Jump to content

User talk:GregJackP/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

WP:AN/I

Hello. 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 been involved. The discussion is about the topic Administrator abuse on Wikipedia. Thank you. AniMate 03:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Administrator abuse on Wikipedia

I have nominated Administrator abuse on Wikipedia, 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/Administrator abuse on Wikipedia. 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. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Signature

Just so you know, you might get attention in the future because your signature is large, i.e. it intrudes on the line above and below it. I don't have the skills to help offer shrinkage of that so if you need help, placing Template:Helpme on your page would get the help you need. Happy editing! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

For reinserting the same BLP violations at Administrator abuse on Wikipedia for which Minor4th (talk · contribs) was blocked, you are now blocked too. While blocked, you may want to read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GregJackP. If you wish to comment on that case, you may do so here and somebody will copy it over or link to it on the case page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:21, 27 June 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for adding well sourced, verifiable information into an article. This is pure retaliation, and is an attempt to shut us up because it involves administrator conduct that is less than stellar. You guys are unbelievable.

Decline reason:

I'm not able to unblock based on this request, since it doesn't address the reason for your block. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:35, 27 June 2010 (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 wish to provide evidence on the SPI, but I do not trust any of the involved admins to post my information. Involved admins are clearly retaliatitory. GregJackP Boomer! 13:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want an administrator to copy your response elsewhere, just put it here on your own talk page- people looking at a sockpuppet investigation will generally look at the relevant talk pages. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Dude, this is just the biggest WP:SOAP I have ever seen. You have an issue with a user (admin or not) you do an WP:RFC/U - you don't write an article of partial-truths. Saying that someone is trying shut you up is literally ridiculous - you have written a useless article about a useless subject that has very little meaning to anybody not paying attention to the whole global warming set of articles. It was turned into an attack page, and had nothing to do with anyone abusing administrators, which is grammatically what the title is. I'm going to make no comments about the socking - it's probably the stupidist thing EVER if it's true. Of course, if one is like "Verizon, Baltimore" and the other is at "Public Library, Baltimore", it will almost the most obvious socking ever too. Don't be a bloody martyr. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:00, 27 June 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked "For reinserting the same BLP violations at Administrator abuse on Wikipedia for which Minor4th (talk · contribs) was blocked," which is not factually accurate. After the issue was brought up on Solomon's article not being reliable, I located a number of other sources, including New Yorker, Canada Free Press, and Nature. Since those references did not cite specific numbers of articles created, edited or deleted by Connolley, I removed any such numbers in the article. Everything was sourced from reliable, verifiable sources. In addition, the blocking admin issued the block within minutes of my raising a question on ANI on the appropiateness of the block of Minor4th, which seems a little like retaliation.

Decline reason:

The insertions on the article in question are undoubtedly BPL violations, and warrants a cool down period. →AzaToth 16:58, 27 June 2010 (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.

SPI

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GregJackP. Thank you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I wish to provide evidence, but it will take me some time to gather diffs. I would like to request that I be allowed such time to prepare my defense, rather than this being a rush to judgment like it appears to be. Since I and the other user are currently blocked, it won't hurt to allow me a reasonable amount of time to prepare this. If someone could post this to the SPI it would be appreciated. GregJackP Boomer! 15:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. S.G.(GH) ping! 15:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please post to SPI page.

Until I can get to my laptop, I am not able to provide diffs. I can show that Minor4th (talk · contribs) and I GregJackP (talk · contribs) are different users through posts at the same times at various locations. We do know one another but that is not WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. Minor4th has helped me on some articles. I have an alternate account which was set up to protect my identity in articles that are unrelated to any of these, and for which there is no overlap. I would be willing to provide the details on that off-line, and would request that it not be put in public view per WP:OUTING. The alternate account was not declared solely to protect my real world identity in a discrete area of Wikipedia articles. The alternate account has not been used in some time, and is not relevant to this matter, as there is no overlap on articles, has never been used at any location for votes, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 16:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please post to SPI page.

My first article and the 143d Inf userspace article were copied from existing articles as templates. The coding for tables and templates were already there. I have experience editing web pages and limited (20 years ago) programming, so it wasn't that hard to pick up on.

