User talk:WVBluefield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ban Appeal Result[edit]

The community ban on User:WVBluefield is suspended under the following conditions

  1. Editor is indefinitely restricted to one account, namely User:WVBluefield;
  2. Editor is indefinitely banned from Gulf War Syndrome.
  3. The community ban may be reimposed at any time by motion of ArbCom if the editor engages in sockpuppetry; behaves disruptively; or fails to comply with the spirit or letter of these terms.

For the Arbitration Committee, Shell babelfish 23:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Archives[edit]

Talk Page Archive Talk Page Archive 1

Lawrence Solomon[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Lawrence Solomon, 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 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back.[edit]

I am glad to see that you have managed to work out an agreement that allows you to continue to contribute. Please be diligent about keeping to your restrictions so that you can continue to have a voice here on the project! --GoRight (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although work is putting a dampner on things. WVBluefield (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Highly_Hazardous_Chemicals[edit]

The category you created is nominated for deletion. You may wich to comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_22#Category:Highly_Hazardous_Chemicals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read what you are reverting before reverting it[edit]

TND: An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of GoRight... - understand now? Your revert comment thus becomes irrelevant William M. Connolley (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Tags[edit]

Do you agree that GoRight is suspected of running ongoing sockpuppets? Yes or no will work. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there arent any active CU's on GoRight, I think the correct answer is no. Thanks for the concern. WVBluefield (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
If you continue your disruptive behavior, as evidenced here, I will seek to have your old restrictions reimposed. It's clear you are slipping - stop. Hipocrite (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me! You are the one being disruptive. You think these games of yours are going to provide enough of a distraction to prevent your just deserts from the arbitration committee? Pal, you are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. WVBluefield (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Calm down. You are under a misapprehension. CU is nice to have, but what is relevant is the SPI. Several users were satisfied with the evidence. Several users have expressed the concern that these are socks. Please leave the templates alone. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
And which several users expressed concern? Oh that’s right, the usual suspects. WVBluefield (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but there are several "unusual" editors involved. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, did they all get your tweets and IM's? WVBluefield (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
No, of course not. You cannot Tweet money orders. My international goon squad called at their door and offered them a choice of US$ 1.2 million (in small, unmarked diamonds with no contiguous numbers) or a broken knee cap each. What were you thinking! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to what I feel was a rather snide comment on AN/I, BASC lifted your ban under some very specific conditions, constructive behavior being one of them. I would strongly suggest you reconsider your recent actions and return to productive behavior. If the current trend continues, it is very likely that you'll find the ban reinstated. Shell babelfish 01:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WVB, don't let them bait you -- better to focus your efforts on stopping their POV pushing, especially on BLPs like Lawrence Solomon. AN/I will never support you over these long term contributors, even when they're the ones who are wrong, so don't even try going there. ATren (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting to re-add BLP violation[edit]

With this edit you re-added blatantly incorrect information into a biography of a living person, in itself breaking policy as well as edit warring, with no other reason than a plea of ignorance. Please desist, and take more care with edits in future. Hope you find these links informative, dave souza, talk 20:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see how some might consider the additions to be a BLP violation, but to call them blatant?!? Can you really defend such a statement? All the material was sourced to a WP:RS and the text was an accurate summation of the source. WVBluefield (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence[edit]

Please do not edit others' Evidence or Workshop proposals, as you did here. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Thank you, ~ Amory (utc) 04:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Watson incident evidence at ArbCom case[edit]

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

If you already know about this, or don't know and don't care, I apologize for bothering you - I had originally planned to notify only those who made reference to the Watson incident, but after seeing someone who unhappy to be mentioned and not notified, I decided to err on the side of caution.--SPhilbrickT 20:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear Winter[edit]

Hey man, I'm reading the Talk page of Nuclear Winter and noticed you've contributed quite a bit, although I'm personally not convinced that the whole hypothesis was a KGB disinformation campaign, I thought you might like to read this by the FBI(if you haven't seen it already).

The FBI also seem to agree with Tretyakov's claim.

  • The Targeting of Sensitive, Proprietary, and Classified Information on Campuses of Higher Education

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence/higher-education-and-national-security Quote- The KGB had the report published in a Swedish journal. In the intelligence world, this is called disinformation. Disinformation may be blatant deception or small fabricated kernels in a large milieu of reliable facts. In the academic arena where research is often based on previous research, when results from a study can be shared quickly and easily with other researchers, it is important to science that people share accurate results. If subsequent research is based on incorrect data, many of those subsequent conclusions could be inaccurate as well. The same document but in PDF http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence/higher-education-national-security

Further references can be found on the page Soviet influence on the peace movement and yet more are linked in the Nuclear Winter talk page. There is now certainly sufficient support for Tretyakov's claim to be included in the article, despite the chronology presented by Tretyakov not being right. Any addition of this claim to the article should include that Tretyakov gets the Chronology of events wrong. Though simply because the Chronology is wrong doesn't mean it isn't worthy of addition. What do you think?

Also, having come to your page, I'm struck that you've been banned from the Gulf War Syndrome page, that seems bizarre. What were you doing that caused the ban? Boundarylayer (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)