User talk:2over0

Welcome!

Hello, 2over0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Offsite canvassing

OK, I looked into the matter above a little more deeply. There's an unhelpful tiff going on with both sides right and wrong to an extent. Potentially of more serious concern is the offsite canvassing; the recent EEML case is relevant here. While the venue was not hidden it is "mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience" and the appeals themselves have not neutrally worded by any reasonable standard.[1][2] I would like to ask 2/0 (or other impartial admin) whether this matter should be raised at the climate change probation board. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly not particularly nice, but fundamentally I see very little that we can do about posts elsewhere on the internet. My very basic understanding of EEML (I read the world's most bizarre opening statements and eventually the final decision) is that they were acting highly unethically. Asking your friends and partisans to come support you here is a little bit dirty pool, but a far cry from actively colluding to circumvent the community standards. If people start showing up apparently out of the blue to make the same or substantively the same edits it would be worth bringing up WP:MEAT at the RE board, but I do not think that there is anything to do here. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Mitsube's aggressive disruption"

Please show me the diffs that you think reflect aggressive disruption on my part. I have no idea what you were referring to here. You seem to bear me some animosity that I have done nothing to deserve. What did I ever do to offend you? I would like to make amends if I have done something amiss. Mitsube (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I know I have not been particularly active over there lately, but you continually pop up on my watchlist making edits that have the effect of skewing our pseudoscience (broadly construed) articles away from independent encyclopedic coverage towards a more credulous mere repetition of some highly questionable sources. This coupled with at least two WP:PETARD AN3 reports indicates to me a serious deficiency in your approach to editing here. I urge you as a fellow volunteer editor to please consider how you would expect a serious respected reference work to cover these topics - in full context or bare of commentary? Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to report there seems to be some intent to pursue tendentious editing at Reincarnation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

by the way

2/0, I　promised in another thread to post a correction to the comment about the disappearance of the RWP that was "deleted by andrew c" at this thread. Unfortunately, that thread was closed for comments. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, thank you for trying. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Caleb Murdock on the attack again

His very first edit after returning is an attack. He hasn't learned anything. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Warned, thank you. Let us see if this is a spark or a fizzle. :( - 2/0 (cont.) 02:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We can only hope. Since this involves his religion, I'm not holding my breath. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Should this block be recorded here? I'd think the topic ban should be made complete, IOW to include the talk page. The Jane Roberts article should also be included. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, 2/0, you're as bad as Verbal and Brangifer are. You are totally biased and unethical. The response that Brangifer gave to that new user sounded almost threatening. There is clearly an attempt to scare off people who don't share your biased "skeptical" point of view. The bunch of you are creating a hostile environment on Wikipedia. This isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

@BR - that page does not seem to log blocks. I am guessing that the reasoning is that people reviewing the effects of ArbCom cases and community sanctions need a centralized log, but in the case of single users it is sufficient just to look at the block log. Besides, that was an ordinary civility block, not a violation of the page ban. I think the best approach at this point is to try to work collaboratively with CM: if he takes the hand, great, the encyclopedia wins; if he continues in the vein of these last few edits and socking, I expect he will be blocked completely rather than topic banned; if he decides to edit disruptively at other articles it is easy enough to extend the page ban, but in the meantime there is no need.

@CM - thank you for your input. There is some oblique advice for you in the preceeding paragraph. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you think? Is it OK to remove personal attacks? You removed his personal attacks, he restored them, and he was blocked for doing so. Now he's done it again. The attacks themselves are a blockable offense in his situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments says that removing personal attacks is fine, but should be done with care. 70.etc. geolocates to the other usual location for CM, but I am not sure if it is worth the bother of a CU at this point. Honestly, I think that the best plan generally is to ignore purely unproductive comments and comment specifically on the productive parts of mixed comments. I do not see that situation going anywhere at the moment - maintain you stance as the voice of reason and be patient? - 2/0 (cont.) 05:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked for this behavior before. If we allow him to repeat it, then all is for naught. He gets away with violating our policies and attacking other editors. That's not right. It must stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

See now #Seth Material. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Both the Seth Material and Jane Roberts articles should probably be semiprotected for some time, and their talk pages somehow protected, maybe with a warning to Caleb that IP comments there that seem ducklike will be removed. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Violation of 1RR restriction by William M. Connolley.2C per Marknutley Enforcement request

Per the above, I am advising you - as the admin who closed the Marknutley request - that I have reactivated the claim in respect of WMC's violation of his CC 1RR restriction. Although you made no comment upon it at the Marknutley close, you may wish to do so here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Good call - thank you for staying on top of this. Hopefully this can be closed quickly, as some of those reports are dragging out for quite some time. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

respect

Just in passing:

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For 2/0, a cool head in heated waters. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I approve of this barnstar (and its use of synechdoche). :P MastCell ^Talk 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Awww, thanks :). Better, you reminded me to check my fire extinguisher - next time I do not die in a fire I will have you to thank. Now, on to baking up the last of last year's fresh frozen blueberries while simultaneously not setting the kitchen on fire. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please reply