I edit a lot using a T-mobile phone, a laptop w/ a Sprint aircard, and a computer at work and at home (Verision Fios). I believe Minor4th is on AT&T and Clear. GregJackP Boomer! 16:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I see the SPI case is getting more complex than I expected, and you obviously have a legitimate interest in participating there. Obviously, I'd have no problems with unblocking you for that purpose, if you promise to stay away from contentious edits in the disputed article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|I agree to stay away from the disputed article, as requested by the blocking admin, above, and would request to be unblocked under those conditions.}}

Okay, I'm unblocking you. BTW, I just now saw you also created a draft user subpage of the contested page, at User:GregJackP/CoAoW. Since you won't be editing the article itself, you obviously won't be editing the draft either, so for the time being I've blanked (not deleted) it, especially since it also contained those BLP problems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GregJackP. You have new messages at Giftiger wunsch's talk page.
Message added 21:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RfC

Hi Greg, your input would be appreciated here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: recent edits

Just to let you know that while I won't hide the fact that I think your recent edits have been ill-advised at best, I am confident that you can recover from this incident and you haven't lost my respect after the recent Don Martin stuff and especially the comments left by Minor4th and yourself when I quit wikipedia for a while. I'm sorry if I seemed to be taking a very hard stance in the recent discussions but I really think you need to take a break, calm down, look at your recent edits, and consider if they're something you should be proud of. I'm relieved to see that you have essentially passed the SPI, and I hope there are no hard feelings. Thanks, GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comment. I admit I was a little disappointed in your initial reaction, but looking back, it was completely understandable, under the circumstances. I do appreciate that you kept an open mind and evaluated all the evidence as it came in, and I hope we'll get a chance to work together in the future. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 19:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
    I look forward to it; I hope your wikibreak doesn't last too long, but do take however much time you need to put this behind you and return to editing constructively, as you clearly have done in the past. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Per your reasonable request here, I have courtesy-blanked the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GregJackP/Archive page so that it cannot be readily seen by users. Regards, –MuZemike 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm Mifter in case you don't know me, and I just wanted to stop by to offer my services both as an editor and as an admin, in the event that you ever need an unbiased admin to step in an a dispute or to just help out (wither if be with another admin or another editor, or even a collaboration on an article), I just wanted to stop by and make myself available (There are plenty of great people who are admins here, don't let one bad experience with an admin ruin your idea of the rest of us and if you ever feel that you are being abused by an admin, feel free to come and leave a note on my talk page or that of another uninvolved admin, and we'd be happy to do our best to help out ;) ). Best, Mifter (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Inadvertent reverts?

I think you inadvertently reverted a comment I left on my talk page for someone else. Just checking in case you were unaware. Minor4th • talk 03:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I did restore it and figured you didn't mean to but thought you should know so you can get those fingers under better control. :D Minor4th • talk 03:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think you did the same thing on the SPI before it closed, rolling back someone's comment. I think I have you beat with stupid rollbacks though; I once misclicked on my watchlist and rolled back the last 6 edits on AIV. Needless to say I hurriedly hit rollback a second time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't surprise me on the SPI, but it wasn't intentional. When I'm on my phone instead of a computer, I've done that several times. Once I accidentally rollbacked about 20-30 of my edits to an article I'm trying to get to GA status and didn't notice it - Minor told me about it the next day. Like I said, fat fingers. GregJackP Boomer! 12:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What's with that last revert on my talk page?--Milowent (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Fat fingers, already restored it. On my cell, I have to be

careful or I hit the stupid rollback button. Unlike the undo, the damn thing doesn't give one a second chance. I'm beginning to think the damn thing isn't worth the trouble. I'm very sorry about it. GregJackP Boomer! 23:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to get a real phone so youre not so clumsy around here. :) Minor4th • talk 00:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GregJackP. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
Message added 15:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

UnBlocked

Just dropped by to say hello, and introduce my new "fresh start" sig. See that you and Minor4th have been through some tough times lately. Hope you survived it relatively unscathed. Regards, Dmartinaus • Talk 13:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

PS - my sincere apologies for causing so much time and agravation early on. My new rule is one account, adn one account only! Dmartinaus • Talk 05:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Lobert COI

My involvement in editing Annie Lobert has been addressed through the Head of Reader Relations for the Wikimedia Foundation. I have exercised care and caution in editing articles related to previous affiliations. My participation in editing this article has been addressed and shown to be neutral. I have refrained from promoting the organization. I have avoided violating relevant policies and guidelines, neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography. The previous conflict of interest has been disclosed. The current controversy is based on previously addressed edits. As such, my participation in editing this article is permitted, when additions are presented and backed up with reliable citations based on secondary sources. Please refer to WP:COI for conditions under which edits are allowed. Thank you for your comments regarding this issue. Your work is appreciated. Cindamuse (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

19N Proposal

GJP - Please see the following new proposal to see if it is acceptable to you: here Austex • Talk 23:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I solved my issue of not going into detail on the AFI page, yet having the material available if neeeded. I'm not promoting the info on the AFI site or elsewhere. But you can look here. (PS my name change came through today to Austex.)Austex • Talk 23:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GregJackP. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 22:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Unblock IP request

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

Given IP block exemption.

