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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Question for you

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Civility

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

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)[reply]

AN/I

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

CRU article

Mind the 1RR on that article. You've committed several technical violations in the past day, though it's not a big enough deal to report (not yet, anyway). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reverted anyone's edits. At least that's not how I see it. Maybe you could tell me how I've been violating 1RR. And I'm not being sarcastic, here. Macai (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of reverting is broader than hitting the undo button and includes "any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." So if (for example) you manually restore a word or phrase that was deleted in a previous edit, that's a revert: you "reversed the actions of other editors." If you restore the word or phrase and also change other text, that's still a revert. Again, it's any action that reverses what someone else did. Hope this helps; it's a subtle thing that's full of gotchas. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just requested some diffs for a rationale on this block at User_talk:2over0#Blocked_Macai.3F. Nsaa (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban from articles related to climate change

Macai (talk · contribs) is topic banned from any and all edits to articles and discussions related to climate change until 2010-05-04. Concurrently, Macai is banned from editing articles covered by this probation until 2010-06-04. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just requested some rationale for this topic ban at User_talk:2over0#Blocked_Macai.3F. As far as I can see no process at the appropiate board has been done, so this is unjustified as far as I can see. Nsaa (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Macai. You have new messages at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I apologize for not including that statement in these two sections. I was having computer trouble and failed to check that the correct version had posted. I was remiss in not checking this, and can only plead that I am busy off-site this week in asking your forgiveness. 2over0 public (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link in your GSCC complaints page filing

I think the first link in the "Why I believe I did not do what I was sanctioned for" section is broken. I think this [2] is the link you meant to use. Now I'm going to read through the rest of it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Appeal regarding topic bans etc. at Climate Change articles

I would advise you that I have collapsed the above discussion as an unsuccessful appeal - given that I felt there was not sufficient consensus to overturn the decision, and that no fresh comments had been given for a couple of days. It is possible to appeal to other bodies, and I suggest you make a request at ArbCom (since an Admin's Noticeboard is unlikely to produce a consensus either) in relation to both the severity of the sanctions and the miscommunications between the rationale provided at the time and subsequently. You might wish to provide a link to these comments as well as to the Probation enforcement discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CRU again

Restoring unsourced edits made by an SPA right after the arbcom case has closed, shows that you don't get it. I'm going to therefore ask that you stay away from this article, based not just on your recent edits, but your history of contributions to it. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you only object to unsourced edits made by an SPA right after the arbcom case has closed? You don't object to sourced edits made by an SPA right after the arbcom, then? Because sourcing that claim is not very difficult. Macai (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macai, your comment and subsequent edits demonstrate my point. The SPA and yourself are pushing a discredited fringe conspiracy theory that claims that a whistleblower working for the CRU "leaked" the data to the public because he had to get the "truth" out there. This is nonsense. As the official report notes, this was an illegal release of data. The CBS link you added to support your claim lies at the low end of the reliability scale, as it is a political opinion blog written by Declan McCullagh in December of 2009, not 2010 as you claim (hint, it's only October). Additionally, most if not of all of the content in that blog has been superseded by more current, reliable sources. Once again, you do not show a familiarity with the most basic, fundamental guidelines and policies. Your readdition of an SPA contribution right as the arbcom case closes, tells me you haven't been paying attention. Please take a step back from this article and use the talk page to make your case. Otherwise, I will request enforcement. I hope this is clear. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to bring to your attention your misleading use of edit summaries.[3] Please do not do that again. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, something being an Internet leak does not imply that it was leaked by a whistleblower. An Internet leak is merely when confidential data is released without the owner's permission. This is not mutually exclusive with a hacking. For example, a hacker could break into a server, steal some data from it, and then leak it on 4chan. In fact, there's an example of what I just described happening in the real world. I don't recall claiming that it was, in fact leaked by a whistleblower, either. So please, tell me where I said anything to the effect of "this was totally leaked by a whistleblower". Failing that, I will accept your apology for putting words in my mouth. As for it being a blog and therefore unacceptable, I think you forgot to read this, which reads:

Personal and group blogs are largely not acceptable as sources; see below. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs; these are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines are subject to the same standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions.[3] Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, the writer should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

Emphasis mine. So:

If a newspaper hosts an interactive column that it calls a blog, that blog's writer is a professional and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control, then it is acceptable as a source.
CBS hosts a blog called Taking Liberties, its writer is professionally paid, and its under the full editorial control of CBS.
Therefore, Talking Liberties (the blog that CBS hosts) is acceptable as a source.

See also, modus ponens. Your criticism about it having the wrong year is valid. It's been fixed. Macai (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macai, the information in that blog is from 2009 and has been superseded by newer, more reliable sources that refute and cast doubt on most if not of all of that old information. The current, official document calls it an illegal release of data, which is what it was. Please stop cherry picking old and out of date blog sources. Again, we use the best sources that we can find, and an old CBS blog authored by a climate denier is not representative of the best sources we can find. Please take your concerns to the talk page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, from Deerekid

I accidentally created those pages which were all deleted, but now have created two pages which I think provide some useful information and which have not been deleted after a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deerekid1 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hell, you may be blocked from editing. See also sections are not for personal commentary. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compromised account/vandalism spree

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Returning Finally To Find This

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).

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

Request reason:

Turns out, someone guessed/cracked my password and went on a vandalism spree with my account. I'm very sorry about that. I have changed my password to something nobody will ever guess. If it's at all possible, lifting the block, even tentatively, would be quite nice.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, we cannot unblock hacked accounts. WP:GOTHACKED should explain why. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Look at it this way - "X" gains control, "X" changes password and e-mail address. "Macai" is now totally locked out, and can do nothing. "X" asks for unblock.... Had you had a {{User committed identity}} (see also Wikipedia:COMMITTED), we would not be having this discussion. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]