User talk:Vanished user oerjio4kdm3

The Beginning

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Barack Obama. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thegoodlocust. I think you may have misinterpreted something that Grsz did. When you wrote a long multi-paragraph reply, he replied to each paragraph in turn instead of replying in a block. People do that sometimes here. Then he realized that he hadn't signed each paragraph, so it might be unclear to other readers who was saying what. That's why he added his signature — unfortunately, he mistakenly added his signature to one paragraph that was yours instead of his. In the interest of maintaining civil discussion, it might be good if you were to restore his comments, either where they were (in response to yours) or as a separate block, after your long comment. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind — I see that he restored the comments while I was writing the above. I've removed his stray signature from your text, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it seemed really off for him to do that, and without inserting my own signature, it looks quite confusing. Initially, when he did it, he didn't sign all his statements, and made it look like things had been attributed to myself that I had not written. Additionally, I didn't like how he was deleting my own text, specifically, I told him not to modify my own comment.

I just don't understand why he couldn't reply in one single comment, rather than uselessly parsing everything. Also, keep in mind, he attacked me first with his ad hominem attacks about me being a new user and therefore, supposedly, devaluing my input. Thegoodlocust (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There's some truth there, but I'm afraid that "he started it!" isn't an acceptable defense outside of elementary school. (You'll notice that I removed some comments of his as well as yours when the two of you strayed further into personal attack territory.) Grsz was failing to assume good faith, and biting a new user — and I was probably too soft in dealing with that. But that doesn't excuse you calling his character into question. Let's just try to focus on the article, instead of each other. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there were short fuses on both sides there, and a few little misunderstandings erupted into something disproportionate. If you don't mind, I'm going to remove the last section of the talk page — would you prefer to have it kept here, or is it OK if it just remains in the talk page's history? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it, I'm honestly surprised the minor edits I suggested were so hostility received. There are much more relevant, but controversial things I'd like to see added to the article that go beyond mere phrasing. Thegoodlocust (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the well at that article has been poisoned by a steady stream of trolls and sockpuppets, so the long-time editors are too ready to jump on any new face. (Did you notice the joker earlier tonight who asked why the article didn't have Obama's name in Arabic?) I'm not excusing Grsz's hostility, just letting you know that there's a context to it. (Of course, that's what Obama said in his speech, and that hasn't satisfied his most vocal critics either...) :-)

There are also a couple of long-lasting, more major disputes going on on that talk page (specifically, how much space the article should give to Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, and how to express various rankings of Obama's record in the Senate on the political spectrum). You're welcome to join those discussions too, if you're feeling up to it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. I hope all is well. It's very hard to explain this edit as a result of user error. If my analysis is mistaken, please forgive me, but as you note this is a highly volatile topic (IMHO) in which editors must be very careful in discussion and project pages. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

The edit summary associated with this edit is inappropriate. Edit summaries are intended to summarize either the content or editorial intent of the edit. While using edit summaries is strongly encouraged, please refrain from using edit summaries which are nonsense, misleading, non-descriptive of your edit or uncivil toward other users. Please keep in mind that I found nothing wrong with the edit itself. I am just reminding you of the appropriate use of edit summaries. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a joke, sort of, my dog needed to pee as I was finishing up and so I wrote that in quickly so I could finish posting (I'd turned on the edit reminder) - it seemed faster to type that in than click, wait for it to reload and tell me to make an edit summary and the click save again. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It made me chuckle. Just go to My Preferences, click on the editing tab and uncheck the box that says "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". That way you don't even have to put an edit summary for talk page edits. Hope that helps. --Ubiq (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I did, I just wanted a reminder about it since I'm fairly new and I'd just read about it somewhere. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR Warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama FAR

Hi there, I am just writing to inform you that we have apparently been conducting the Barack Obama FAR incorrectly. Your vote of "keep" or "remove" should be struck out and reinserted when the nomination moves into FARC (per the directions at WP:FAR). I was just notified of this myself; please see the bottom of the FAR page for more. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

TheGoodLocust, the proper statement in the featured Article Review is "Close and move to FARC." The term "FARC" represents "Featured Article Removal candidate." In my opinion, attempting to improve the article is useless because there are too many people who like the hagiography just the way it is. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the suggestions. I'll go look at it later though since it looks like there is another false attempt at getting me blocked. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

hi

look at my post. if you agree, feel free to use the source. 116.12.165.227 (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=203674181&oldid=203673852

Thanks

For your passion and your tenacity in editing Wikipedia. Please assume good faith on the part of other editors. Edison (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

A lot of the content you're adding to the State legislature section really should be included in the article, or at least in the new sub-article, but the problem seems to be with how you are wording your additions. In this edit[1], your wording is implying that it was Obama's legal challenges that created the division, when the source seems to implying that Obama's decision to stay in the race is what caused the division, not the legal challenges. Also, if you had continued to read the source, you would have found on the fourth and fifth pages that such legal challenges are common in Chicago and that the other candidates had actually made several critical mistakes in collecting their signatures (namely using old voting records to validate, not having enough time to actually do the validation properly, and getting swindled by their paid signature gatherers). There doesn't seem to be any wrong doing in what Obama did, but the way in which you worded it does imply that Obama did something wrong by challenging the signatures. Of course, that doesn't mean what you added shouldn't be in the article, just that the wording is troublesome and that if it had been worded in a more neutral fashion and included some explanation beyond just the negative aspects, it probably would have been more palatable to the other editors on the article. The big thing to remember is that while NPOV does say we should include things that are positive and negative of the article's subject, it also says that the wording that we use should be neutral as well. My suggestion is that you try to include both sides of the argument and try to make the wording a bit more neutral. If you do that, chances are you'll improve the likelihood of what you're adding staying in the article unmodified. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:TheGoodLocust.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheGoodLocust.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