Request handled by: —fetch·comms

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

My account is apparently not blocked, except for my phone access. I have left a message on Brandon's talk page, and sent him an e-mail (both yesterday morning), but haven't heard anything. I don't understand this, I haven't done anything wrong, nor have I been warned about anything, so I don't understand why only my cell phone access would be blocked. I do a lot of editing from my phone, so this hampers me a great deal. If someone could explain what I've done, I'll correct it. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Question for administrator

{{adminhelp}} Can someone explain to me what I did wrong? I promise that I will fix it. Thanks--GregJackP Boomer! 02:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your phone uses Opera Mini as the web browser. Opera Mini uses their own proxies to get to sites, so you are using a proxy whenever you edit from your phone. —fetch·comms 02:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
.So what do I do? I do use Opera - the one that came with the phone doesn't work very well. When you say Opera uses proxies, are you talking about something like Tor? Because I don't use anything to hide who I am, and I always log in to edit. Also, I've edited for awhile using Opera and never had a problem - is this something new? Thanks, I see I'm unblocked now. GregJackP Boomer! 02:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
IP block exemption means you can edit through a block on your current IP. However, you should not edit through Tor or other such proxies using your exemption unless you have been authorized to do so. Any misuse of this right can lead to its removal and possibly a block. When the rangeblock expires, 14 July 2011, you should request to have this right removed as you no longer need it. Thanks, —fetch·comms 02:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I can't think of a reason that I would need Tor - I really dislike that some trolls and socks use things like that to try and avoid facing up to the consequences of their actions. Thank you so much for helping me. GregJackP Boomer! 02:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Inserting false defamatory information into articles

This edit inserts false, defamatory information about living persons into mainspace articles. This must not continue - do not insert false, defamatory information about living people into articles ever again. Hipocrite (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

  • There was no defamatory information inserted into the article. There was not a single negative item about anyone in that material. Please stop issuing facetious warnings in an attempt to silence editors. Also, please do not return to my talk page. GregJackP Boomer! 20:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Watson article incident

A Quest for Knowledge and I compiled relevant diffs into a sortable table to make it easier for reviewers. The information is contained here

I am notifying those who made reference to the incident on the evidence page, specifically, SBHB, Minor4th, GregJackP, and Hipocrite. Did I miss anyone?--SPhilbrickT 18:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin section

you have just added a comment [1] to the uninvolved admin section of the enforcement page. you should quickly move it as this is considered to be a cardinal sin!! Polargeo (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Done. My apologies - I thought I had hit the edit link for other users. I certainly didn't mean to place it in an admin section. Thank you for giving me a heads up and chance to correct my mistake. GregJackP Boomer! 16:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
No need to apologise to me. I completely disagree with the existance of that section. I actually disagree with the enforcement page in general but that section in particular. Polargeo (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

your sig

Hi. I've edited per your request on my talk. I saw a number of issues. First off, the sig exceeded the length allowed by WP:SIG. The use of subst in preferences is a means of evading this limit, which is primarily about not cluttering up pages with too much markup that others have to read around. There was also some invalid code (incorrect close of the font-element, omitted close of the outer span element), some deprecated code (the whole font-element), and a problematic typeface (Mistral).

I've gotten it down to exactly 255 characters and using correct code. The use of Mistral is poor because it is often outright illegible on some systems, and it's often not even available (I don't have it on my primary machine). When absent, is shows in the much clearer default typeface; when present, people may not be able to read it, especially if their machine is not using font-smoothing techniques (which many are not). I've changed the typeface to Papyrus, which is in the same vein, and more typically available and legible. The unclosed outer span is what achieved the effect of wrapping the box around the timestamp, however this can run amok, as it is dependent on implicit browser behaviour, appended comments would also appear in the box, and could 'leak' into subsequent post if aspects of MediaWiki are changed (and they are; I've seen other cases where changes to the code have exposed problems with old posts that were being masked by the old versions of MW).

