User talk:Macai

BLP

Do not re-insert material that has been challenged on the basis of being a WP:BLP violation, as you did here. That sort of behaviour can get you blocked. Guettarda (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a threat. I'm simply informing you of the risks you take when you choose to insert material that violates BLP. As an active editor on the page, I would not block you myself. Guettarda (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You should read the discussion of the article's talk page. More to the point, when something has been removed as a BLP violation, you need to stop and figure out why. If you believe that the policy was invoked in error, then you need to explain your case for why it does not violate the policy, and gain agreement from the involved parties. It's a policy we take very seriously, all the more so in a case like this where there have been death threats. Guettarda (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP is taken very seriously. It's one of the few policies which was mandated by the Foundation. Guettarda (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail news, special investigation

(Macai, in case you're no longer reading the voluminous Wikilawyering on the Climategate discussion page, I'm cc:ing this here for you).

The Daily Mail has a news Special Investigation with an excellent analysis, including an excellent description that references among others McIntyre's analysis of the "trick...to hide the decline" which I previously submitted above. So this is an unquestionably RS that describes that analysis. The graph and a summary of the description should be included in the article. Here are some excerpts:

Derived from close examination of some of the thousands of other leaked emails, he [McIntyre] says it suggests the ‘trick’ undermines not only the CRU but the IPCC.

There is a widespread misconception that the ‘decline’ Jones was referring to is the fall in global temperatures from their peak in 1998, which probably was the hottest year for a long time. In fact, its subject was more technical - and much more significant...

Briffa knew exactly why they [IPCC] wanted it, writing in an email on September 22: ‘I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more”.’ But his conscience was troubled. ‘In reality the situation is not quite so simple - I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.’...

Finally, Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and ‘cooled’ them significantly. But alas, it created another, potentially even more serious, problem.

According to his tree rings, the period since 1960 had not seen a steep rise in temperature, as actual temperature readings showed - but a large and steady decline, so calling into question the accuracy of the earlier data derived from tree rings.

This is the context in which, seven

weeks later, Jones presented his ‘trick’ - as simple as it was deceptive.

All he had to do was cut off Briffa’s inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase.

On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated - but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines.

‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.

‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’

...as McIntyre points out, ‘contrary to claims by various climate scientists, the IPCC Third Assessment Report did not disclose the deletion of the post-1960 values’.

On the final diagram, the cut off was simply concealed by the other lines.

Flegelpuss (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Question for you

Do you know Nightmote (talk · contribs)? Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I read about him on AQFK's page, but I've been largely uninvolved with arguing on the Climategate article the past few days. Why? Macai (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He reminds me a lot of you. I thought the two of you might be friends. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page SCUM Manifesto has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:03, 21 January 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 hacking incident‎, 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) 08:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Further to the template above, I would comment that my review of the discussion at CRUhi leads me to conclude that the direction of your input is to aggravate or irritate ChrisO rather than advance the case of renaming the article. Should this impression be one of simple misreading of your intent, as a neutral observer I should strongly suggest that it is implicit within the terms of the probation that it is your responsibility to ensure that your language might not be mistaken as being focussed upon one other editor rather than the case for renaming. If you are unable to, then perhaps not commenting for a while on the subject may be advisable - lest withdrawal is imposed upon you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your comment at my talkpage, but will re-iterate it here; "I am the administrator." LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I would comment that you have made your suggestion, in what appears to be an attempt to frustrate and aggravate another editor rather than appropriately argue the point, some 2 hours before ChrisO made the comment. It seems that you are provoking the bear with WP:POINTy sticks and then complaining that the bear growled back. My admin responses, so far, have been to comment upon these matters. How much further I use my sysop flags depends on how various parties conduct themselves. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want you to say anything, or at least nothing that might be construed as provocative. You can make your arguments for a change in the title, but try not to prejudice the debate by providing options that are sardonically dismissive of an opposing opinion. Whatever my views on the matter, or your interpretation of them, I am not trying to stop the debate - but to ensure that it employs as neutral language as is possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Civility

You've been here long enough that you know this is not acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, you will be blocked from editing. I don't know what else to call it but vandalism. You blatantly violated copyright/licensing to circumvent the article's move-protection. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

You might want to explain your rationale @ AN/I Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Article probation enforcement

Following your complete disregard for the article probation on climate change articles that I notified you about yesterday, I have made a request for enforcement against you. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Macai. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Outcome of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Macai:
  • Macai is topic banned from any and all edits to articles and discussions related to climate change until 2010-03-07.
    

Please understand that treating your fellow volunteer editors with such callous disregard is simply unacceptable. When other people disagree with your edits, please seek consensus with them at the relevant talkpage or follow other steps in the WP:dispute resolution tree. Your contributions to articles and discussions unrelated to the topic of climate change continue to be welcome, but if you return to editing climate change articles disruptively next month, you will be banned for a much longer period or blocked entirely. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Macai (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Redaction request

Please redact your sarcastic comment at the bottom of Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Time_to_remove_the_badge_of_shame and refactor your earlier comment to remove your assumptions of bad faith. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on appropriateness, I will say that the fact Nigelj believed your parody was a legitimate point ([1]) is a testament to the ludicrously strong bias with which certain editors are approaching these articles. Perhaps it was worth it if only for that.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you make another disruptive sarcastic comment like the ones I asked you to redact and the one made here, I will ask you be banned from any further interactions on Climate Change talk pages. Please redact your disruptive comment. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You might also consider Jehochman's request as simple advice for how to achieve a POV-free encyclopedia with a minimum of pain and disruption. Regardless, please reconsider any future comments discussing editors instead of edits. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 05:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Following me around

I would suggest that following me around to other articles that you have not previously edited is a serious mistake. I am attempting to make a clean break from climate-change, but if climate-change warriors like yourself start following me around, I'll be forced to seek to have you prevented from wikistalking me - stop now. Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)