User talk:Ratel/Archive 12

Press releases

Quit spamming press releases to 350 (organisation). They are in no way even close to a reliable source of information. -Atmoz (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're good for their purpose. ► RATEL ◄ 06:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to address my actual edits shows that you are not trying to write a neutral encyclopedia. It also explains why you think press releases are good sources. Please try to remember that Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. -Atmoz (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your aims on that page are obvious. No matter, it's transparent what you're trying to do, and I suppose I'll have to go through all the tedious official steps to stop you. No life, eh? ► RATEL ◄ 03:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tedious? You may skip to ANI on my permission. -Atmoz (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your constant notability tagging has been reverted by an admin, so stop that shite, mkay? Just keep on edit warring the page and we'll end up at ANI as you clearly are determined to do. ► RATEL ◄ 04:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already said you could report me to ANI. Have you heard of the Boy who cried wolf? -Atmoz (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No crying here. See the Biggest Baddest Wolf for yourself: The Age of Stupid, if you don't have the will open your eyes and ears. The time for the nay-saying is over. We, on this planet, have only one atmosphere, 1Sky, and it is "inflamed" and the prognosis is bleak (since you appear too lazy to find out for yourself, since you appear to believe no one but yourself.) Wake-up, get mature, and tone-down your tantrums. It is time for constructive actions. First understand, then Lead, Follow, or Get Out Of the Way. The best Leaders are the best Followers. Even if you only care about your "world", this event is degrading it: You are Losing, read Stern Review. For what you have worked so hard (wealth) to gain, is being taken from you by global warming change. Protect your wealth, as it is more cost effective to drop greenhouse gases than the other choices. 99.39.187.137 (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

How so Ratel?

RWTH (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

[1] Kindly refrain from them. -Atmoz (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a PA, that's an alert to the community. ► RATEL ◄ 06:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to requests for retribution then. It does not belong on BLPN. -Atmoz (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Find a more appropriate venue, and some more reasoned language to make your argument. Kevin (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put it there because it relates to the article in question, but I'm prepared to escalate to RFAR. ► RATEL ◄ 07:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The language and general tenor is inappropriate. Also BLPN is for content issues, and behavioural issues should go via relevant dispute resolution. Rd232 ^talk 08:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting the messenger again. My language is to the point and direct. I do not apologise for not mincing words. ► RATEL ◄ 08:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming to be a 350 "messenger", now? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not funny, Arthur. For a guy as smart as you claim to be, I'm surprised at your attitude the the global warming issue. You're letting your politics overrule your scientific side. ► RATEL ◄ 08:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Action by you against an administrator

Hi. I noticed a posting of yours immediately below mine. Are you yourself an ADM? And can you really take action against an ADM? --Ludvikus (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can. I am not an admin (and don't wish to be one). ► RATEL ◄ 14:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Ratel, it has been pointed out to me that it was wrong for me to refer you to the policy on vandalism and warn you that you could be banned. As you are probably aware Wikipedia editing can become very frustrating at times and your insistence on including that "luck" quote from Paltridge which I don't think we're likely to see eye to eye on any time soon indeed caused me to feel very angry. I probably should have at that point turned off my computer and poured myself a strong drink but at the end of the day I am an emotional person and rarely make wise decisions in anger. I do not in fact believe your actions were "vandalism" as I am aware that you actually believe the material you are inserting belongs in the article. It's unfortunate that I don't think we're likely to agree on much else but on this much, we probably can agree: I made a mistake and I am sorry. In case you're not aware I then accused Atmoz of vandalism a few minutes later on another page which is a pretty good sign that I really had lost it. Let me know if there's anything else I can do here to make amends. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a fellow Aussie, apology accepted. You seem to edit here a lot. I'm also ex-IT ... finding employment difficult much? I don't think GP is significant enough to get too worked up over, btw. Outside AU he's unknown. And even here, almost nobody knows who he is. I'm trying to get another copy of the Climate Caper book so I can revamp the content section. I had it for a few days but let it go back into the system; now it seems I need to get it back. ► RATEL ◄ 23:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm still employed but it's looking pretty grim. Perhaps we can both agree on let's have the IT job market pick up then? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your time may be better spent upgrading skills and networking than wikiwarring. I'm guessing I'm quite a bit older than you and facing different hurdles. ► RATEL ◄ 07:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chalk baby

