User talk:71.174.137.143

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Widr Could you please remove talk page access for this IP editor? They are clearly going only going to use it for abusive means. Thank you. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 21:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the climate ds notice above[edit]

  • I gave one to myself, too
  • They are for FYI purposes and imply no wrong doing
  • They are only intended to get you to read the principles section of the ARBCC ruling (see link for "here" in the notice), and the various links that you will find in those principles
  • In addition, please review our standards for what wikipedia defines as a WP:Reliable source and WP:Original research

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

since you guys want to piss on me here's me pissing back.[edit]

Don't do this, unless you want to be blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Global warming‎[edit]

You are allowed to copy small amounts of copyrighted text here, not whole paragraphs. And lay off the personal attacks. --NeilN talk to me 14:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to trigger the edit filter, as you did at Talk:Global warming, you may be blocked from editing. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. NeilN talk to me 14:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

please unbloack[edit]

[[unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. 71.174.137.143 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)]][reply]

I believe your content filter was probably triggered by the words "d e a t h" or "k i l l" as in "the heat will "k i l l" us all" referring to Global Warming and/or "Those going to Florida for the winter to get that there 50% increase in temperature must be dropping "d e a d"" making fun of Global Warming. You can find variations of those comments in my attempts to remove the offending words (unless the comments have been deleted in which case you will need to look at the Global Warming - Talk page to find them). There were repeated attempts to massage the comments to avoid the problem words, resulting in repeated filter warnings.

Hoping whoever reads this is not a Global Warming fanatic, and doesn't consider a comment like "The heat will "k i l l" us all" a threat to life, liberty or property.

and I got more content filter warnings while attempting to post this response

Please take whatever action is needed to remove the block.71.174.137.143 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for repeating the personal attack re: cretin. --NeilN talk to me 15:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copied here --NeilN talk to me 15:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 71.174, your request is unnecessary. Your unblock request can be handled here. As it is currently presented it will be declined. Your request should indicate your understanding of the situation that resulted in the block and steps that will be taken to assure that further disruption will be avoided. Tiderolls 15:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the ban given above was triggering the edit filter and not abusive language "If you continue to trigger the edit filter" .That is what I responded to.71.174.137.143 (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again the reason given is "If you continue to trigger the edit filter" Please advise if comments like "The heat will "k i l l" us all" is a threat to life, liberty or property.71.174.137.143 (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, another editor warned you about the edit filter. I blocked you for the repeated personal attack. Discretionary sanctions covers standards of behavior. --NeilN talk to me 15:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


As for abusive language I was responding in kind to comments as follows. Notice all my posts were directed at JJ and are date stamped after his posts. I hereby make a notification to you about a poster using abusive language. I believe you need to ban him for a week as well.


samples

. I could go on, but most of the folks here know this. And I forgot, you are just a blathering idiot. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It's time to ask for a range block on this idiot. He's definitely wp:nothere. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

At this time I see neither a warning nor a similar ban on JJ for his comments - and he started the name calling. Please advise why you are singing me out when he started it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J._Johnson#top

and I have notified one other who also seems to be ignoring his abusive language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#on_.22if_you_piss_on_me_I_will_piss_on_you.22_comment


Please explain to me why I got banned and JJ did not.71.174.137.143 (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned and repeated the behavior after the warning. J. Johnson has now been warned. --NeilN talk to me 15:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But why wasn't he banned?

The repeated name calling that you refer to, I believe was the restoration of a deleted SECTION on the talk page, due to excessive use of newspaper material. The restoration was not to call JJ a cretin again but to restore the points made in that deleted section using less material. You can confirm by checking the deleted material and the reduced material that was restored.

At this point my understanding of the situation is that after JJ used abusive language to describe me (idiot) I used abusive language to describe him (cretin). Is my understanding in error?

Also At this point my understanding of the situation is that I have been banned for 1 week for using the word "cretin" while JJ has not been banned, but has been warned, but only after my repeated complaints, of his use of the word idiot. He was not banned and was not even warned when he originally made the disparaging comments. He was only warned AFTER I complained to you and was not warned when I complained to Connelly. Is my understanding of this correct?

My understanding is that if two people use substantially the same level of abusive language and only one is banned, and that person is NOT the instigator, then something smells in Denmark. Is my understanding of this wrong?

I notice that my use of the word cretin has been redacted, but that the word idiot, which is on roughly the same level as an insult, has not been redacted. Is my understanding of this in error?

