User talk:GoRight

Historical References

Historical Back Pointers

Rather than create archive pages which use up additional space I have decided to instead keep a list of back pointers to permanent links within the history of this talk page at various points in time.

Raul's Attack Page

My Response Page

User:GoRight/Raul654

Users Requesting to be Informed of Topics of Interest

The following users have explicitly requested that I keep them informed of topics I believe that they would be interested in:

User:Abd

Requests for Collaboration

Talk:Heaven and Earth (book)

If you have time (& inclination), you might have a look at the RfC here for David Stockwell's review of the book. The Usual Suspects don't want to allow use of it. TIA & cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall endeavor to take a look but it may be a few days. I want to get the material at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley completed first. --GoRight (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo.

I'm trying to write a substantive article on MSNBC controversies. I was wondering if you'd like to give me a hand. Let me know on my talk page!PokeHomsar (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the ArbCase

Just reading through the evidence page and I've looked at your table of events. You might find a more effective presentation to be dropping the "Shows" at the beginning of your comments. When you repeat a word so often, it may cause eye-glazing. Style note only. Franamax (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted, thanks. --GoRight (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment in the case should be in the other section

You made this comment under "Comment by parties", it should have been posted to "Comment by others", could you move it there, please? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Moved per your request. Sorry for the oversight. --GoRight (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comment

The comment you just made on the evidence talk page crosses the line. I was trying to make it clear that the discussion needed to end before it began degrading into attacks and trolling. Please redact your comment, or I will be reverting it and closing that discussion shortly. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redact it in what way? It is a perfectly cogent response to TOAT's point. If my comment crosses some line then so must TOAT's. I have no problem with you reverting my comment so long as you also revert TOAT's. Fair enough?

And for the record, what line am I crossing here? --GoRight (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I was trying to make it clear that the discussion needed to end before it began degrading into attacks and trolling." - I am truly confused here. Is your complaint that I posted a comment after you had indicated the discussion should move on, or something else? I had only just become aware of that conversation and I certainly would expect to be given my say in it as well as everyone else. Please clarify your complaint.

I am not trying to be uncooperative here, I just seriously believe that my points are valid and should remain. If there is good reason to remove or adjust them I will certainly take action once I actually understand the nature of your complaint. --GoRight (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I don't object to GR making his opinion known, though the clerk's stated intent to close the thread perhaps suggests that the comment should be moved elsewhere. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for chiming in, SBHB. Considering that, (since it was this comment I meant, sorry for the confusion there, my fault for not linking), I'll not ask you to remove it, although I will be closing the discussion anyway. My intentions in asking you to remove it were to try and keep the discussion above-board; I'd noticed that the discussion was beginning to go downhill rather quickly, and made a comment to that effect before you posted, GoRight. When I saw your comment, I felt it was rather pointed and the start of worse things to come. As a clerk, I am tasked with keeping the case pages in relative order, which includes user conduct. I will admit I'm trying to be a little more heavy-handed in this case than I might otherwise, due to the high drama levels involved with the subject matter and main parties; I'm not the only one who is worried this case could easily spiral out of control if it's allowed to do so. If it was not your intention to offend, I do apologize; it's clear SBHB didn't take it that way, anyway. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Although it is moot now given Herfold's comment here, below is what I had written. Thanks, Hersfold, for the explanation and your tireless (and probably mostly thankless) service to the community.

(Begin Previously Written Text) For the record, I honestly didn't think that:

"Question: Is this discussion getting anywhere or is it time to move elsewhere now? It seems the main point has been addressed; these notifications are not inappropriate, Abd should strongly consider rewording his statements and/or providing more evidence to support them, anyone with an account on Wikipedia is free to comment here."

was intended as a definitive statement that the discussion was closed. And I certainly didn't mean my edits as any sort of challenge to Hersfold for goodness sake. I have no grudge here against Hersfold.

Hersfold, if you feel strongly about this either way please feel free to revert my comments and I shall bear you no ill will for having done so.