Did anyone really read this? - http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QrkNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NXMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4825,962491&dq=arthur-rubin+putnam&hl=en Flowanda | Talk 08:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that link added today — 1) where is he called a "genius" in that article? and 2) such great things were predicted, so what went wrong? Because something obviously did. ► RATEL ◄ 08:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, I added those sources when the article was at AFD previously. The word genius appears in the LA Times article. It's not actually that big a deal - in IQ terms it just means the top 0.1% or so - and I was graded that level myself. As to what went wrong - "many are called, but few are chosen" and conventional success is "99% perspiration", as the saying goes. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it then.

► RATEL ◄ 14:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Post_canvassing_analysis

Your name has been prominently mentioned. Ikip (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I did suggest a delete vote on a puff article to one admin. I wouldn't call it a "canvassing campaign" per se, but who am I to spoil someone's wikihysteria? ► RATEL ◄ 03:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProCon

Part of the problem is that we don't know the entire context of the email; we only have the clip the site chose to add. Basically, the site should be treated as a starting point for research. Information found there can be incorporated if it can be sourced more directly. (Their involvement with Wikipedia has been problematic; the site actually sponsored a contest amongst its members to create an article about itself, offering a cash prize to participants.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it then. Ha, what idiots. ► RATEL ◄ 05:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Becker

Becker wrote 3 books from what I can see and none of them quote him as saying anything about the university he has attended.

Better yet, write to Becker and ask him at hbecker@hackettsonline.com His new company is www.hackettsonline.com and there is a phone number where he can be reached at 315 393 6101. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.25.175 (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Becker or know him and you contest the issue, contact the people who have published the false details and get them revoked, or advise Becker to do that. ► RATEL ◄ 05:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prostatitis

Ratel

Thanks for the site reference. Seems to have responded to another month of 2x400mg Norfloxacin and a month of 1x400mg. May be useful knowledge for those sufferers who have some resistance to the more common antibiotics.Tjandspallan (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troy King

Please visit the Troy King article and review the discussion on the Biography of Living Persons Policy. I very strongly believe that there is a violation of these policies by including the name of an individual who is not the subject of the article in a very controversial issue regarding pay. While he is the employee receiving the substantial pay, he did not make that choice and only accepted a job being offered. As a former state employee this troubles me greatly. I think the Biography of Living Persons Policy are very clear regarding the inclusion of someones name who is not the subject of the article and add value must be required in making that decision and I see no value added in understanding the issue by including the persons name. IP editors keep changing this back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spellxer (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Plimer

Where did I make my RS/N comments? Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but after reviewing the page and the conversation at RS/N a second time the reasoning of Hipocrite and Fourdeuces seems sound. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pity. I was hoping for some intelligent input. Having only one side of a debate represented is not encyclopedic in my view. ► RATEL ◄ 15:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello, Ratel. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euthanasia in the Netherlands

Nice work. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For all of your work and patience on the IE page and talk. You really went above and beyond. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL thanks man

4twenty42o has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

- 4twenty42o (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of e-mail to email change

Just to let you know I reverted your change at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident for reasons discussed here Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#E-mail/email Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Drudge Edit

Hello, I just wanted to point out my rationale for editing the word "notoriety" in the Matt Drudge article: (1) The source you cited used the word "notoriety" but there is nothing to indicate that Drudge became notorious other than the author's opinion. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "notoriety" means "The state or condition of being notorious; the fact of being famous or well known, esp. for some reprehensible action, quality, etc." The assumption that breaking the Monica Lewinsky scandal is a "reprehensible action, quality, etc." is a political opinion in any context, since the scandal led to a sitting U.S. President being impeached.