New version of Wright paragraph

I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in Barack Obama, and I'd be interested in your thoughts at Talk:Barack Obama#New attempt by Josiah. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Mccurley

I ask that you create a hyper link for Digicrime.com, which is at Kevin Mccurley. Thank you. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Mispelling

I spelled Kevin Mccurley wrong. Just look it up in the search box to get the right spelling. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Answer

To make a hyperlink in the article of Kevin Mccurley. To make the hyperlink for Digicrime.com Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Reason

I want you to do it because I don't know how. Make the hyperlink connect to www.digicrime.com. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WD

What? You think I'm going to get "in trouble" for swearing? Grsz^X 05:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

I have already cautioned you about avoiding personal attacks, civility, assuming good faith, and article probation on the Barack Obama pages. This edit[2] is abusive. Please desist at once - if you continue an administrator reviewing your edits may block you from further editing the encyclopedia, or ban you from the affected article pages, in order to prevent further disruption. I will provide a templated article probation notice, below. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article 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.

Palin

You've been gone for awhile, I would suggest reading the archives before editing. The Bridges section has been discussed again and again and again. Going in slicing and dicing isn't going to help and will just be reverted. Grsz^X 21:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please watch your language on talk pages. "Bullshit" is not appropriate language for Wikipedia and could result in your being reported if such language continues on this encylopedia. Thanks! 45Factoid44 (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Brothejr (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be an admin to warn people. I am an admin, and I will block you if you revert again. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The first time was not a revert - I changed the source since the other guy didn't like the source. I did however revert it after that since he flat out deleted it without giving a single reason why. Where is your warning to him? TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, and I am sorry for not paying closer attention. I am happy to see that you have started to talk it out. Again, I apologize for my erroneous warning. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruption

Stop now - if you continue disrupting the encyclopedia, as you are doing at Talk:Barack Obama and Barack Obama, an administrator may block or ban you from further editing. Wikidemon (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And do not troll my talk page.[3] Wikidemon (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New AN/I posting

I posted an AN/I request here regarding those three if you wish to contribute. I'm sorry you're being ganged up on like that. It isn't right. Digital^Ninja 03:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

96 hours. Please read WP:TE (not to mention WP:FRINGE, WP:BLP and WP:TALK) and review your own editing in the light of these guidelines and policies. Moreschi (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Very classy - I guess I know where your political affiliations lie since, not only didn't you give me a warning, but you haven't done jack to deal with the other editors who're suppressing perfectly valid and sourced information in that article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think Obama's manifesto is pretty lousy and Palin's ass is awesome. I'm English so pretty apathetic anyway. Nope, no conspiracy, you're just disruptive. Please accept that reality and then alter it by modifying your appalling conduct. Moreschi (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you have anything specific in mind or are you just declaring your neutrality?I added "a sister organization to ACORN," which was well-sourced and relevant. It isn't my fault they want to keep out any reference to ACORN out of the article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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).

Vanished user oerjio4kdm3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

First of all, I'm not entirely innocent in this in that I have been a bit harsh with some people. That being said, this block is ridiculous. Not only wasn't I warned, but every edit I've made to the Barack Obama page has used good sources, which are both relevant to the page, correct inaccuracies, or provide context. I suspect, from reading the ANI report I was discussing, which I did not start, that the administrator who blocked me, simply read the accusations but didn't review the evidence - he succumbed to "group think" from others who'd not reviewed the evidence. I am confident that, while not perfect, my actions did not rise to levels stated. You will notice, that I was blocked after reverting an edit that I made since the reverting editor reverted both an edit by myself and another editor. I was assuming good faith in that he had removed it, not on its merits, but because it was easier for him to revert both edits rather than being more selective. I had added that, "which is a sister organization to ACORN" to the section, which was true, sourced well, and very relevant for those who follow these things. If you have any more questions, then please ask, since I'm not used to this.

Decline reason:

Regardless of the specific straw that broke the camel's back, your actions show a clear pattern of tendentious editing and you display the characteristics of being a single-purpose account. This block is appropriate, and you should take the opportunity to review your habits, and consider whether you can edit in a more collaborative fashion, possibly on other subjects. The article probation for Barack Obama states that "Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, banned by an administrator from this and related articles and pages, and/or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia." This block is in accordance with that statement. — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

Josiah Rowe has a well-known bias and agenda regarding this article - this unblock rejection is frankly crap

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).

Vanished user oerjio4kdm3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As you can see from here the previous admin who very quickly rejected the unblock request has a history with the Barack Obama stuff as well as a friendship with several of the involved parties. I only know this because last time I was here he was pushing his agenda. His refusal to unblock is completely unwarranted and he should've recused himself. Here is my previous statement from the last request: First of all, I'm not entirely innocent in this in that I have been a bit harsh with some people. That being said, this block is ridiculous. Not only wasn't I warned, but every edit I've made to the Barack Obama page has used good sources, which are both relevant to the page, correct inaccuracies, or provide context. I suspect, from reading the ANI report I was discussing, which I did not start, that the administrator who blocked me, simply read the accusations but didn't review the evidence - he succumbed to "group think" from others who'd not reviewed the evidence. I am confident that, while not perfect, my actions did not rise to levels stated. You will notice, that I was blocked after reverting an edit that I made since the reverting editor reverted both an edit by myself and another editor. I was assuming good faith in that he had removed it, not on its merits, but because it was easier for him to revert both edits rather than being more selective. I had added that, "which is a sister organization to ACORN" to the section, which was true, sourced well, and very relevant for those who follow these things. If you have any more questions, then please ask, since I'm not used to this.