And SBHB I am serious about the kudos. Regardless of whether you are part of a Cabal, or not, as I note in the comment it was (would have been) a clever move on your part deserving of recognition. Or perhaps a notification is just a notification, eh? :) --GoRight (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to all users involved in Abd/WMC

This is a general notice to all users involved in the Abd/WMC arbitration case that further disruptive conduct within the case will not be tolerated and will result in blocks being issued by Clerks or Arbitrators as needed. More information is available at the announcement here; please be sure to read that post in full. Receipt of this message does not necessarily imply that you are at risk of a block or have been acting in a disruptive manner; it is a general notice to all that the Clerks and ArbCom are aware of issues in the case and will not be tolerating them any longer. If you have any questions, please post them to the linked section. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I am one of the disruptive parties and any of my existing comments or posts should be reconsidered, please inform me as to which so that I may at least retroactively attempt to rectify the situation. If no further action, other than behaving myself, is required then please confirm that as well.

At what point will we know if the time extension is granted? What is the process for that? I have decided that I would like to gather some additional diffs and to include another section which is likewise based on raw diffs to show some of the prior interactions between the parties involved in the case. This might help shed some additional objective light on the relationships involved. --GoRight (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAN and editing on behalf of banned users.

Yes, yes, I know I am over analyzing things here, but bear with me. I am going through this exercise because of my proposal on the workshop page, but I certainly don't want to post anything as involved as this there. That being said, I would appreciate some feedback from the linguists and the logicians amongst you.

For the purpose of this discussion, the goal is to assess what the WP:BAN policy actually says, not what current practice is or what the policy should be. We are simply trying to parse the actual text.

The section in WP:BAN titled "Editing on behalf of banned users" states in full:

"Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. Edits which involve proxying that have not been confirmed to that effect may be reverted. Wikipedia's sock puppetry policy defines "meatpuppetry" as the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus. It strongly discourages this form of editing, and new users who engage in the same behavior as a banned or blocked user in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining."

I am trying to honestly parse the italicized sentences to discern what they actually mean. The first contains an intermediate clause that is non-operative so removing it should make no difference to the meaning, so let's simply remove it for clarity (just in this discussion, not in the actual policy). This yields:

"Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them."

Now when I read that the "unless" forms a natural breaking point (i.e. "A" unless "B"), where

A = "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user" and

B = "they [the Wikipedians] are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them".

"A" seems perfectly understandable to me, as does "B". So when they are joined using the conjunction "unless" it clearly seems to be saying that "A" must be adhered to unless "B" is true. Am I wrong on this point?

Assuming that this is the case can this not be legitimately reworded to say as long as "B" is true then "A" does NOT have to be adhered to? I think that these are logically equivalent, are they not?

If so back substitution yields:

"As long as (they [the Wikipedians] are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them) is true then (Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user) does NOT have to be adhered to."

Removing the double negative and simplifying seems to yield:

"As long a Wikipedians are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them then they are permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user."

I claim that this is a logically equivalent statement to the current policy statement, unless someone can point to a flaw in this reasoning. Now maybe that is not what people want the policy to say, which is a different point that should be raised on the WP:BAN page, but I think that this is what it actually says today. Am I missing something here?

The second sentence states:

"Edits which involve proxying that have not been confirmed to that effect may be reverted."

I actually have a hard time parsing this sentence at all and have little idea what it truly means. Still it seems to break down into "Edits "C" may be reverted." for lack of a better alternative where

C = "which involve proxying that have not been confirmed to that effect".

What does "C" actually mean? What is "that effect" actually referring back to? This seems to be near gibberish, actually. It could certainly be made clearer.

"C" seems to be trying to classify or qualify a particular type of edit. It is trying to identify those edits which may be legitimately reverted. If that is the case the "which involve proxying that have not been confirmed to" part seems straight forward and can be simply moved out of "C" and appended to "Edits" which yields: "Edits which involve proxying that have not been confirmed to "D" may be removed." where

D = "that effect".

The only thing that seems to make any sense for "D" to be referring back to is the condition that the Wikipedians were confirming in the previous sentence. There seems to be no sensible alternative.

So, we then have D = "that effect" = "the changes are verifiable and [the Wikipedians] have independent reasons for making them", and back substitution would yield:

"Edits which involve proxying that have not been confirmed to (the changes are verifiable and [the Wikipedians] have independent reasons for making them) may be removed."

and with a little cleanup we would have:

"Edits which involve proxying that have not been confirmed to be verifiable and that the editors have independent reasons for making may be removed."

