posting a shortened version of the original synopsis I originally wrote soon, based on the guidleines. Best, Jprw (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you .. I look forward to it. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Please don't soapbox. Thanks.— DroEsperanto (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will do and done. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refactor

This comment here, per this. Since it is soapboxing and POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure [78] why not. Seems like there are plenty other self published opinions to go around. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Inappropriate comment

It seems that other people are using Template:Inappropriate comment more than I am. :P. Anyways the proposed feature got archived, I though you wanted the mouse-over feature. If I didn't believe you wanted it, I wouldn't have went to the trouble of testing it. Well, I don't feel that it's right to blame you, if you want another go, let me know.

I saw you mention something about the IPCC being WP:SPS and how Bayesian lead to some invalid decisions. Enscot and I talked about that earlier,[79][80] we added some caveats. Anyways, sounds like you got ignored at Talk:Global warming, mind asking it here? ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for noticing. The mouse over feature would be/is nice.
• Regarding the IPCC, the Bayesian domains are distinctly different from frequency domains because Bayesian are open opinion quotients where as frequencies are fixed closed and measured quotients. The comparison is nearly always apples to oranges because of the quotient definitions. I assumed folks didn't follow this, that's why I was ignored. For analogy, it's like assuming in a fixed grid that the atmosphere is a fixed density as the temperature changes, when by simple ideal gas law (PV=nRT) inspection, the atmosphere expands/contracts (beyond the grid) as energy or material is added or removed. I am drafting a "Bayesian Climate Assessment" article here [81], you are welcome to contribute. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Incomprehensive

According to this editcomment, i should take it to your talk-page. But that is unfortunately not going to work. If i do not understand it (unless of course i have a reading comprehension problem), then other editors are in the same situation - so you will have to remedy it there. You will either have to explain yourself in a way that is comprehensive on T:GW (and other article pages) or at least answer questions when they are asked in good faith (and believe me they are). I do want to understand what you are saying - but you aren't making sense. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and btw. I still don't understand your later comments - even with the Moore's law item removed in the first one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

While agreeing with WMC that the Solar Variation (SV) article requires work ... My other point was a little off topic and fringe, so it would be better to discuss here to avoid disruption. The point is, after reading a source on the history of the temperature trend, I realized that since the 1980's Solar Variation science may have been neglected for progressing global climate modeling (CGM). I suspect this is because the PC revolution happened to start in the 1980's which is when the modeling seems to point to a change in climate. As well people seem to like computer games. Right now, it's a leap of faith to say Moore's law had an implication on providing false confidence in GCM. It's coincidental that Moore's Law is in concordance with the temperature trend. Could computer processing power be an artifact in the trend, that's for someone else to study. I'll am now interested in sources about the GCM's discriminatory power for SV, for example if the sun is turned off in the GCM will it continue to demonstrate AGW from emissions? GCM could be modern Phantasmagoria you see. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So TS was correct - you were using the talk page as a soap-box for original research. (extremely fringe) - Don't! And as has been pointed out, Solar variation has not been "neglected" in GCM's [82][83][84] (note that Hansens 1980 model included solar variations). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that what you didn't understand? TS was partly off, I admitted the Fringe view there and let it be. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the refs ... those sources all discuss sensitivity. Are there any that address specificity, that's the key issue for representative discriminant validity to have predictive power. With the sun turned off, the models should demonstrate a cooling trend? This is a non-specific test and absurd mitigation strategy for a sun visor in space. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ZP5, I've been wondering if English is your native language. If it isn't you may want to let folks know. People tend to be rather forgiving of problems with clarity when the writer is not a native speaker. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"A Buddha's enlightenment is a perfect omni-science. A Buddha's mind is what theist have thought the mind of God would have to be like, totally knowing of everything -- hence by definition inconceivable, incomprehensible to finite, ignorant, egocentric consciousness."

Robert Thurman

Boris, thanks for the concern. American (smile) is my native language. My mind is often on a different frequency than my communication channels or receivers. If communication is love, than I should try to do better. I tend to puzzle folks with some inspiring new view. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Warrior

You popped up on my Bat-O-Scope, and I left a reply at Talk:Warrior#See also. That article is definitely in need of a little loving kindness. As a side note - did you mean to include Saiyan? Is there another meaning outside the media franchise? - 2/0 (cont.) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The crusader with no special powers but an morally conscious inheritance and an attached vendetta on crime that robbed him of parents. Answered there but, I have a greater interest in the Spirtual warrior article. thanks. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)