Decline reason:

If you actually want to try being a Wikipedian, you must understand that trying to hijack it for political purposes and then screaming foul when someone calls you out on it and blocks you makes you look more like a political crank than an editor. Unblock declined. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

I also reviewed this block but I edit conflicted with Jeske. I'm going to post my comment here anyway so that you know multiple admins have looked at it.

I'm Australian, have limited interest in American politics, have never edited these articles or with the editors involved in this dispute, and I endorse this block and agree with Josiah's comments above. I think you should sit this block out and use the time to rethink your behaviour here. When the block expires, I would encourage you to edit less controversial articles until you get more experience and a better understanding of our polices. If you continue editing in this way you are going to end up being banned as a tendentious single purpose account. — Sarah 23:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if there were actually examples rather than being accused, largely without merit of about 6 different violations. Funny how these accusations rarely involve any specificity since it is possible to refute specific claims rather than vague accusations. I'm frankly sickened by the lot of you. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Proof the banning editor was biased

Here and here he was rebuked for participating in similar behavior that I was fighting against, and get this, it was on the Sarah Palin page. Obviously the blocking editor is too involved with his own POV issues to be blocking editors who oppose him idea-logically. Of course, the admins around here seem to stick together no matter what, brush off accountability and refuse to provide specific reasons for banning. Just admit it - you want to shut up people you disagree with. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, the blocking editor once edited an article that you did! It's invald! Revert now. Grsz^X 03:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalking me now are you? He has posted many times regarding Sarah Palin - and with incident. He also does this passive-aggresive legalese crap that you and the rest of your goon squad participate in. No wonder he sided with you people even though you've been twice as bad as I have. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Any more bad faith accusations and disruption and I will protect your talk page. Understand? You were banned because you are being disruptive and because you blatantly violated the article probation. Continuous disruption is not going to improve your situation. --Smashville^talk 03:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize, I didn't mean to point out that the person blocking me, and the first person who refused to block me both had vested interests in the article. And, PLEASE accept my apology for using my own talk space to talk - did Grss1 "alert" you to my misbehavior or were you stalking..ahem...I mean, "keeping an eye" on me just on your own recognizance? You people keep on throwing out that I'm not assuming good faith, but when the people involved have agendas it is only natural for my "good faith" to evaporate.

And where the hell have your warnings of Grss1 been? He's been antagonistic from the start of all of this. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And I got hit for it. What else? Grsz^X 03:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You got "hit" for it? Funny how I don't see any warning or bans for you despite your language and treatment. You and your WP:GANG with your WP:GAMEing the system win again. I bet you swell with pride every time you chase people away from wikipedia - do you keep notches in your belt for every ban you goad people into implementing? You are plainly biased in regards to this election, which explains your refusal to allow any dissent in the articles - move to Iran since you seem to value such censorship.TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha, funny, because there's a pretty wide consensus that you're just a SPA with no good intentions other than to piss people off and try and push your garbage ideas. Grsz^X 04:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I haven't edited Obama in months, so I'm not sure how I have any weight on what's being put in that article. Grsz^X 04:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "consensus" by you and your buds, who take turns keeping the Barack Obama article "pristine" - I notice you didn't even deny your bias. So how long hve you worked with that Smashguy - does he regularly throw his admin weight around in your favor? It looks that way from the history files. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've ever directly interacted with Smashville before. Able to point out what you're blabbing about? Grsz^X 04:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I found once, about a completely unrelated issue. Grsz^X 04:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes "unrelated" - thanks for clearing this up. Just another "accident" where you provoke someone and then Smashtalk bans them? TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No actually, it was an issue about a username. Don't pretend like you a damn thing that you're talking about. Is there anything linking me to your block? Or is that just another one of your endless attempts to deflect blame from your own behavior? Grsz^X 04:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand you harassed that guy too until he got banned - this seems to be your MO. As for my block, is there a link? I find it curious that right after you show up with your smarmy attitude an admin shows up to threaten me. Too bad there isn't full transparency with all the emails you people do between each other. Not only that, this entire thing was started by you and your WP: CABAL of pro-Obama anti-Palin nuts that want to control the dissemniation of all knowledge. You can't even deny your bias because you know its true. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I, and most others, can't even help but to laugh at you. You blame everybody else for your poor behavior. You should probably reflect on that. You are the one trying to add content that has consistently been pointed out in violation under WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, etc. I'm not even sure you really care for it be there. Your sole intention and purpose here is to be disruptive. That's why this block is so hard for you to grasp. Somebody has finally called out your behavior, and your natural response is to turn around and point your fingers at everybody else. It's pathetic to the point that it's humorous. Well, it's your choice I suppose, and you're paying for it now I guess. Carry on how you wish, I'm wiping my hands of you. Cheers, Grsz^X 04:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad to be done with you. The problem is you people always say I'm violating BLP and FRINGE, but you can never seem to back up that I've made any edits that violate these policies. I HAVE made edits that violate your personal, pro-Obama, anti-McCain policy - which, I noticed, you still can't even deny your bias. Why don't you deny it? One more lie really isn't going to hurt now is it?TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm registered Libertarian, a conservative party. Grsz^X 04:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny how anyone reading your talk page,unless you whitewash it, will notice your pattern of provoking others and how others have noticed your clear partisan bias. Hey, on a completely different note, are you related to this Grsz1 with his anti-Palin video favorited and a subscription to an anti-republican channel? Quick! You'd better run to your admin buddies so they can scrub any evidence of your bias! TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalking users off-wiki, eh? That's a real good way to get others on your side and get yourself unblocked. Good one. Grsz^X 04:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, you operate under the assumption that a YouTube video of a Sarah Palin speech implies my support of Barack Obama? On that same logic, can you fly like a real locust? Grsz^X 04:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice legalese - you don't flat out deny your bias this time, but say I'm "assuming." I guess your anti-Palin comments on her website and your anti-Palin comments on youtube are strictly restricted to being "anti-Palin" - and it has no effect on your Barack bias. Please. Go find a kid raised on paint chips if you want someone to swallow that line. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow are you digging yourself in deep here. Hilarious. Grsz^X 05:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you are furiously emailing your admin buddies to come in, save you, and whitewash this little exchange from your record. Then you can put that extra notch in your belt for another person you've gotten banned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe if you were anywhere near a decent editor, rather than a single-purpose account bent on disruption, they'd have reason to keep you around. Frankly, the community has put up with your bullshit for way to long and it's about time they take you out. Grsz^X 05:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