That seems to be my best guess at what the second sentence actually means. Do others disagree? (I am asking you if you agree with this reasoning not whether you agree that this is what the policy should be.)

Mr. Language Person (a.k.a Boris) what do you think? --GoRight (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Basic Chronology of Relevant Events

Re your entry for the 6th march: unaccountably, you have missed my comments under "useless advice" at t:SA [1]. I'm sure I can count on you to be honest and update your chronology accordingly William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done per your request. --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I shall include it as you request. I am not done yet, and at this point I have mostly only gone through your talk and Abd's with still more even there to review. It takes a lot of time to sort through everything that pops onto your talk page, and I am impressed that you can keep track of so many simultaneous threads!

I have not (yet) looked into anything on SA's page at all and I would likely have missed that since I don't have his page watch listed and was unaware of a conversation there. If I miss anything that should be covered please feel free to point it out as you have done here. While I am trying to filter out the noise from the bit players I am happy to ensure that I include things that both you and Abd feel are significant. There is also the ANI thread to be included in some fashion, although that will likely overlap with material already available in other's sections. No doubt Enric is making use of it (I have not had time to review Enric's evidence in detail).

Hopefully there is some benefit to pulling everything into one place to facilitate the Aribter's review as the discussions tend to be spread out. Given my offer to you above, for parity I shall extend the same to Abd. The other's can fend for themselves in their own sections. OK?

Note that I may not be able to get to this until late tomorrow as I am out of town at the moment visiting with my family. --GoRight (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see on your evidence page that you feel I have misrepresented the comment of March 6. I would like to understand how you think I have done so, I provide a direct link to the actual edit. I shall do the same for the edit you provide above and adjust the descriptions to account for this new information. As I said above, I do not have SA's page watchlisted so ~~I was unaware of that comment on his page until you just pointed it out now~~.

Once I make the requested change I likewise assume that I can count on you to adjust the tone of the statement in your evidence on this point to reflect the fact that I acted at your request to include this in my chronology and offered to include anything else you feel is relevant. I would also like a mention that I had, in fact, provided the direct diff that includes the quote you provide. Alternative just delete the parts that are no longer applicable. Your choice.

For the record I am not going through your or anyone else's contributions with a fine tooth comb (although perhaps as a cross check this may be a good idea if I have time). I started with the basics that I knew off the top of my head to get the framing in place. More recently I have been going through the talk page histories I am aware of to find relevant bits and including them in my table. Until I go through all such pages the chronology is necessarily incomplete as I clearly note in that section.

Please review my most recent set of additions to the table to confirm this if you wish. I was basically going through your talk page history and filtering through it to find discussions relevant to this case, and I decided on how to include the discussion links at that time as well. Note also that I have been basically doing so in chronological order. Using this method I would not have found the SA thread at all, which is why I offer to you that if you are aware of relevant threads that I miss, please point them out. How can I be more fair than that?

I first became aware of the March 6 comment when someone (I think it was MastCell) pointed it out in some discussion you were having on a user talk page that I don't frequent but happened upon that day. It is the place where you make your comment about "nailing your colors to the mast". I was not taking notes that day, so sorry I can't point you directly to it. When I needed to make the reference to it I simply found it on Abd's write-up as he likwise made note of it.

And for the record, I still need to include the comment you made somewhere where you explicitly tell me that the conditions of Hipocrite's lifting of the ban did not include "not editing" the CF page. I just haven't gotten to it, I am not leaving it out on purpose or anything. --GoRight (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - Having reread this in the light of day I must have seen this thread previously because I distinctly remember the claims Lawful Good alignment portion of: "And speaking as someone who rather likes Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan, and claims Lawful Good alignment, I have to defend the Law, and that includes respect for those enforcing the law." I apologize for my confusion. --GoRight (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I finally found it. Here is a permanent link to the full conversation where I came across all of the above, [2]. Indeed, I even participated in it. I am afraid my memory is not what it used to be. --GoRight (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about?