I responded to your message. Please reply. [3] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit war brewing

Here might be an idea to lock it out for a few days mark nutley (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I try to avoid that article, but a quick glance suggests that Macai has returned to precisely the same sort of non-constructive behavior that led to his one-month topic ban. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least it is not because of the recent expiration of the semi-protection. Meh. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mark Nutley

I want to notify you of this comment i left on Mark's talk[4]. I find that the talk-space edits may have come from a confusion by Mark on what exactly the conditions were for his conditional unblock - but i see that he has also edited article-space (more than once). I'm not seeking any sanctions - but just a general notification, that i'm going to protest if he ever asks for a conditional unblock again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim i have responded on my talk page, but please note, the article i edited was one i had just put into main space, i noticed i had missed out a letter on my copy/paste and then fixed it. Really a few seconds in this here, come on now. mark nutley (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And how could you think that it was OK to create an article, when you are only allowed to edit in your user-space? And as i noted on your talk - this edit to Cao Yong is certainly not related in any way or form to your user-talk space. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again i have responded on my talk page, shall we just keep it there instead of cross posting like this? mark nutley (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, take it to the enforcement page for clarification. As calmly as possible, please. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Better chuck this one in as well then [5] the guy posted that i had misspelt his name so i fixed it :-( mark nutley (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Marknutley#This is not OK...., thank you everyone for remaining calm and polite. Incidentally, while as my userpage suggests I would feel silly if I blocked someone for making an unquestionably good and trivial edit, I would really appreciate not being put in that situation. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Some i dotting and t crossing requested

Per the discussion here, you and I neglected to log some of our actions. I have done so for me, but wish to give you the opportunity to reach closure in this matter... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have on occasion made posts intended more as friendly advice rather than formal warnings and have intentionally not logged those, but those look like they should have been logged. And so they were, I think - [6], [7]. I think there is some confusion because you closed and acted on that request, but I archived it a few days later. More over there. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about NPA and BATTLEGROUND?

Given your concerns, these might be of interest. This, from a just-blocked editor, might be best ignored. [8] This one [9] doesn't have that excuse, and it's part of a recent pattern on his part. Maybe a discussion with him would do some good. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see the anisotropy section of the bulk modulus page removed. K = dP/(dV/V) = dP/(e_x + e_y + e_z). Note that the denominator of the rightmost expression is an invariant of the strain tensor, hence insensitive to orientation of coordinate system, as is pressure as well. This reinforces the argument that both pressure and volumetric strain are scalars, so their ratio is also a scalar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibbits (talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the above comment by Tibbits as an adequate reply to JohnWBarber ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Anisotropy section of the bulk modulus page

I would like to see the anisotropy section of the bulk modulus page removed. K = dP/(dV/V) = dP/(e_x + e_y + e_z). Note that the denominator of the rightmost expression is an invariant of the strain tensor, hence insensitive to orientation of coordinate system, as is pressure as well. This reinforces the argument that both pressure and volumetric strain are scalars, so their ratio is also a scalar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibbits (talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Macai?

Hi You have just blocked Macai (talk · contribs) as noted here User_talk:Macai#Blocked. Can you please give some diffs supporting this action? I also see that you have banned him for two months on articles related to climate change: User_talk:Macai#Topic_ban_from_articles_related_to_climate_change. I don't see any process on the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation / Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log for this action to be justified. Nsaa (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I was about to ask you the same. Typically, the process has been to raise it on the enforcement page before taking action. This action also appears to have been taken in direct response to a talk page request (above) from Boris. In any case, it seems inappropriate, and I think you should explain. ATren (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In Macai`s defence i do not think he was either edit warring not disruptive, if you look at his edit comment from his last edit of the article [10] it appears to me he was happy to accept changes being made. Also he inserted "scandel" it was removed but he did not try to reinsert it. [11] This edit is an obvious try to please all involved [12] I do not think he was edit warring at all, i would ask you rethink this topic ban and block mark nutley (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

RFE against you

AN RFE was filed against you. [13] You are welcome to respond. Macai (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sanction appeal

I was instructed to make it a sanction appeal. You can find it here.[14] Macai (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I should be grateful if you could clarify which two (or more) edits were the reverts under which you imposed the sanctions, and any comment about referring your actions for review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Statement by 2over0 2, thank you. 2over0 public (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tracking changes through article moves

I notice that you're still occasionally updating my list of articles covered by the climate change probation. I'm taking a back seat (little or no involvement) at the moment and have no imminent plans to ramp up my contributions, but in a recent check I noticed the absence of recent edits to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy in the related changes. Presumably this is because the article name was recently changed and the related changes module doesn't follow redirects.