You should paste this into your prefs and stop using the subst approach. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it. Are there any other fonts that are like Mistral? I really like the cursive look, and Papyrus just doesn't look right to me (probably because I don't have good tastes ;p)... GregJackP Boomer! 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Any use of typefaces on websites is problematic, as the sites only ask for a typeface by name; the typefaces present on whomever's machine determine what actually happens (I know about embedded typefaces, but it's N/A here). Any cursive typeface will have rendering problems for most users, as they simply are not about legibility. See Category:Casual script typefaces for some others, but know that they will all have some of the same issues, and given that the sig I set is at exactly 255 characters, any name longer than 'Papyrus' will put you into sig-vio-territory, again. And note that any typeface that includes spaces in the name needs a pair of single-quotes (') around it, and they count against the 255. i.e. to add a long typeface name would require something else to be cut. You up for cutting the border and background?
I checked Mistral on a crappy Windows laptop without font smoothing, and it simply was illegible. I just looked at WP:SIG and it is silent on the subject of typefaces. Frankly this surprises me, and this should be added to that. It may-well have been discussed before. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Cherokee?

What clan? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Menominee, Ojibwe (Chippewa), and a minuscule amount of Choctaw, but not enrolled (blood quantum) even though I was born in Indian Country and raised that way. Sorry, not Cherokee (at least that I know of). GregJackP Boomer! 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I saw the Oklahoma tag and assumed Cherokee. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GregJackP. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 21:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RfC

I have added a Outside view by Tenmei at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. I would very much appreciate your impression, especially

(a) if you can suggest a way to improve the clarity of the writing and/or
(b) if you construe any part of the diff as insufficiently moderate and forward-looking.

As you will guess, I invested quite a bit of time in drafting this; and I want to encourage you to contact me by e-mail with any constructive comments and criticism. --Tenmei (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

330th Bombardment Group

Good luck. I don't even want to touch it. At first I thought about adding a military infobox and a new introduction. I had started a 330th Bombardment Group page from the redirect after I moved it with the belief that I could merge it into a new page with other information... but I thought about it again and decided just to leave it as it was and include it in the Group's page as part of the history section. The belief was that in a search for "330th Bombardment Group", it would still show up as all I did when I renamed it was to expand the name... Then I remembered I wrote the page for the wing about a year ago so I merged the Bomb Group page I wrote into that and just left the whole thing as a #redirect ... his page was left prominently featured in the history section. Personally I think that's the best thing; We want to keep the information provided .. it's a detailed diary of a unit in the Pacific War.. and a very notable one.

Been writing these articles in Wikipedia for a few years now. and when I see that someone has spent a lot of time on one.. the last thing I want to do rewrite it. Now I will go in and move sections around and do some reformatting of basic lineage and assignments and bases, but if there is a lot of detail about the unit and it's history. Normally leave that alone. For example I was very careful when I edited the 509th Composite Group page. That was someone's labor of love and I didn't want to do too much editing to what they wrote. Created a 509th Operations Group and 509th Bomb Wing page and left what was contributed for the 509th CG alone, simply referencing the World War II page in them. NO need to fix what doesn't need fixing. And I have the same feelings about this page as I did about the 509th..

As I said good luck.. take care in all you do here as well.. Brent Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at the page and saw the split notice. Good idea. Like the names of the proposed pages also. Might take a shot at it in a little while; want to finish up what I'm working on at the moment -List of B-29 Superfortress operators- which has a lot of unit pages that need some expanding. Then I have a beach on the Atlantic Coast -Saint Simons Island- that has my name on it for a little while... Enjoy :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for taking the time to assist in maintaining and improving the 330th Bombardment Group page. The only reason I renamed it to 330th Bomabardment Group (VH) is that it would not let me rename it back to the original '330th Bombardment Group' but officially the (VH) is there. As far as redirecting '330th Bombardment Group' to the '330th Sustainment Wing' that is incorrect. That is like redirecting a search for horse cavalry to air cavalry. Yes the 'Sustainment Wing' is a relative to Bombardment Group, but the Bombardment Group was disbanded in 1946. Then years later, was reborn as the 'Sustainment Wing'.
  1. In so far as referencing my sources, most, if not all, of the information comes directly from the website I maintain for the 330th.org. The mission summaries were taken directly from extensive research through the microfilm i had obtained from Maxwell, AFB historical archives. Some were taken from first hand accounts over the years of interviewing 330th veterans.
  2. I welcome any assistance. I was taken aback when I went to look something up on the 330th Bombardment Group and was redirected back to the Sustainment Wing and found out that the 330th page was renamed. There is a heck of a lot more information in there than mission chronological's. The history of where they were based, aircraft, commanders, aircraft names and histories..,etc. Thank you so much for taking the time to assist this wonderful little piece of history.