(2) According to www.nndb.com article of Matt Drudge, his site received approx. 80,000 hits per day prior to the Lewinsky story and soon rose to millions per day. I think that the word "popularity" conveys what happened to Drudge following the story much more accurately than does "notoriety."

Please note, I am not trying to pick a fight or anything, but I feel that my edit much more accurately reflects what occurred, while the previous wording may give a false sense.

 Thank you for your consideration of my position!

____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLoneRanger47 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Re: IP spoofing, check out WP:EASTEREGG. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Becker

Why did you remove the education bit on Herbert L. Becker?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.12.4 (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced. ► RATEL ◄ 04:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plimer article -- thanks!

Thanks for adding the "political influence" subsection, which I think adds to the article. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your own edit

You three or four can tag-team revert me, thus skirting 3RR, while I have only myself. If I do the reasonable thing and revert you, I'll be at 2RR. See the article's talk page: "...Really, THERE IS NO CONNECTION between the statements you have strung together and the conclusions they leave unstated". Discuss. • Ling.Nut 02:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, "while I have only myself". IOW consensus is against you. Bad luck. ► RATEL ◄ 03:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ratel. Mockery is a sign of immaturity. It is used to distract others from the weakness of one's arguments. Moreover, CONSENSUS is wholly and completely a farce on Wikipedia. POV gangs rule. Feel free to do the right thing at any time. • Ling.Nut 03:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing, Mr Nut.

► RATEL ◄ 03:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this deals with the same article - you are mighty close to three reverts in any 24 hour period at Climate change denial. Please remember to use Talk:Climate change denial so uninvolved editors, e.g. those arriving from WP:ANEW, may be directed to a firm consensus. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Philip Nitschke

Given the highly subjective nature of what constitutes "harassment," I think that last opening sentence needs to be reworded. I've read the sources, and, to be honest, I don't think the label can be so definitively stuck on as your citation of WP:SPADE would suggest; these are police raids and questioning on an organization supporting what is, at the moment, an illegal activity. I won't revert your edit again, but would you consider an alternate phrasing? Thegreenj 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC) edit in question [reply]

What is an "illegal activity"? Suicide? They are not doing anything illegal, as far as I can see. And the police know it. ► RATEL ◄ 22:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But a very substantial amount of people disagree, including the Australian government. That's what WP:NPOV is for—the article should not take a particular point of view. That he is in contention with the government is indisputable. That what the government is doing is wrong (which "harassment" certainly implies), however, is very disputable. I think we need to find a way to say that he's had run-ins with the government without qualifying it as harassment or otherwise. (FWIW, I agree with you on euthanasia.)

That said, thanks for revising the statement. It's clear now that it's his, and not the author's, claim for harassment. Thegreenj 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk

Please see talk. • Ling.Nut 14:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious

Why do you object to the bit you deleted here? I don't think it's particularly pointy or inaccurate. You have been a principle party in adding the climate skeptic bits to his BLP, no? --GoRight (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of many to have done so. I don't think noting his denialism is a POV action, as your comment (obliquely) implies. ► RATEL ◄ 09:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Plimer

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Ian Plimer, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --TS 09:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You added a "(see below)" phrase to the CPPS article. Do you know the precise reference for the effects of quercetin? If you know the precise link, I can help adding a new reference using labels (or you can do it yourself). Best regards Anonu (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Euthanasia

What happened to the info removed on this edit? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article was broken into several articles, look at the talk page. ► RATEL ◄ 06:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. I have found one of them. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DC

Note that he was vindicated by the police of the rape allegation -- with the allegator being noted by the police as filing other false reports. Placing the allegation in his BLP was clearly wrong. Noting that the accuser was specifically determined to have made false accusations is germane. Collect (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know she wasn't set up by a paid agent of the accused? You assume far too much. Her lawyer denies the version of events you have uncritically accepted and her civil case against the accused continues. You also say that he was "vindicated by police of the rape allegation". Whaaat? Where do you get that from? You need to re-read [2] and [3], especially:

Investigations may be closed without charges if prosecutors determine there is no federal jurisdiction, no federal laws were broken, or that it would be impossible to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. "Neither the investigation, nor its termination, should be perceived as a comment on guilt or innocence," the statement said.