YOU are accusing ME of being a single purpose account? You've been keeping everything related to Obama crystal clean from Jeremiah Wright to Bill Ayers. You've been provoking me from the start and you have a RECORD of stalking people in order to provoke them. If your gang didn't have your back all the time then you would've been banned long ago. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Proof, please, or stop your accusations, Locust. Accusing people and providing zero proof of ypour accusation is a fast road to an indef ban for exhausting community patience. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 08:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]All right, just back away from the edit button. GoodLucust: you're on thin ice here I'd suggest you remove your foot from your mouth. Everyone else, let it go for now. Seriously. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 08:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Because you refuse to stop, your talk page is protected until your block expires. --Smashville^talk 16:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Barack Obama, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A friendly challenge

I have a challenge for you, TGL. It's yours if you want to accept it, and it would go a long ways towards restoring good faith in your edits. Thus far, every single one of your edits to the Barack Obama article has been an attempt to insert negative material that is either poorly sourced, counter to Wikipedia policies, or just plain absurd (such as the "without honors" thing; might as well say he also graduated "without flaming tigers and dancing girls"). So here's my challenge: Go out and find a notable fact -- not opinion, not conjecture, not fringe theory, not campaign smear, but F-A-C-T -- about Barack Obama, and incorporate it into the article. Make this fact neutrally and excellently sourced, verifiable, and make sure it is of sufficient weight to merit entry in a summary biography, which is only supposed to contain the most important details. This will require reading mainstream news sources and their coverage of Barack Obama, and avoiding partisan blogs and editorials (in either direction; it's no good if you find a DailyKos diary describing Obama as the best thing to happen to the world since the discovery of fire, either). I really hope you take me up on this. --GoodDamon 03:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I said "excellently sourced," not "sourced to The New Republic." And I said "of sufficient weight," not "of stupefyingly trivial detail." Promoted recycling in 1983 for Nader? How in the world is that main page material? --GoodDamon 04:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The new republic isn't a good source? I thought it was an interesting detail that he worked with Ralph Nader, but hey, I'm trying. I'm working on something else you may find interesting, but I'm sure my incompetence will cause it to quickly be deleted. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it's not. Surprised? Biased sources -- left or right -- don't fly with WP:RS and statements of fact. I'm as dead set against TNR as a source as I am, say, Free Republic. --GoodDamon 04:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really read it, but it looked pretty reputable to me at first glance. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I just dropped in to say I've had a good look through your history and read this talk page. I've been around a good while and, firstly I endorse your recent block, as well as the good advice you have been given by some of our most respected admins, but secondly I want to see if I can help you.

I'm going to develop and focus the challenge above. If you want to prove you are here to help rather than to promote a particular point of view, please improve this article. Actually, you might consider reading WP:N and wonder if there should even be an article on this band. Or if you don't like it, hit the "random article" button and find a few of your own. That's how I got started here. You'll be astonished how many articles lack the basic verifiability that we require here. Try to refine the writing a little, get a feeling for the opinions (usually positive) that people want to add, that breach WP:NPOV and have to be removed. Read through WP:MOS as well, then fix some formatting errors, or just fix spelling mistakes. They aren't hard to find, sadly. Interact positively and civilly with the other editors you will encounter as a result of this activity. People will seldom praise you, and occasionally will criticize your work. You will get good at referring to policy, avoiding conflict, and resorting when necessary to the principles of dispute resolution. Articles will be improved (or sometimes deleted), and the project will benefit.

Do all this for a week or a month, while staying away from Obama, and it will give you a lot of perspective on the sort of debate you are currently losing every time, and also enhance the community's respect for you. You seem like a clever person with a lot of energy to contribute and I want to see you succeed here. Believe me, we are not short of people wanting to add controversial views to articles like that, and continued contributions to that article and its talk, of the caliber you have been making, will certainly earn you a ban if you continue (that's a prediction, not a threat).