--B29bomber (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  • B29, I am glad to help, but you need to be aware of a couple of things from my perspective. First, Bwmoll3 was entirely correct in the merge and move. The 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing carries the lineage and honors of the 330th BG, and that is typically how articles in Wikipedia are styled. Brent was WP:BOLD in the move and I support him in that. Brent also has edited extensively on USAF/USAAF units and airfields for several years and is recognized as a subject matter expert by a lot of MilHist editors, including myself. Second, I also don't have a problem with your reversion (per WP:BRD - entirely proper, although the remove could have been handled a little better, since we are now left with a redirect from Fred squawbasker. Third, you have repeatedly referred to the article as your page - which implies ownership. Anyone can edit it, including moving the page. I'm working on the article now - and the microfilm can be used as a reference(s) using the regular citation template. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Evidence

In future, please notify me if you refer to me in an ArbCom case to which I am not a party so I can correct any misstaments. For example, you say "The 2nd was by Verbal [733] who reverted stating that the sources were not good (sources were the Guardian, NASA, and a textbook by an Oxford professor)". This is untrue. I said the material was not supported by the sources (plus other problems) and did not state that the sources were unreliable, or "not good". Please amend, strike or remove. Verbal chat 16:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary stated (incorrectly I might note): "Reverted 1 edit by GregJackP; Material is not well sourced and is UNDUE / unbalanced. Take to talk please.." I stand by my evidence presented, and will not amend, strike, nor remove it. In addition, the post was made to show the timeline of the actions, not to show any misconduct on your part. The instructions stated that there would not be a formal list of parties, and that notification was only required for "editors whose conduct is being reviewed" - your conduct was not being reviewed as far as I know, nor did I bring up any matter that would require your conduct to be reviewed. Notification was not required. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
How do you support the statement I quoted: "The 2nd was by Verbal [733] who reverted stating that the sources were not good (sources were the Guardian, NASA, and a textbook by an Oxford professor)". I never stated the sources were not good, just that they did not support the material. You are with your summary of my actions "reviewing my conduct", and it is a misleading review at that. Please amend. Verbal chat 17:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
No. EOD on my part, but if you feel the need, go ahead and address in a different forum. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you please show evidence where I state that the sources are no good, or amend (ie clarify) your evidence (by quoting my edit summary in full rather than an inaccurate or ambiguous paraphrase). Thanks, Verbal chat 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
To clarify my above statement, no, I will not revert nor amend my evidence as I believe that it is an accurate representation of what occurred. The diffs were presented, and the ArbCom members will make their own decisions based on the diffs. Other editors had the same interpretation of your edit summary. I am not going to discuss this further, but if you feel the need, you of course may address this in a different forum. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how you can claim it is accurate when the quote you give above does not say what you have summarised it as. It is not accurate at all. I don't see why you're being so combative about this. I only discovered I was mentioned in the evidence today, and I'm trying to clear up some mistakes. If I have personally offended you in some way I'm sorry. "Verbal [733] who reverted stating that the sources were not good (sources were the Guardian, NASA, and a textbook by an Oxford professor)" is at the very least misleading, and replacing it with a quote would be much better - "Verbal [733] who reverted stating 'Material is not well sourced and is UNDUE / unbalanced. Take to talk please..'". The parenthetical is unnecessary and creates a false impression in your version, but I see no harm in you leaving it in if you would only please quote me directly. Verbal chat 19:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Both Mark and Collect have graciously agreed to amend their evidence to clarify what I said and didn't say. I'd be most grateful if you would kindly reconsider, and show the good faith that many have complained is lacking in this area. Verbal chat 20:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor RFC/U

Hi, GregJackP. I think you've missed that the first diff cited in your view was actually Gun Powder Ma editing his own section. Kanguole 14:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing

Wikiquote has quotations related to Yogi Berra.