Editing 101, really. ► RATEL ◄ 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plimer

Sorry, but I can't protect that page - I'm a bit too involved, IMO, to protect the page. Guettarda (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1RR

Ratel, I believe you have exceeded WP:1RR on Plimer; you might want to self rv. This article is part of the CC probation. ATren (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Copperfield discussion redact

Will you consider redacting your comments or letting an uninvolved admin remove unrelated edits (including mine)? Please see my comments at User_talk:Collect#David_Copperfield_discussion_redact. Flowanda | Talk 22:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. Collect has pursued me from page to page for years, and I'm sick to death of it, and it shows in my immoderate comments, because I'm only human. It's a hole in the wikipedia model that allows essentially malevolent and IMO disturbed individuals to harass editors they target for abuse. The issue of stalking needs to be taken much more seriously by administration here. ► RATEL ◄ 23:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned you

Hi Ratel, just want to let you know as a courtesy that I mentioned you here. Rather impolitic of me, I know, and perhaps I shouldn't single you out, but then looking at your talk page it kind of seems that you're comfortable in your style. For what it's worth. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, gave me the opportunity to support a block that is most justified. ► RATEL ◄ 12:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those difference links are a bit worrisome - might I convince you to avoid comments like this in future? I know it is a bit of a toxic environment over there right now, but there are ways of stating your disagreement with a proposal that do not involve contributing to the problem. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the comment you cite. User Collect has been stalking me on many pages for some years now. I've complained several times to several sysops, but the advice is always to make a big case out of it, for which I have no time. The evidence of stalking is incontrovertible, but nothing is done. It stinks. ► RATEL ◄ 22:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, from the perspective of an outside observer, it looks like you are the one lowering the level of discourse. A pattern of such posts would be sanctionable under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation - have you tried WP:SHUN?

Taking your stalking assertion at face value (because, well you and Collect are both prolific long-term contributors, and establishing such a pattern would take a fair bit of time and effort ...), you could probably prepare an AN/I request for an interaction ban or other sanction in under four hours using mzmcbride's wikistalk tool and Ale jrb's User History script. The first lists all the articles you have edited in common, and the second isolates a particular user's contributions to an article. If the evidence is well-presented and incontrovertible, the ensuing mess should be significantly less hassle than an ArbCom, at least. I am sorry, but I think it is unlikely that anyone else will take the time to compile the evidence. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that info. I hope I can find the time to act on it. ► RATEL ◄ 07:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can substantiate the stalking allegation, you might consider asking Gwen Gale's advice. She acted as C's "minder" in the wake of his RfC and, for a while at least, kept him on a tight rein. Also I think she asked to be informed of any continuation of obnoxious behaviour. Writegeist (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bill Moyers

I've removed your mention of Drrll in the section heading you started per WP:TALK. I agree with your BLP concerns, and have tagged the absurd Criticism section. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see the user concerned is now blocked. He appears to me to be a reincarnation of both Andyvphil and/or CENSEI, who both tried in similar fashion to add the same material. One or both are also blocked, permanently. ► RATEL ◄ 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