I notice that JJ is a regular wiki poster, having a long standing talk page, and should have a good knowledge of wiki policies. By any standard you care to name his level of knowledge on wiki policies is greater then mine. So we have a poster with a good knowledge of wiki policy, breaking wiki policy by using disparaging language, and a poster with less knowledge of wiki policy responding in kind. I believe the instigator with the greater knowledge is more at fault. Is this understanding wrong?

Lastly! If you do not ban JJ for using abusive language, or alternatively remove the ban on me, then you are a biased two faced loser. If you do one of the above then you are even handed and praiseworthy. I will be waiting with bated breath to see you actions, or your lack of actions, in order to finalize my opinion of you.

Have a nice day!71.174.137.143 (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored my point. I'll repeat it: "You were warned and repeated the behavior after the warning." Has J. Johnson repeated the behavior after being informed of discretionary sanctions and being told to stop the personal attacks? --NeilN talk to me 16:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not repeat the behavior. I took the deleted section and removed a substantial portion of the newspaper material in order to address a complaint of too much content. That is not a repeat of offense. It was an edit of OTHER material. For me to repeat the offense means I have to again type in the word cretin. I did not type in that word again. I edited some of the OTHER material by deleting substantial portion of it. BTW that reduced material has again been deleted.71.174.137.143 (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat of cretin comment after warning. [1] --NeilN talk to me 16:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checking on when I restored the material with less newspaper content, it was done a few minutes after your warning. I'm sorry to say that I am not superman and do not have the ability to be in two places at the same time. I was working on restoring the deleted material while you were posting your warning. I only read it after restoring. So no I did not use the word cretin after being warned.

I believe this is the restoration post. Check its time stamp with your warning above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=773132273&oldid=773131545

MY MISTAKE - the restoration post seems to be before your warning, so no I did not repeat the offense after being warned.71.174.137.143 (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


My understanding as of now is that the word cretin reappeared on the talk page after a restoration of previously deleted material - see above link at 13.53 - and that I received a warning about 25 minutes after that. Is my understanding correct?

My understanding is that after this restoration post, and the warning, I took no further actions that would make the word cretin, either newly appear or reappear on that talk page. Is my understanding correct?

Also please advise if the reduced content of the re-posted material is at an acceptable level.71.174.137.143 (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for a response to my latest response, but not with bated breath as "praiseworthy and even handed" seem to be slowly losing out to "two faced loser". The jury is however still out. For instance, he could be having lunch. 71.174.137.143 (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This Impartiality has left me BREATHLESS[edit]

Refrain from the unnecessary personal attacks please. --NeilN talk to me 15:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC) 

   But necessary personal attacks are OK ;-? More seriously, I second the note, keep to the highground William M. Connolley (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

       @William M. Connolley: Yes, sometimes it's necessary to inform you that your father smelt of elderberries :) --NeilN talk to me 18:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

           I was provoked! But point taken. Though it seems to me that, with some, ah, folks, "taking the high ground" is too subtle, and a sharp whack on the side of the head is often most efficacious. Okay, I have replaced "idiot" with loftier language.

           So William's father met his mother while picking berries? :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

               Besides NPA, see (once again) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Battlefield_editing.... trolls are relatively easy to get rid of when you don' tweak 'em in the nose, or retweak them when modifying prior remarks. Instead, you just fuel the drama. As we have discussed 1-4 years ago. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

What an astounding LACK of impartiality by NeilN and Connolley,


I am left BREATHLESS!

BREATHLESS I tell you.

and since NeilN is obviously not out to lunch, is obviously not impartial, I guess that leaves two-faced loser. Oh! and being the copycap that I am, his father smelt of elderberries.

Just wasing my time finding links da di da di da di dum Dum! Dum![edit]

https://www.forbes.com/2011/01/03/climate-change-hoax-opinions-contributors-larry-bell.html

Many would place the beginning of the global warming hoax on the Senate testimony delivered by James Hansen of NASA [director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies] during the summer of 1988. More than anything else, this exhibition of hyped alarm triggered my active skepticism about the man-made global warming scare. This skepticism was amplified when I acted as reviewer of the first three IPCC reports, in 1990, 1996, and 2001. Increasingly claims were made for which there was no evidence; in some cases the ‘evidence’ was clearly manufactured. For example, the 1966 report used selective data and doctored graphs. It also featured changes in the text that were made after the scientists had approved it and before it was printed.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html


OOOOPPPPSSSS!!!!!! When the first adjustments aren't enough, other organizations make even more.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy. 71.174.137.143 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the unod bot still on[edit]

lalalalala!71.174.137.143 (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

Please see WP:EVADE. [2] Further instances will result in longer blocks. --NeilN talk to me 18:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.174.137.143&oldid=1142820571"