This edit by Gun Powder Ma here at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor caused me to draft this explanation. The edit was quickly undone by Gun Powder Ma here; but it may be productive to seize this trivial edit as an opportunity to underscore what I mean in using this curious phrase.

I discovered these words on the userpage of Kraftlos; and I was surprised that it made sense to me. Conventionally, this form of word play escapes my grasp. I don't know whether Kraftlos is the originator or whether it is copied from an unattributed source.
My guess is that this is a peculiarly American formulation which parodies the words of Yogi Berra? Berra is well known for his pithy comments and witticisms which are called "Yogiisms." Yogiisms very often take the form of either an apparently obvious tautology, or a paradoxical contradiction.
Teeninvestor has explained that he is an American, the son of emigrants who came to the United States when he was six years old. Arguably, Teeninvestor will find value in this semi-Yogiism. Perhaps the point will be immediately accessible in ways that a carefully-composed, logical exposition fails to achieve? Who can say? In this RfC context, I interpret the phrase to mean that
In other words, it is important to avert a possibility that the RfC may become side-tracked or distracted by tangential issues. I hoped that this phrase would resonate in some way for Teeninvestor. More broadly, I hoped that it would contribute to prospects of a constructive outcome.
Does this help explain what I meant and what I intended? If not, please allow me to try to explain again using different words.

Do you think this phrase helps to focus attention, or is it counterproductive?

Does this phrase help or hinder the "desired outcome"? --Tenmei (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor

Hi, I noticed you added your view to the above RfC. The first link you gave is of Gun Powder Ma changing his own statement, yet you say it's Teeninvestor. Did you mean to use another link? Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:DNTTR

Kittybrewster ☎ 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification of article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit email controversy, 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. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

POV language

They also concluded that there were disturbing suggestions that scientists had avoided sharing scientific data with skeptical critics.

There were no such "conclusions", and the language you added introduced POV, favoring the POV languaage of one source over another, instead of attempting to neutralize it to encyclopedic standards. I've subsequently restored the more neutral version. On the talk page, your recent POV pushing of birther-turned-climategater Ken Cuccinelli reveals that you are pushing a very, very fringe POV, so you should be more careful with your edits in the future if you want to continue editing these articles. Need I say it? This isn't Conservapedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually read the sources. The U.S. News article stated "One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data" (emphasis added). Please self-revert. GregJackP Boomer! 00:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I read the sources and I noticed your failure to attribute or use quotes. Taking it from the topic, here are the two versions of the material you changed:

Independent reviews by FactCheck and the Associated Press said that the emails did not affect evidence that man made global warming is a real threat, and said that emails were being misrepresented to support unfounded claims of scientific misconduct. They also suggested that scientists had avoided sharing scientific data with sceptical critics.

You changed this to, "They also concluded that there were disturbing suggestions that scientists had avoided sharing scientific data with skeptical critics":

Independent reviews by FactCheck and the Associated Press said that the emails did not affect evidence that man made global warming is a real threat, and said that emails were being misrepresented to support unfounded claims of scientific misconduct. They also concluded that there were disturbing suggestions that scientists had avoided sharing scientific data with skeptical critics.

Since you don't see the problem, I'll explain it to you. First, notice that the introductory sentence refers to reviews by FactCheck and AP. Second, you added material saying that FactCheck and AP (that's what "they" refers to here)"concluded that there were disturbing suggestions that scientists had avoided sharing scientific data with skeptical critics". Is that true? Let's look at the sources: FactCheck said nothing of the kind, except to say that it wasn't clear: "What's less clear is whether any deliberate obstruction actually occurred — that's one of the subjects of the East Anglia investigation." So, you misrepresented FactCheck. Moving on to AP we find the following: "E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data..." The AP article says that "scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change", which appears to be an extraordinary claim not supported by any investigation and represents not a news report, but the opinion of either Seth Borenstein, Malcolm Ritter, or Raphael Satter. They go on to say, "The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total. One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it." So, neither FactCheck nor AP make any conclusions, but offer opinion and speculation as to what they think the e-mail means, with both reserving judgment until investigations were completed. The fact is, the AP article is completely out of date and contains many errors, whereas the FactCheck article has stood the test of time, but is again written in a speculative manner. In any case, you have misrepresented both sources. There were no "conclusions" because these were preliminary articles on the subject, and the so-called "disturbing suggestions" were only the opinion of a bad AP journalist, not FactCheck. That entire section needs to be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you actually read the revision history in the future? It clearly shows that I did not "add" anything, I reverted an edit that was POV when a source said "disturbing" - I don't have a problem with taking the word "conclusion" out, but to take out "disturbing" IS a POV edit. Please revert. Also, in the future, please have your facts straight before you make broad statements about who added what. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to take out the emotional opinion of "disturbing" in order to paraphrase two sources in a neutral manner is required. You are always welcome to quote and to attribute, of course. However, the use of the word "disturbing" in this context is indicative of very poor journalism, and that's not something we try to emulate. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Retract