The reason I am writing is regarding edits like this. I see you are currently involved in a content dispute and have been using Twinkle to revert to a version you are more comfortable with. Please know that Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Reverting specifically prohibits the use of such tools in an edit war. I kindly ask that you refrain from using them during the course of this content dispute. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks!Gerardw (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I used Twinkle to revert an unsourced addition of derogatory material to a BLP (...But the owner of the paper, Harry Guggenheim, criticized Moyers's "left-wing sympathies"). This material was never added back in again in the same way, so the reversion was totally justified. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 23:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Just letting you know you've made more than 3 reversions today on Bill Moyers. THF (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make me go to AN3: self-revert this edit -- which, by the way, has a misleading edit-summary, as three other editors have taken my side on your use of WP:PRIMARY. THF (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR does not count when your removing denigrating data from a BLP. I suggest you monitor yr own edit count. ► RATEL ◄ 00:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that both primary and secondary sources exist for that section. ► RATEL ◄ 00:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please agree to stop warring at Bill Moyers

See WP:AN3#User:Ratel reported by THF (talk) (Result: ). I perceive that you've made five reverts in 24 hours, which violates 3RR. (Almost any edit that doesn't add brand-new material counts as a revert). No comment on who is behaving well or badly in the debate, but I don't see any removals of blatant BLP violation among your edits. Nearly all the disputed material is consistent with WP policy; it just needs editor consensus to say whether it stays or goes. You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will comment at AN3 and agree to stop warring on this article. Your statement would be more effective if you agree to stay away from the article for a period, for example 7 days. There is also a 3RR open against Gamaliel but he did not make four reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second this request. The BLP exemption exists to protect the encyclopedia, but it should not be used in borderline or otherwise questionable cases. This leads to chilling effects and stifles discussion, which also harm the encyclopedia. I do not think that a block would be productive at this time, but please be more careful in future. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you?

You seriously need to stop acting like you're the "God of editing". I only used the term "dimwit" because the person who reverted my changes knows quite well that those terms he used to describe the two news sites are contentious and a matter of opinion. Unless those two sites come out and say it themselves that they are "conservative" or "liberal", it is our rightful duty as editors to keep those pages as neutral as possible. Good day to you sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaRouxEMP (talk • contribs) 06:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest changes in order to meet BLP standards

The Oil for Food Scandal was allowed. Can this be cleaned up to meet the proper standards?

Carbon Taxation Involvement
Jesse Ventura cited Maurice Strong as being a primary developer of global warming [16], with the goal of creating a global carbon credit taxation. Additionally, there are numerous claims that that the Edmund de Rothschild, a member of the well-known Rothschild family, was working with Strong as well. In essence, Strong has been promoting global warming since the 1980's with the long term goal of helping the United Nations create a carbon tax [17] [18], potentially a trillion dollar business, mainly via carbon credit trading. In 1987, Strong, Rothschild, and presented the Brundtland Commission at the 4th World Wilderness Congress for a World Conservation Bank (or Global Environment Facility) which would provide a banking system for carbon taxation [19]. The Global Environment Facility (or GEF) is an existing multi-billion dollar fund through which green projects are created in 3rd world countries (the largest of its kind), while keeping a portion of the funds for management and administrative fees. Additionally, it hopes to trade the world's debt for wilderness lands as collateral.
As of 2010, Strong is believed to be actively working with China on their government carbon credit trading, as well as with attempting to produce the Chinese owned Chery Automobile in/for the United States market.

To insert this, you'd need proper sources. You have none so far. The sources given were false. Then there is the tone and content, implying Strong is involved in a conspiracy to create the concept of global warming, which is nonsense. Why should the opinions of the palooka Ventura be sprayed all over this man's biography? Bottom line: this material contravenes the policy of wp:BLP. Please read the policy carefully. Keep this discussion on the article's talk page please. ► RATEL ◄ 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement request

Ratel, please see the enforcement request I have opened here. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom review

I've requested an ArbCom review of one of the admins who has acted in the above enforcement request. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SHBS

Trust me. He knows more about climate change than you and I combined. And he is up to the latests developments. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I was not aware. ► RATEL ◄ 09:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refactor

