User talk:Climatedragon

Welcome

Hello, Climatedragon, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Lcawte

Happy editing! Lcawte (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Scibaby (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

NW (Talk) 23:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1=Hand on. On the weight of a couple of lines you image you have identified a style. I was not even aware what sock puppet meant here. Since joining up nearly 18 mths ago I have made scores of contributions to wikipedia (including mushrooms on which I have detailed knowlege ) but normally on the fly since articles arent' protected. This look more like you don't agree with my edits. I requested that you bring this to discussion and your reponse is to block the account. I trust you will revert this rash and incorrect judgement asap}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

My apologies for the block. Checkuser results indicated that you are likely not the person who I thought you were, and so I must offer my apologies for wrongfully blocking you.

Request handled by: NW (Talk) 23:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

You are one of the most obvious sockpuppets I've ever seen. You made just enough token edits to enable you to disruptively edit the semi-protected Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My God. Talk about presumption of guilt. I make "token edits" every damn time I visit wikipedia. I've never seen the need to login before today since I do this for the benefit of improving wiki not to build some glorious user record. Contributing to a semi-protected page requires a minimum of acreditted posts , so today I logged in. Logging in before making edits is not the activity described as "sockpuppet". It's what we are encouraged to do.

If I'd created the account 5 minutes before the posts maybe it would be suspicious but this account is well over a year old.

You accuse me now of disruptive editing for ONE single revert. I would strongly defend the changes I made (in the proper place , not here ) but you blocked my account rather than respond to my discussion of it.

So what EXACTLY is the offence officer?

Apart from your expert testimony that you "recognise the style" from two tiny edits , where is the evidence to link me to your nemesis Scibot character?

You have seriously over reacted on this one in banning me outright on mere suspicion. This is starting to look more like you abusing your position because you don't like the NPOV edit I made than anything else.

The fact that you have not already recognised that over reaction and lifted the block reinforces that suspicion.

OK , I start to get what's going on here. From looking at the other accounts that have been blocked as Scibaby clones it seems that anyone who dares point out that it is not the job of wikipedia to pre-emp the police and the courts on what is criminal activity gets their account blocked.

There are a couple of accounts at least in there that seem to have been genuine long term accounts that fell foul of the wiki thought police on this issue. Even some talk of "sleeper socks" . Really guys , get a grip. This is not the cold war, it a wiki.

@jason32. Thanks for picking this up. How long does this sock check take? It must be a pretty trivial exercise to discover that the only link I have with ANY of those accounts is that I saw the same flaw in the CRU article.

Since that is not against WP:SP or any other rule , I would ask that you process that check a.s.a.p. and reinstate my account. I don't see why I should be penalised any longer.

Thanks.

Climatedragon (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry?

Hi all, I just came across this situation because I've been following the story about the Climate Research Unit email incident, and had a couple of observations.

Climatedragon, you claim that you logged in so that you could edit the CRU email article (which is semi-protected) but it really does look like you spent an hour prior making unrelated contributions so that you could meet the "established editor" requirement. If you really do have a different account (and I'd guess that you do) then you should just fess up.

* Lewis, I'm not sure what a fess up is but I never said I had another account, that is what I was accused off. What I did say is that the scores of edits I've made since opening this account have been done without logging in since I never saw the need. Today I saw a need and logged in. There is NO stipulation of any time frame for qualifying posts so any accusations bases on that are unjustified. What seems far more important is the totally biased and unwarented way NuclearWarfare is using his admin privilages to push his own political POV and to nuke the account of anyone he does not agree with. That is not what admin privs are for. That is sanctionable abuse. /Climatedragon (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)/[reply]

NuclearWarfare, you really should have replied to the unblock request by now — you've been doing a lot of other editing in the few days since Climatedragon requested to be unblocked. It strikes me as grossly unfair that you can keep the unblock request on indefinite hold (and thus keep Climatedragon blocked indefinitely) simply by ignoring it. It should be automatically removed X days after the request is made, unless the blocking administrator replies.
Who really cares about sockpuppetry anyway? It really seems like an idiotic policy. If people want to use a bunch of different aliases, so be it. They should be blocked for the things they do with those accounts, not for the mere fact of having them.