I respect your right to dodge my question. However, I must insist that you remove your accusation I am engaging in vandalism, immediately. Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dazer Laser

how is the dazer laser page different than the ipod article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod

they both seem to communicate the same information... meaning they are both manufactured "products" that encompass novel technologies... there are many more examples....

--22:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Johannesdisilenti (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF GregJackP Boomer! 22:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

You appear to be engaged in an edit war at Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation against ChrisO. I suggest you discontinue any further edit warring, and ensure that consensus is reached on the talk page and the article is then changed to reflect that. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Columbus, Climategate, and so forth

I'm surprised no one called you on saying everyone but Columbus thought the earth was flat. You may want to remove or strike that before someone attacks your credibility on that issue. (Not that it would honestly have anything to do with your credibility on Climategate.)

As you can't help but being aware, I think the article should be titled Climategate. Nevertheless, we have to work within the framework that is actually present, not the ideal one laid out in the 5 Pillars and the many pages of policy. There are clearly controlling editors who will not even look at the sources we provide, who will not even consider or investigate the fact that "Climategate" is the most common term. Therefore, I think it's in everyone's best interest to lay this issue aside for months--or even years--until history makes this usage impossible to avoid.

I'm thinking of writing something to this effect on the talk page, and of writing Jimbo about the monster he has created where there is no neutral enforcement mechanism in place. Thanks for contacting him; his remarks are logical, positive, polite, wise. He recommended, over his own common sense wrt the title, that we wait on this--a higher common sense. This has devolved into two armed camps. (I've commented to Jack Merridew that this is analogous to the two camps in The Lord of the Flies.) AQFK is apparently blithely unaware of the damage he's doing to his own cause by being so annoyingly persistent. You can't persuade someone against their will, especially with frontal attacks. Regards, --Yopienso (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I haven't initiated any of the current discussions about the article title and just said yesterday that the RfC was premature. Not sure why you're singling me out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
[e/c]People don't like to be hammered over the head with an opposing view, specially when they're stubbornly wrong. --Yopienso (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Y, nah, I know that the earth wasn't really flat - Columbus is also probably not the first European in the Americas, even excluding the Norse. I put it in there simply to make a point. Unfortunately, the baptized members of the Church of Global Warming aren't going to listen anyway, soooo... :D GregJackP Boomer! 17:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, global warming is a fact. I'm not sure about the anthropogenic part, which isn't to say I think most scientists are wrong--I simply don't see convincing evidence, but then I'm not trained to understand the data. We're having an unusually cool and rainy summer in south-central Alaska, with temps frequently in the mid-40s and rarely rising above the mid-60s. But that's only local; my family down south is sweltering.
The clincher for me wrt the truth that the earth is warming has nothing to do with scientists or governments, which I am inclined to distrust, but with business, a highly reliable indicator of actual circumstances, not computer models, strategies to get grants, or strategies to control the world's economies. Specifically, my son works in fiber optics, and the opening of the Northwest Passage, due entirely to global warming, greatly affects that industry from Alaska to Japan to the UK. --Yopienso (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, there is no doubt that the planet is warming up. The question is whether it is due to human causes or not. I'm not sure that it is (and that doesn't mean that I am saying it definitely isn't due to us). There are too many questions, and on the activist side, no attempt to look at other causes. Tree-ring / temp is not shown to be scientifically accurate (see 1998-2005 anomaly) and an unwillingness to share data makes me wonder if anything is being hidden. Too many questions... and the true believers don't listen to apostates... :D Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
the planet is warming up...The question is whether it is due to human causes or not. May I ask, who is it that is posing this question? A name or two would be nice. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I warned you about the Columbus gaffe; now your credibility has plummeted. Best lay your weapons down. --Yopienso (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC

GregJackP, could you please not endorse Georgewilliamherbert's Outside view? At an RfC, you're only supposed to endorse views you actually support, and are in tune with. Your comment "Concur, with the idea of some sort of civility probation or parole being appropriate" goes completely against the spirit of GWH's view, and personally, in view of the things I have seen the other signatories post on this page, I would say it probably flies in the face of most of them, too. I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but I want to ask you as nicely as possible to please post a view of your own instead, for your comment about probation and parole. I'm not saying this to criticise your comment — probably quite a few users might agree with it — but it's just misplaced. Regards, Bishonen | talk 17:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC).