Let me know if you're interested in my suggestion, and of course if I can be of any other help to you. Replying here will be fine, I have this watchlisted.

(If you're interested, I live and work in the US and as a UK citizen from Scotland, don't get a vote in the coming election. I probably would vote Obama if I had a vote, but I am pretty cynical about both candidates really. I think I'm pretty good at not letting that sort of stuff influence my editing behavior anyway, but let that be a declaration of interest on my part.) --John (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but I think I can best contribute in the Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, etc, etc articles since I am quite knowledgeable in these areas. In fact, just browsing the Obama article I noticed it was missing the amazing luck Obama had when both of his opponents in the US Senate had their divorce records unsealed and their names dragged through the mud, which paved the way for Obama to win when he was previously doing quite poorly. I corrected this omission, but unfortunately, I had put "too much detail" into the article with my extra sentence - and so my change was deleted. I must find the right balance and learn how to add information without adding detail. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously up to you, and I won't pester you, but you'll find that working in areas where you are expert is an advantage, but perhaps less of an advantage than you would think. Working in areas where you hold passionate opinions ("names dragged through the mud") is an absolute recipe for disaster for an inexperienced editor, especially when there is such enormous interest in the subjects of your passion. Have a think about my well-intentioned advice. Good luck. --John (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you won't pester, I will

Hi, Thegoodlocust. At this point, with your recent editing history consisting entirely of:

• Attempts to introduce associations between Barack Obama and controversial organizations and people
• Attempts to implicate Obama in the release of divorce records
• Attempts to include emphasis on perceived negatives, such as the fact that he didn't graduate with honors from one school

...I'm concerned about your understanding of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. First, BLP... The thing about negative content in a biography of a living person is that you have to be very careful about sources and weighting (in part, to avoid committing libel or slander). The specific area of WP:BLP I'm afraid you're missing reads as follows:

Do you see now why these have been such tendentious edits? BLP specifically excludes guilt by association, and requires that criticism (or praise, for that matter) be directly relevant to notability. Please, be aware this is policy, not a guideline. It is required of all editors in biographies, and you risk being banned for violating it.

My second area of concern, NPOV, has the following appropriate section I think you should read:

Every time you or any other editor proposes to include tiny minority views -- Obama is a Muslim, or he personally released his opponents' divorce records, or he's not really American, or he wasn't born on U.S. soil, or he's really an Arab, or he shares Bill Ayers' old radical beliefs, or whatever -- you are breaking NPOV, not balancing the article. NPOV does not mean a directly equal proportion of positive and negative material about a subject. Otherwise, you would get absurd things, like attempts to "balance" the article on water by incorporating ridiculous information about how drinking it is bad for you. If there are truly notable negative experiences that have directly shaped Barack Obama -- not fringe stuff; these have to appear in a large chunk of the reliable sources on Barack Obama, and articles debunking claims don't count as giving weight to those claims -- you will not have trouble inserting them into the article.

Now a recommendation: Find a different family of articles to edit in. You appear to have a conflict of interest in your current editing endeavors, and it's most likely to be a frustrating, unproductive experience for you. Do you have interests in sports, television shows, science, literature, or local cultures? All have fascinating articles, many of which could use some caretaking. I would like to encourage you to become a productive Wikipedian, not a banned single-purpose account. --GoodDamon 19:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a lot of accusations, many of which of baseless, but I'm kind of surprised you said, "Attempts to implicate Obama in the release of divorce records." My edit did no such thing. In fact, the mention of divorce records was already in the section I was editing, and it used far more inflamatory language than I had used. The fact is that Obama would likely not be a Senator if those records weren't released - and that is very important if you look at his life as a whole. I do not think you are assuming good faith about my edit, which was clearly not any effort to link Barack with the unsealing of the divorce records of both of his major Senate opponents - perhaps you are reading too much into it?TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I find it curious that you have not warned others, with an obviously pro-Obama agenda to "find a different family of articles" - this double standard is interesting. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's because I'm not a single-purpose account. While I've been heavily involved in Obama-related pages for a little while due to continuous, ongoing efforts to turn them into attack articles, I have a long edit history involving other areas, I've created several articles of my own (entirely unrelated to American politics), and I have extremely varied interests. And that describes most of the other so-called "pro-Obama" editors. I haven't needed to warn any of them, because -- unlike almost all of the editors who want to make it clear that Obama is an un-American Muslim terrorist -- they have merely been engaged in the same kind of defensive editing to... you guessed it... prevent Obama-related pages from turning into attack articles. As for the specifics, the divorce and Muslim things were just examples of the kinds of things I was talking about. And... I notice you didn't respond to what I copied and pasted from WP:BLP and WP:RS for you. No response whatsoever. Am I to take that as meaning you finally accept that those are the words that actually appear in those policies and guidelines, and will stop editing counter to them? Finally, specifically on the divorce thing... I wouldn't be where I'm at right now, either, if a car had hit me in 1997. It didn't. Would that happenstance, or lack thereof, be worth an entry in my BLP? No. Unless you've got proof hidden somewhere that Obama was personally responsible for that records release, it's a non-issue. Let it go. --GoodDamon 21:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Civility