Re [3] - in the interests of not filling up the workshop page with Abd-like volumes of natter, could you (here) please drop the snide sniping and actually be explicit about what on earth you are talking about? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a large point. You, Abd, and Rootology edit warred over the notices being given to Hipocrite regarding his being made (or attempting to make, if you prefer) a party to the ArbCom case. In the quote I provided (use your browser's search capability to find where I originally pulled it from) you referred to Rootology as "intervening unhelpfully where he wasn't wanted". I am merely pointing out the irony of this statement since you too could be viewed in that case as "intervening unhelpfully where [you weren't] wanted." There is no tangled web that has been woven here, I am merely pointing out the "Pot meet Kettle, Black" moment you were having w.r.t. Rootology. Clear enough now? --GoRight (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I never edit warred, in that incident or any in this case. I added Hipocrite to the list of parties, and notified him, that's all. That's certainly not edit warring! WMC edit warred. He removed my notice, then Rootology's restoration on clear argument that WMC was involved and shouldn't be removing notices. Rootology didn't respond by repeated reversion. The only one clearly edit warring there was WMC. Below, WMC appears to think that the only ones who can "interfere" are involved editors. That's backwards, but typical. --Abd (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, still don't understand. I was part of the case - clearly I had an interest. Rootology, for whatever reason, decided to interfere where he had no clear connection. So I don't see the symmetry that you appear to William M. Connolley (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"So I don't see the symmetry that you appear to." - Understandable. It is not uncommon for someone's involvement in a situation to cloud their own objectivity. As an outside and uninvolved observer to that little edit war, you are correct that I do seem to see the situation differently than you do. No offense intended here, this is merely an observation about the reality of human nature. --GoRight (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, that isn't good enough. You raised this point, please don't duck out now. As you say, and I agree: I was involved. Rootology wasn't. You agree? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved in what? Please be specific. Involved in the edit war regarding the addition of Hipocrite as a party? I haven't followed the entire thread of events but I am certain that Abd, Rootology, and yourself were ALL involved in that, at least to the extent that Abd's initial postings could be construed as showing "involvement" in the edit war itself. There may have been others but it hardly seems important to check at this point.

Or do you mean included as active parties to the ArbCom case? Abd was, you were, Rootology wasn't, but this is irrelevant to my point ... at least from my outside and uninvolved perspective.

I'll be happy enough to continue to engage you in this if you want, but I have to ask to what effect? What are you hoping to achieve by continuing? --GoRight (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Updated to account for Abd's comment above. --GoRight (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in the issue of the involvement of H, of course. We all agree about that. That was a part of the setup of the arbcomm case. User:Rootology wasn't, until he chose to involve himself. As far as I can tell, [4] was his sole contribution to the matter. Which is to say, he decided to butt in to this problem. He didn't have to; it was his choice. Whereas I was already involved William M. Connolley (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The parallel I see here is that Abd was seeking to have H added to the case and was issuing notifications to that effect. When you started reverting the notifications, in my mind you were likewise involving yourself in something to which you were not really involved yet. You were a party in the case but that doesn't mean that you were involved in Abd's attempt to add H to the case. You were uninvolved in THAT right up to the point where you started reverting the notifications (i.e. you made a choice). Perhaps I have missed some context prior to that which is relevant, but from that perspective and that perspective alone I think you were butting in where you weren't wanted. YMMV on that point.

What I am confused about is why you would take an action such as that which will clearly be seen as attempting to provide "cover" for H bu keeping him out of the line of fire when you presumably felt that he was sufficiently in the wrong to warrant banning him in the first place. You ban him for his edit warring on the page and then provide "cover" for him to keep him out of the proceedings where his actions would receive scrutiny. There seems to be a contradiction in there someplace, it just just makes me say hmmm. --GoRight (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You are aware that you just broke it on Fred Singer - right? (hint: a revert is a revert even if you do not mark it as rv - and it is also a revert if you rewrite what has just been reverted) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's debatable. If the "rewritten" text answers -- or at least attempts to answer -- objections made by reverting editors, I've argued that it should not be considered a revert, but rather efficient negotiation process. Such edits don't match the detailed discussion, only wikilawyered analysis of the summary as being any edit that repeatedly restores or removes content. Perhaps this should be brought up the current RfAr. However, under current conditions, be careful and do not approach 3RR violation, even legitimately as you may have done here if I read between the lines of KDP's warning. I'll look at the incident. --Abd (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with below) :::Okay, you hit 3RR or 4RR depending on the definition of revert. Don't do that. You are faced with tag team reversion, you know that. KDP is involved to his eyeballs, using bald reverts, which are objectionable at lower levels than what you did, especially with a BLP, you were initially removing unsourced negative allegations, in effect, so you weren't faced with a 3RR limit, so including that edit was really improper. I'm aware of your probable justifications for what you did. It can get you blocked, quickly. Tag team reversion isn't fair, but is much more difficult to address than single-editor reversion. You had some support here. Be patient. You could accomplish what was legitimate about what you were doing by being a little more patient, and not hitting the 3RR line. --Abd (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way that they will be counting I believe that I have hit, but NOT EXCEEDED, 3RR. If they point me to a fourth revert within a relevant 24 hour period I will be more than willing to correct my unintentional oversight. I have no need to wikilawyer on the meaning of a revert.