Thanks, --Lewis (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last point: You are actually more or less correct, if you read the policy carefully, there are legitimate uses of alternate accounts, but evading a block or making it appear that a particular position is supported by more users than are actually supporting it are not among them. Also, although the standard "unblock on hold" template has been used, NW is not really the one holding up the block. The WP:SPI case on this matter is moving forward a little slowly unfortunately. Only a few administrators have access to the WP:CHECKUSER tool, due to the privacy issues involved with it's use, and apparently they are a bit busy this weekend. They don't get paid any more for editing here than you or I do, so this will have to simmer a bit longer. The article in question was fully protected from editing today anyway, so things over there are basically at a standstill. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Well, I finally got this UNJUSTIFIED block removed , months later, and I see that I was just one of many victims of over-zealour admins letting the power go to their heads. Glad to see some disiplinary proceedings lead to bans and privilege removals. More cases of AGW zealots thinking the ends justifies the means.

Sabotage?

Please do not refer to my reworking of your edits as "sabotage". Your edits were poorly sourced, incorrectly sourced, misplaced, and in general badly needed copy-editing. I tried to rework them as best as I could into the article. You have now reverted them again, however, and the result is an even bigger mess which I will try to sort out. Jprw (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of engaging in dialogue or desisting you seem to have re-emerged as a sock. How unfortunate. Jprw (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climatedragon (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC) I refered to some of your edits as sabotage since your comment to justify the edits as tidyup is ingenuous when you take the opertunity to remove whole paragraphs of my text and substitute your own take on the issue. Remove my text and cited text then adding cn to what remains is a joke. You are attempting to sensor what I posted , that is not a "tidyup".[reply]

You are now trying to justify your removal of my text by nothing more than calling me a "sock". That issue has been thoroughly investigated and found to be false as you were well aware at this point. In either case calling someone a sock is not a valid reason for removing content. You should justify your edit on it's merits , not name calling.

You will now please indicate that you understand what is meant by sockpuppet and _exactly_ how you think that term applies to me. (hint : having an opinion different to you is not what it means. )

It is not "my take" -- I copy edited and improved your edits so that they complied with WP:MOS. I see that you have resumed editing under the user name Climatedragon, and I also see that your latest edits have now completely messed up the lead. And please note that another user (who has actually gone to the trouble of trying to genuinely improve the article) removed the content you refer to here. Note that your reinstating this has just created repetition in the lead. You seem to be like a bull in a china shop, wreaking havoc everywhere you go. Jprw (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "You are now trying to justify your removal of my text by nothing more than calling me a "sock". That issue has been thoroughly investigated and found to be false as you were well aware at this point" is I'm afraid just plain gibberish on your part. Jprw (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climatedragon (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Well here is YOUR comment to that edit. You provide not reason for removing the ref execpt "sock".[reply]

16:05, 2 October 2010 Jprw (talk | contribs) (12,129 bytes) (→Reception: Removing reference from sock)

Climatedragon (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC) You have neatly avoided explaining what you think that means and why you apply this false accusation to me. (dont forget to sign your comments.)[reply]

I have signed all my comments, thank you. It really is going to be difficult having a rational discussion, isn't it? Anyway here's a nice straightforward question. Did you make edits from from the 95.176.110.158 IP address on the No Pressure page, after signing out as Climatedragon and refusing to answer questions on this page and the talk page of the No Pressure article? Jprw (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climatedragon (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here's another instance of your unjustified "sockpuppet" accusations:

16:08, 2 October 2010 Jprw (talk | contribs) (11,813 bytes) (tidy up and reinstating unjustified removal of material of sockpuppet (ClimateDragon))

I was refering to comments here, not the article , since you missed marking some which makes it difficult to see who said what.