This[4] is an inappropriate comment. The reason why editors have focused on your editing and not that of other, "pro-Obama" editors as you call them, is that your editing style, attitude, and content is singularly problematic. Insulting and trying to fight the people who are giving you advice and trying to deal with you, is not going to get you anywhere. Please take this as an opportunity to reflect on why you are having such a hard time here - it is you, not the more established editors on Wikipedia. Nobody is persecuting you, and nobody has a hidden agenda. They are simply at their wit's end from the mess you have been making. I second GoodDamon's suggestion that you need to find some other, less controversial and less important, articles to edit. Wikidemon (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but laugh when you use that as an example since you have been forced to state that you aren't an admin. When people threaten bans for inocuous content it is clearly an attempt to prevent free speech and consensus from being reached. This is unacceptable. Have yourself a nice day wikidemon - everyone knows what a fair-minded person you are in this respect.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are not going to get anywhere by fighting the established editors here. You will be blocked and/or banned if you continue. You can learn about the functions and procedures over time if you wish, but for now you are on the wrong track regarding what Wikipedia is all about, how it works, and what is proper behavior. You would do best to concentrate on your own edits, but as a quick note we are here to create an encyclopedia, not a forum for free speech. Administrators have no special status here beyond the use of several tools. Your proposals of fringe material are beyond the pale, and will not gain consensus - to the extent people have considered them they are rejected. There is no need for a full discussion of them every time you propose them again, and you will have to accept the will of the community on that.Wikidemon (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

None of my edits have been fringe. Just because you repeatedly declare it does not make that the truth. And many of my "fringe" edits have gained consensus, but you and a few others continue to scrub them when they are added. Perhaps you should take a break. I can see from your edit history that you have made over 600 edits to the Barack talk page - and many more to related pages. I suggest you relax and let other editors take the lead - the wheels of wikipedia turn slowly, but they do turn, and you are not necessary for such function. Again, you have a swell day. :) TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Suit yourself. I can join those offering advice, I can't make you take it.Wikidemon (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you are unwilling to support your claim that my edits have been "fringe." I understand perfectly. Again, take care of yourself. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop.

The last thing needed at the article right now is another useless fight resulting in a ban. Let's focus on the topic at hand. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. I'm going to bed soon anyway. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[5] Seriously now - it hurts the credibility of our case as much as it hurts yours. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry, I'd just like to tie him down on what meets his standards since they seem to vary based on how beneficial or detrimental those changes would be to the image of Obama. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then policy will supersede it. But offering youtube citations is not the way to go. I'd suggest brushing up on what qualifies as a reliable source, and strictly adhering to that principle from this point forward. It's worked for me. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi .. I'm starting at the lack of honors. That won't fly.Humor me and give tree things that if they could be added, you'd like to see. I think Trinity Church and the repudiation of Wright would be workable. What do you think? Please do poke around my user page and my talk page histories. Should prove educational and entertaining. I do know it isn't the one who shouts the loudest who gets heard at the end.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit-warring, tendentious editing, incivility, blp-violations, and excessive advocacy of fringe theories. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 21:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I should note to the reviewing administrator that all this is occurring on Barack Obama, which is subject to editing restrictions. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 21:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And I should, and have, noted that you are accusing me of things that are flat out false like edit warring.TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey L'Aquatique, let's try and clear this up before the other admin arrives and go through these charges. First, what "edit war" did you block me for?TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like that other admin came and went. Nevertheless, I will further explain my block for you.

Edit-warring- I did not block you for 3rr violation. One of the reasons I blocked you was for continued edit-warring, adding and re-adding of material after being repeatedly asked to desist.

Such as? Any examples? No? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

tendentious editing- using your own twisted versions of policy to justify yourself. Gaming the system by claiming that other users don't have the right to warn you about their behavior unless they are an admin.

My own twisted versions of policy? "Gaming the system?" Sorry, but when people act like admins and threaten to block me then I have every right to clear it up - especially when they are threatening to block me when I have broken no policy. This sounds like a person getting arrested for "resisting arrest" to me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

incivility- continuing to claim that all users who disagree with you are biased Obama-supporters who whitewash the "facts".

And I've been doing this a lot have I? You'll notice there are constant disputes on adding a NPOV tag on the Barack page - which always get shot down by the exact same group of editors. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP-violations- repeated addition of irrelevant material that places undue weight on the negative aspects in a biography of a living person, i.e. your "without honors" additions.

How is that a BLP violation? It may have been a mistake but there was nothing intentionally insidious about that - you should AGF. The source says he graduated without honors, and that is the most specific information we have regarding his academic performance at Columbia. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

excessive advocacy of fringe theories- addition of material not supported by mainstream sources, for example using youtube as a citation or trying to suggest that Obama is only a nominee now because some dirt was "magically" dug up on his opponents back in the senate.