Given that we have been unable to reach a conensus either way on the talk page I suggest that we seek a wider audience of opinion via an RfC. Agreed? --GoRight (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You went above 3RR (btw. weren't you promising to only do 1RR at some point?) - here are the 4 reverts: #1 clearly marked as revert, #2 partial revert to a scibaby edit (rewritten somewhat), #3 revert and marked as such and finally #4 revert marked as such. That comes to 4 reverts within ~22 hours by my calculations. (nb. you had another edit - but that wasn't a revert - but introduction of text that was reverted by others) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it a stretch to consider #1 as being related to the other three. Regardless, given that Raul has chosen to escalate things to the 3RR noticeboard I probably shouldn't discuss it further here. On the WP:1RR pledge you mention, yes I did make that and to a very large extent I believe that I have adhered to it with some exceptions, this being one. I have also made many WP:0RR attempts at influencing page content since then as well. It was just a pledge, though. We are all human. In any event I acknowledge your reminder and thank you for it. --GoRight (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:3RR. It matters not whether the reverts are related or not (nor whether they where "bald" (as Abd puts it)). As you can see, you reverted a total of 4 times - and that is what matters to that particular rule. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is different than I recall it having been interpreted some time ago, but if this is now the norm then I will be more than happy to adopt it. This interpretation seems much more clear cut than the previous. And I will even allow that I may have had a misunderstanding of the intent of the policy even back then. There is no point for me to actively exceed 3RR, obviously, as I know I will be summarily blocked. This is one of the truly objective rules we have around here.

Just so we are in agreement on what the rule actually states, my revised understanding is that consecutive edits are still considered as one and revert is interpreted as the undoing of any action by any editor (other than yourself, obviously) any where on the page WITHOUT regards to the content involved. Is that also you understanding? --GoRight (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems very close to my understanding of it. There are a few exceptions: reverting vandalism (blatant (things like "hehe Julies a c*nt")), reversion of sockpuppets and finally reversions of BLP violations. (the last one is almost never accepted (from my (limited) experience) as an excuse, unless the BLP vio is extreme - although i have seen people getting a block lifted for it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The exceptions you mention do seem to be recognized as such but in general would would not try to rely upon them except in, as you say, obvious and extreme cases. Use at your own peril, as it were. And for the record I honestly wasn't trying to wikilawyer anything here, it was an honest misunderstanding of how the rules are being applied. I don't even want to push the line here as a general rule. I have found it is much easily for all involved that way. --GoRight (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't give wrong advice. "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part" - from WP:3RR. This may not be how you think it should be, but it is how it is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't wikilawyer. There is a more detailed discussion of revert, I'll find a link to it, that makes it quite clear what's involved, as to the intention. "Reversing actions" in the above phrase mostly involves removal of editorial work, negation, not new work that makes a contribution more solid by adding additional sources and that thus restores something that may have been removed because of being unsourced or inadequately sourced. You've been using this kind of argument for a long time to keep content out of the project, it's not going to fly any more, I predict. Your behavior sucks other editors into violating 3RR, and it's quite visible to those who look. In other words, if I add an unsourced claim to an article, it's easily reverted as not being sourced. If I replace it with a non-trivial source, that's not a revert, rather it is a satisfaction of the objection. Claiming that such is a "reversal," presumably in part, of a removal is preposterous, as to intention, and is dependence on accidental meanings of the language used in the policy, thus abundantly qualifies as wikilawyering.