I think the best thing to do would be for you to issue a concurring outside view also expressing your desire for a civility parole. I did not call for one, and using the comment like that to call for one extends my outside view outside what I wrote or intended, and beyond what the others signed on for. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, Greg. There was a recent discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, Media Research Center, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, Newsbusters etc. at Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources. Some of us believe that these hyperpartisan sources should never be used as factual sources at Wikipedia, due to their tendency to selective edit facts. Please participate in this important discussion, concerning one of Wikipedia's most fundamental editing policies, on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Reversion

Why did you revert my edit at ANI? Quantpole (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was an accident - it has happened with Greg a couple times in the past when he edits from his phone. I know because it happened to me once. Minor4th 10:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Done it a few times myself :) @Greg: at the same time I see you reverted this, was there rationale behind the removal or was it a mistake. I'm going to revert back but just wanted to check in case you removed it for a specific reason. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. It did cross my mind whether someone had got into his account. Quantpole (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Errant, thank you for restoring that - I was on my phone and my fat finger hit the rollback button by accident. Quantpole, I'm very sorry - it wasn't intentional, and I didn't realize it until I saw your message. GregJackP Boomer! 10:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
No probs, no harm done. Quantpole (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

re "we didn't make it for YOU!!" edit summary at User talk:Lar

Looking back at the discussion, I regret to note that I may have upset you with the above edit summary given with this comment. I did not mean to offend, as I was inferring a comment made by Frank N. Furter when presented with a disagreeable opinion over his creation; "I didn't make him for you!" I am sorry my humour - which is rather suspect, I admit - was misunderstood, and gave you offense. My fault, I should not assume everyone is familiar with my, er, style of communication. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I should have taken it better, but I had just noticed that another IP had vandalized another page I was working on, and consequently in a foul mood. My apologies. It seems that every time I comment on a CC issue, another IP (always from the east coast) pops up, vandalizes a page I'm working on, then disappears (or is blocked). Strange coincidence, isn't it? Anyway, I shouldn't have reacted as strongly, but it just irritates me to no end that the activists can do whatever they want and everyone else is held to strict rules. It is just frustrating, but I shouldn't have reacted the way I did. GregJackP Boomer! 21:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Most especially balking at Rocky Horror quotes. That's just Not Done. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

RFE notice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#GregJackP William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikiquette alerts

This was uncalled for. You are not "uninvolved" in this dispute in any way, as it has spanned multiple article, talk, and user talk pages, many of which you have been intimately involved in against ChrisO on closely related issues. Just wanted to bring this to your attention. Viriditas (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not been involved in any manner with the The Hockey Stick Illusion, nor with Andrew Montford, nor in the dispute over any of the sourcing at RSN, ANI, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 13:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
You've been intimately involved with related CC disputes directly involving ChrisO over many different articles and discussions. It's one large topic covering many articles. You are not in any way shape or form "uninvolved". Viriditas (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
You only seem to show up on my talk page for matters that involve ChrisO - why is that? GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
You've now turned up at another page in which I've been editing. Don't stalk me, GregJackP. It's not only frowned upon, it will get you blocked very quickly. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Get a grip. I've been involved in WP:LAW since I started editing heavily. Most of my articles are SCOTUS cases, and almost all fall within WP:LAW. I don't even really disagree with your position, I just made a general comment. GregJackP Boomer! 17:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe

Hello! Your submission of Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikistalk

[2]

16:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources

[3] Watson: greenhouse effect seen by looking at Mars, Venus, and Earth .... :

[4] General agreement among skeptics and AGW proponents

[5]Debate Bob Watson, John Christy, Michael Mann, Bjorn Lomborg

[6] Chief scientific adviser, UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

[7], [8] Observing Earth Venus Mars etc...
[9] Cambridge University Press: Watson on greenhouse effect looking at Mars and Venus
[10] Watson and NASA

[11] greenhouse effect on venus (not about Watson)

16:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GregJackP/Archive_3&oldid=1151040733"