Why don't you refactor the comments I object to in this statement? [4] That diff has the links you'll need to see exactly what I'm talking about. Calling me "anti-science" and making false statements about me involve violations of WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF, which are referred to on the climate change probation page. [5] If you refactor your comments, I'll remove my complaints about them. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I generally AGF editors, but when you deleted my well-sourced and on-topic edit with the comment "ill-advised", I could no longer assume good faith, and nothing you have done subsequently has changed that. Indeed, the impression has been reinforced. Your usepage shows you are interested in poetry. Perhaps this is the area you should edit within? Are you science trained? ► RATEL ◄ 01:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Ratel

The result of the above request was to decide to give you the following notice;

You are reminded of both Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation (regarding assuming good faith specifically), and are warned that further assumptions of bad faith will result in a prompt short block and a topic ban from Climate Change articles covered by the probation for a period to be decided. You are encouraged to respond positively to other editors requests for co-operation and discussion, and to report any instances of possible provocation to an uninvolved administrator rather than reverting/warring.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, noted. Also noted is that the wp:AGF policy does allow for the perception of bad faith, when it occurs. And when I see a pattern of tendentious editing to, for instance, remove all material that delineates one side of the argument, no matter how well sourced or germane, I tend to recognize bad faith for what it is. So I think this warning was unnecessary, but I shall tread more carefully in future. ► RATEL ◄ 01:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, WP:AGF notes that "clear evidence" is required before any action may be deemed other than good faith. Editing toward a POV contrary to that of ones own, or the existing consensus, is not "prima facie" evidence of bad faith, but of a different pov. In matters where there is a premium in having removed those editors whose pov is not in accordance with the preferred one, strict adherence to the wording of policy and guideline (and probation) marginalises the risk of being unable to contribute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The line between different POV editing and tendentious (bad faith) editing is a fine one, especially in the area of climate change. My observation is that there is very little good faith on display, although I am always happily surprised when I stumble across it unexpectedly. ► RATEL ◄ 02:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider contributing what you can of good faith and I expect you'll see the general pool of it increase. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concern

Ratel, this is unnaceptable. You know better than to put negative or controversial information in a BLP and source it to a blog. I mean, you do know that, don't you? I didn't revert it because I think that you should be the one to do so. Cla68 (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. DeSmogBlog, despite the name, is not a blog and is quoted on climate change matters in the media. ► RATEL ◄ 10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for an independent opinion at the WP:BLPN. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there, thanks for informing me. ► RATEL ◄ 00:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political accusations

Ratel, please note that your comment here would seem to violate the recent warning you received on the probation page. I am not interested in responding to your baseless political accusations on talk pages; please consider this an additional request that you stop making them. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase. ► RATEL ◄ 23:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blog articles

Thank you for adding the logo and screen shot to the DeSmogBlog article. Could you do the same for the Watts Up With That and RealClimate articles? I'll be working on those two articles once I've submitted the DeSmogBlog article for Good Article consideration. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Kim D. Peterson put the refs that way soon after I started the article and was the first time I had seen refs done that way also. I thought that system appeared to be more efficient, because as the article expands and refs are used multiple times, editors won't have to search through to find previous citations to format the "ref name"s correctly. Cla68 (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's not smart, just that it seems to run counter to the official guidelines. ► RATEL ◄ 23:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what the GA reviewer says. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Per the outcome at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Peterlewis you are hereby warned that you were being unnecessarily battlegroundish and that further such behavior may result in a sanction being imposed. Please moderate your approach. ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What an absurd conclusion! I reported a clear breach. I won't partake in that process again. ► RATEL ◄ 23:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Plimer is under Climate Change guidelines (1RR)

Your last revert is number 2 in one day on a page with a 1RR restriction (Climate Change stuff). I recommend you self-revert. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get that info? 1RR? I see no notice to that effect. BTW, I reverted a very poor edit you made, so please take more care. ► RATEL ◄ 01:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]