There are a number of aspects of the 3RR rules that are difficult to express, and the result is that very different situations can be considered edit warring, while others which are clearly edit warring are passed over. It needs work. But the purpose of the prohibition of edit warring is very clear, and your warning and comment above completely neglect the purpose in favor of a technical interpretation that you use to justify highly objectionable behavior, which is exclusion of balancing content, reliably sourced. --Abd (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Still, I assume GR has been around long enough to know not to follow your advice William M. Connolley (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion of reverts from a technical perspective at - surprise - WP:REVERT. But WP:3RR has run by a more inclusive definition ever since I first saw it - and that would have been around 2003 or 2004. And if you make any statements about me, you might want to back them up with actual data. WP:3RR is useless for "keeping content of Wikipedia" in even the medium term. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of my edits at Fred Singer. I do not believe that I have violated WP:3RR. Are you asserting that I have? If so please point me to the relevant edits so that I can correct the oversight forthwith. --GoRight (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, looks like you'll get your chance to find out [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No stone left unturned. --GoRight (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I have started a thread on your violation of the 3rr and latest instance of meatpuppetry on behalf of Scibaby here. Raul654 (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to BlackKite's suggestion in the ANI/3RR thread, I have opened a sockpuppet investigation into your meatpuppetry on behalf of Scibaby. Raul654 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN3 thread

I have left a proposal there for getting the article unprotected. Please respond if you have a moment. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It shall be quite safe, from me at least, to unprotect the page. I shall next be pursuing an RfC on the talk page which should be uncontroversial in this regards. --GoRight (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppet "investigation"

Clerk note: – Raul654 has laid out evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby that he claims shows you acting as a meatpuppet for the banned user Scibaby. I believe it is in your best interest to attend to that as quickly as possible. NW (Talk) 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defeated...

The article has been defeated. Some admins raised some problems with the small amount of criticisms I first wrote. They're hypocrites, though, because what they wouldn't allow on that page they allow in droves on the FNC controversy page. They were just trying to find a way to get rid of it. Unless we can get some solid and thick stuff for it, they're likely to just delete it because they really don't want such a page.PokeHomsar (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. You should be able to work on the page in your user space while you try to get the content built up. They shouldn't be able to complain about you working on a page there. Ask one of the admins involved to restore the page and move it under your account while you continue to work on it. If they give you problems with that request let me know and we can take it to AN to find someone more friendly to the project. --GoRight (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite temperature measurements

I would welcome your input to the discussion related to the new public domain image of RSS and UAH global temperature anomaly data here: Satellite Temperature Measurements -- Update the Graphic. Thank you. SunSw0rd (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is...

The fact of the matter is, I'd need a team of people to make this page. I'd need help with references and page layout. I'd need length the likes of which would require several people working on it.PokeHomsar (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it probably shouldn't have been attempted as an actual page. I see on your user talk page that others have indicated as much. You should not let this discourage you from trying to make proper updates to the MSNBC page that are in line with the things that you believe need to be addressed.

The problem was probably just that you were trying to create a separate controversies page when such a page was not yet warranted. The way that such pages come into existence, as someone on you talk page noted, is that they start as a controversies section within the main page. It is only after becoming so cumbersome and distracting to the rest of the article that the content is moved to its own page. You were simply jumping the gun.

After they restore the content we can look at it together, if you wish of course, and I can give you some advice on how to improve things so that you might get it added to the main MSNBC page directly. There will be many knowledgeable editors opposing the introduction of such material so you will have to have all your ducks in a row before attempting to add it. I can help you to anticipate their complaints and thereby help you to overcome the obstacles they will try to put in your way.

Don't try to boil the ocean in one go. Take baby steps. Get individual content added one topic at a time and over time these will add up. Eventually the controversies page you envision may become a reality through patience and time. Does it really matter if the content is on a separate page or in the main article? I wouldn't see why that part should matter, actually.

If you are interested in such assistance please confirm it here and we can proceed. If not, please confirm that as well. --GoRight (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]