Now before asking your own questions please reply to my question that you have avoided answering twice already: What do you think sock puppet means and why do you accuse me of that?

OK, jpwr has finally explained the origin of his unfounded SP claims on the discussion of the thread where he started using this accusation and then posting here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_Pressure_(film)#Climate_Dragon

The botton line is that after some absence from the computer which remained open on the article in question I had posted another edit. WP had apparently timed out the connection and logged the edit under the IP rather than my username. He apparently based this whole saga on the mistaken idea that posting whilst not being logged in constituted SP activity, though was refusing for two days and many posts to actually say so.

Had he responded to my original demand that he justify the "sock" accusation this could have been dismissed in minutes.

Yet more unfounded claims by zealots attempting to push their agenda and opinion by abusing WP process. Tiresome.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info but your affirmation that I "must" sign comments is wrong. From the link you provide: Signing your posts on talk pages, both in the article and non-article namespaces, is a good practice,

I do generally try to sign posts with four tilda moniker but something forget to include it. If it seems important or unclear I go back and edit it in.

Thanks.

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on No Pressure (film). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NW (Talk) 16:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banana equivalent dose edit conflict & editorial collision

Hi. I just made this edit to the Banana equivalent dose article, which effectively reverted several of your recent edits. This may seem like the opening salvo of an WP:edit war, and I want to assure you that is not my intent. You and I had a WP:edit conflict on this and, besides misgivings about your version, I had some thoughts in mind about the article which I think are probably related to some clarifications your edits would have added to the article. I will discuss those in the "Units" misgivings about you section of the talk page soon after saving this edit. If you have serious disagreement with what I've done, I ask that you wait for my comments to appear on the article talk page and comment there. I'll watchlist this user talk page for a while in case you wish to respond here. Thanks for your contributions, and cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for polite warning. Don't see you comments in "units".

I've left what you've done but added back a couple of bits I think should be there.

Don't understand your reference to a conflict we had on this :? regards Climatedragon (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my comment in the units section, and mention there other comments elsewhere.

See Help:Edit conflict. When I finished my edit and tried to save it I was unable to do so because of conflict with one or more edits you'd made in while I was making mine. When I have that happen, it's unusual for me to override the conflicting edit(s) with my edit. I did that in this case, and that needed explanation here. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So go on and explain your actions. Normal procedure for a mid air collision is to abort your edit and then review how to add your changes to the new version.

You correctly say that your actions require explanation but then fail to offer any. Despite what you say, this looks very like edit war behaviour.

regards.

Badly placed Boing Boing link in Banana Equivalent Dose

Greetings. I just reverted one of your edits on the Banana Equivalent Dose article for the simple reason that it destroyed the flow of the article. I recognize that BED is a disputed concept, and I see nothing wrong with adding and fleshing out a "Criticism" section to explain the dissenting POV, but plopping that Boing Boing link in right after the opening sentence is just nonsense. The article exists, first and foremost, to explain the idea and it's applications -- it need not be a battleground for opposing views on nuclear power.

I totally agree, but are you trying to infer that applies to me? If so please state what you mean clearly. Do you see in any of my edits any position or comment on NP? There seem to be several editors on that article who are not too concerned about whether is it accurate but seem to want to keep propagating this false idea. That is proving to be a problem.

The link was repeated down in the external links area, and I left that alone as it seems the proper place for it until somebody decides to incorporate it in a more graceful fashion. Cheers Belchfire (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link is in external because someone put it there in an attempt to reduce its visibility. This is akin to your strategy of creating a criticism section where you say in discussion page " anti-nuke zealots can have their say". I can only assume that comment is targeted at me since most of the changes trying to correct the fallacies of this article are mine.

I have researched this and provided credible sources (ex nuclear industry!) who explain why it is wrong, I am primarily interested that this article should be FACTUAL. "Destroying the flow" comes a very weak second.

BTW there is no place for POV , dissenting or otherwise, this is science, we deal with facts.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]