If you're still using that page to track recent edits in the probation area, perhaps you should update the moved pages to the current name (or perhaps just add the new names and retain the old ones so as to track discussions of proposed disambiguations, etc). Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I just added the renamed page, thank you for pointing this out. Also, thank you for creating that page - I find it extraordinarily helpful even with the caveat that it is manually maintained and may be out of date or incomplete. I cannot think of any other recently renamed pages off the top of my head, but I will keep an eye out for updates. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC Again

BLP violation against and identifiable living person Blatant Vandalism

What is to be done about this? mark nutley (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps... editors under civility paroles should not make unfounded allegations of vandalism, or indeed BLP violation? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone a rightwing nut is a blp violation, and what you have inserted into the Hockey Stick Illusion is vandalism mark nutley (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Until the little furor relating to two sections above settles out, I am not taking any administrative action in the topic area of climate change. Please feel free to raise a case at WP:GS/CC/RE. Thank you for understanding, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Seth Material

I had hoped that User:Caleb Murdock might find some way to usefully occupy himself after the topic ban from Seth Material. Unfortunately, he won't do much except quarrel with other editors at Talk:Seth Material. His latest edit is here, which restores a bunch of argumentative material. This thread had been usefully transferred from Talk:Seth Material over to User talk:Caleb Murdock by Guyonthesubway, but Caleb restores it with the message "You people have a level of nerve that's just unbelievable. Not only do you act badly, you want to hide your bad behavior." If he would confine his sarcastic comments to his own talk page I'd be willing to ignore him, but he's continuing to interfere with the article by misusing its talk page.

When I imposed the original topic ban, as a result of the above thread, I withheld a proposed indef block of Caleb on a 'wait-and-see basis'. I think I've now seen enough for such a block, but wanted to check with you first, since you filed the original complaint against Caleb at the EW noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, thanks. I had been hoping that the socking and quarrelsomeness would be confined to a low enough level to write it off as just the natural grumbling that so often happens when an editor runs head first into policy here, but I think I have seen enough. The page is still semi-protected for almost a month, but it might be worth keeping a weather eye on developments there. Good luck. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What a joke this is. You are going to ban me forever because I restored text to a TALK PAGE??? -- text which Brangifer had no right to delete in the first place??? You people have no fairness or objectivity.

What's really happening here is that you want me to lick your asses, but I won't do it. The situation on Wikipedia is pitiful. It is over-run by control freaks who spend all day pushing other editors around, and you don't see any problem with it. Editors like Verbal and Brangifer and Guyonthesubway have turned Wikipedia into their full-time hobby. But once an editor has exhausted his knowledge, all that's left for him to do is to make trouble for other editors -- like Verbal does A-L-L--D-A-Y--L-O-N-G. But you refuse to see that. None of this would have transpired if Verbal hadn't started attacking the article -- and yes, they were attacks. He never once tried to collaborate.

Knowledge is not valued on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has become a social-networking site. All I ever wanted to do was to edit the one article I cared about -- and I guarantee you, no one else has my level of knowledge of the subject. Of course, you don't see the article as worthwhile, so you don't care. I'm not the one who doesn't "get it" here. The rules are set up to encourage participation, not to facilitate the accumulation of knowledge. But participation for the sake of it has no value to the encyclopedia as a whole.

I have no respect for either of you. Your decisions have been biased from the get-go. You have consistently favored your wiki-addict pals. My only mistake was that I was too shrill in defending my positions. I have every confidence that you will make the wrong decision once again.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I just want to let you know..

Hi, it's nice to see that you still make time to edit articles. I think it's important to keep editing articles so you remember what this is all about. Nice to see, hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the fun part of writing an encyclopedia ... the encyclopedia writing :). I actually have a raft of sources I meant to get to today, but I got napped hard this afternoon. On the bright side, I get to enjoy both sunrise and sunset today, both of which promise to be absolutely beautiful. Keep it wonderful. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please respond.

[15] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

South Ossetia war title

I have made a number of attempts to have the article title changed to no avail. When this war first started it was limited to South Ossetia and as such the title was legitimate. The moment it expanded beyond South Ossetia and into Abkhazia and the west coast a number of editors began suggesting the name be changed to reflect the scope of the conflict. At the time there was no clear alternative name and it was subject to such constant edit-warring that the article was move-protected. Since then the only recourse has been to have discussions on the title in the hopes of reaching of a consensus. Unfortunately, no matter how much time passes and how much stronger the case for a change gets a group of editors with an extremely biased position always flood the discussions to prevent a change.

In the most recent discussion I started on the current talk page one editor supportive of a change decided it was a lost cause because he felt any discussion would see a number of pro-Russian editors flood the discussion and prevent a consensus from being seen. So far it seems the only way this title is ever going to be changed is by an admin's decision. I gave a decent summary of the arguments for a change a few months ago here, more importantly it contains the most recent arguments for keeping, and this earlier discussion showed strong support for a change, though there was some funny business done with the discussion by a non-admin. The admin reviewing it did however say that objections based on neutrality were invalid and only left the issue of descriptiveness and common name as no consensus. However, I do not see any legitimate argument for keeping this article and plenty for changing it. This is something I am sending to a few admins who appear to have no involvement in the article or the name dispute in the hopes of getting some authoritative position on the current title. If you can think of any admins who might be more interested in this then feel free to say--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)