I was not using youtube as a source, unless I made some sort of mistake. Can you show me where I did this? And I was just stating the facts of his Senate race - Obama was not the frontrunner in the race. He was losing badly until divorce records were unsealed on both his democratic rival and his republican rival. These were important events that strongly affected his life. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I honestly hope that when you come back in a week, you'll read our policies and pick a new topic. So many users have offered you advice and you have categorically ignored them. This behavior is not appropriate here, it's not appropriate in real life, and it's not going to fly anymore. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to studying for my midterms. Good luck- ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 22:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah midterms - I understand now...TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. For the record, though, you may want to change the formatting of your comments- it rather looks like you edited my statement. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 22:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So if I edit it then you actually plan on supporting your charges against me? There really is no point in me doing such work if you have no intention of backing up your accusations. On an unrelated note, I read an interesting survey about how only 25% of college students support McCain. Why do you think that is? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why that is, GoodLocust and to be honest I don't care. I've explained why I blocked you, I've provided evidence, another admin has come along and supported my block. If you still don't know why you're blocked, I can't help you. Maybe you should spend your week-long vacation thinking about how the behavior you've displayed would fly in real life. Anonymyty is not an excuse to act poorly. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's just it - you haven't provided any evidence. You've claimed to provide evidence - but the distinction between claim and action appears to be lost on you. You have not provided a single link. You've flat out lied by saying I used a youtube link as a citation and by saying that I edit warred. Of course, by me pointing this out I'm sure you'll either ignore it, or you'll get another admin to protect my talk page. After all, defending myself against slander is "tendentious editing" - apparently a catch-all for you didn't like what I said. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This will be the last time I respond to you. In this diff kindly provided by Die4Dixie above, you can clearly be seen citing a youtube video: [6]. I am not going to protect your talk page, nor will I ask anyone to do so, but it may happen. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar- instead of trying to read malice into a situation where there is none, why don't you try considering that your behavior might be inappropriate.

If you want to request unblock again, go ahead. But I am not going to unblock you. Full stop. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thank you for proving my point. You said I used a youtube link as a citation - your own link proves I did not do such a thing. I was using a youtube link in a conversation and as an example of what I was talking about. I made no attempt to use that link as a citation - like you claimed, and I made no attempt to insert such information into any article. You were flat out wrong on this and the edit warring claim. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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).

Vanished user oerjio4kdm3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block has clearly has no justification. Look at my recent contributions. For one thing, to make the claim that I've been edit warring is patently absurd and has absolutely no basis. The accusation of "tendentious editing" is nothing more than opinion with only conjecture to back it up and an inability to AGF by those making the claim. I have been perfectly civil, however, I have called out several editors, not administrators (although friends with some) for threatening to block me for perfectly valid and sourced edits. I have made absolutely no blp-violations - another ridiculous accusation and my so-called "advocacy" of fringe theories is nothing more than someone's opinion with little to no proof to back it up. In fact, this entire block looks like the kitchen sink has been thrown at me with the hope that something sticks - this is plain to see by the fact that several of these charges are completely false. Hopefully, I can get a fair, politically neutral, administrator to look at the evidence not come to some snap judgement based on accusations alone. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC) "

Decline reason:

I'm sorry to see you didn't take the advice that I and many others have now given you. When everybody around you disagrees with you on whether your behavior is problematic or not, it may be time to reconsider whether you are right or not. You now have a week to do just that. — John (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

Ah I understand perfectly well. I've been accused of doing things, like edit warring, for which there is absolutely no proof, but that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that I'm not being a good little boy and doing exactly what I'm told. And here, I was under the mistaken impression that anybody could edit here at wikipedia. I guess I'd better just conform in the future since "everybody" disagrees with me.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between everyone being able to edit and everyone being able to add whatever they want. You want evidence? It's right here. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oooo a link to my entire contributions - very clever. Unfortunately, once again there is no specific evidence. You threaten to block me for making perfectly valid edits, revert every single edit I make, and when I call you on it then I get some bogus charge thrown at me. Hey, I get it - I am so obviously "wrong" and just "trolling" and obviously don't deserve any consideration. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop disrupting the Obama pages

You were just blocked for a week for this. You are immediately starting again. If you wish to continue editing the encyclopedia, do not post derogatory screeds on the Obama talk page, and do not edit war over it.[7][8][9] Wikidemon (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop now. You are continuing to disrupt.[10][11][12] I cannot speak for the administrators but this may well be your final warning before you are subject to a long-term block or ban. Wikidemon (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Consider this your WP:3RR warning, as it and WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. Grsz^Review! 21:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I would love to wrap ACORN around Obama's neck as well, but your source is flawed. It mentions she might not be a reliable witness. It also alleges that she stole from ACORN. Not to mention, without something very mainstream and conclusive, you are just digging a whole here. Article Probation provides 1RR as the limit (instead of 3RR), so tread softly... Digital^Ninja 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Warning to Wikidemon. In case you thought otherwise. Grsz^Review! 22:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am at 0RR, as explained on my talk page - 2RR if you count my redacting a BLP vio and reverting Thegoodlocust's disruption, which as routine article patrol generally does not count. It looks like Thegoodlocust reverted after the warning, and may be at 4RR. If so, and if he does not self-revert I will file a 3RR report.Wikidemon (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop now. Honestly, you don't want to take this further

You are well on your way to being banned. Many POV warriors have shown up, disrupted Obama-related article, insulted those who cleaned up after them, and been blocked or banned as a result. Attacking Wikidemon as a single-purpose account, as you did here, is laughable at best. Saying it doesn't make it true. Wikidemon has a long contribution history here, while you... have been editing since April 2008, almost exclusively at Barack Obama. Any admin will see this, and disregard your insults. Stop right now. This is your last warning. If you do not, I will support banning you at ANI, and you will be banned. This is no longer up for discussion. And if you wish to continue editing at Wikipedia, I strongly suggest you find a different topic that interests you. --GoodDamon 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who understands politics can see he is single purporse account my looking at his "count" page. Here I'll make it easy for you:

713 Barack Obama 170 Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC 148 Bill Ayers 122 Sarah Palin 104 Weatherman (organization) 93 Barack Obama/Article probation 93 Bill Ayers presidential election controversy 69 The Obama Nation 51 Webby Award 50 Encyclopedia Dramatica 48 John Stossel 47 Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents 38 American Apparel 37 Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now 37 Willie Brown (politician)

I bolded the articles that have a direct relationship to Barack Obama - and look at the numbers of edits in those areas too. I'm not sure how to preserve formatting - it might be easier to look at in the edit window.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are talk page edits, not article edits. I've been here for almost two years, and written over 100 new articles. Beyond that I'm not going to get into an argument with a blocked user on his talk page.Wikidemon (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Your article edits are nearly as bad. Besides, you shut down and close discussion on talk pages so you don't even have to bother editing the real articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR and AN/I reports

Courtesy notice. I filed a 3RR notice here and an AN/I report here regarding your recent edits. Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 10/29/08

Two weeks. You get blocked for one week and then go straight back to edit-warring? Not a smart idea. Edit warring on a talk page in particular is extremely disruptive -- it's actually the page you're supposed to be discussing your changes on instead of reverting. See you in fourteen days. Khoikhoi 22:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I am supposed to be "discussing" my changes on the talk page, then please explain something to me - how can I discuss ANYTHING if wikidemon closes the conversation or just flat out deletes it? He has done this to me and others constantly and it should be considered harassment. Morever, when I have reopened or undeleted my OWN edits that he deleted, they have often lead to the improvement of the Barack Obama article. Oh, and his WP: BLP and WP: FRINGE lines are bullcrap - everything says that about everything he disagrees with no matter how well sourced.

Basically, I have been banned for undeleting my own posts, none of which violated any policies. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, nm, I just looked at your contribution history and found this gem. Obviously you have a pretty strong pro-Obama slant and you should've recused yourself from this issue. Funny how all the admins who ban me have Pro-Obama wiki-histories. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodLocust, to you, anybody who posts on even a marginally related article has a bias. Your block would be better served learning what you are doing wrong than accusing every individual who tries to deal with you. Grsz^Review! 23:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard for me to learn anything when your friend Wikidemon summarily deletes every edit - and I'm the bad guy for undeleting my edits, many of which have led to improvements in the article. Also, did you even read that edit of his that I posted? It was so flagrantly POV it was ridiculous. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother. Every single edit this single-purpose account has made is of a POV-pushing, political nature, or to complain about being called on those edits. This user is intent on using Wikipedia for inappropriate campaign-related purposes, and arguing with him won't change that. It saddens me to say it, but I doubt he will be back after this block expires, and if he is, then I strongly suspect a permanent site ban or topic ban will be forthcoming. --GoodDamon 00:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to become more than a single purpose account when you people do everything in your power to make sure I get banned. You delete all my edits, then I revert them, and I get banned for being "disruptive." Nice scam you are in on GoodDamon. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's easy. All you have to do is not devote all your time pushing for coverage of obscure theories and edit some other articles. Grsz^Review! 00:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And which "obscure" theories did I push which resulted in my ban? Was it the "biting" suggestion that we include or remove both of the adjectives from the source describing the anti-war rally? Was that cry for consistency so out of bounds that Wikidemon tried to close it down/delete it several times? Wikidemon is just as single purpose as I am, which is sad since he's been here much longer. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have only been a silent observer up until now, but I would like to point out that most of the editors who have been "protecting" the Obama page and using wikipedia policy to do so are somehow absent on the McCain and Palin pages. If they really were for stopping vandalism and making pages less POV, then they should share their infinite wisdom and protect more pages than just Obama, otherwise it looks very political to stop such edits and ban editors who wish to add the information.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the last person who blocked you (moi) had no pro-obama "wiki-history"- I've never edited the page in my life. So please, jump off your high horse and take some accountability for your actions. It's the adult thing to do. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 03:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just an FYI

Hey, I read your comment on AN/I. I personally don't think you're a sock. Although, I think you might be especially vocal in what you believe in, listen to conservative talk radio, and perhaps are a touch eccentric (don't worry, I'm all the above!). The point of this message is I simply don't want to see you targeted and blocked anymore. It's really sad that because of a few POV pushing bad apples, some editors aren't as...tolerant, as they otherwise might be. That's just the reality of the situation.

I remember my first encounter with you. I thought you were right, that Bill Aryers, Tony Rezko, and the fact that Obama bummed cigarettes after making a public announcement to stop smoking should be inserted into his BLP. So, we went on an especially dramatic battle on the articles talk pages, indirectly persuaded a few other trolls to come out of the woodwork in "support" of us, and I even filed an AN/I against Wikidemon and Gooddamon accusing them of WP:OWN, WP:SOCK, and WP:POV violations as well as working for Obama. Then, I noticed both these editors have created almost hundreds of non-political articles...

It took me a while to consider my actions, and after a few comments from Wikidemon asserting that we were "insane" rather than just POV-pushing, it finally dawned on me that perhaps we were the ones out of line. I re-read the Obama article, then I re-read the McCain article, and to my surprise, I suddenly realized these articles were written as if the campaign never happened. Which, looking back now, it was definitely the best way to go.

There are still POV pushers, socks, and relatively stubborn editors. Unfortunately it's easy to mistake well intended editors as bad apples, especially when you know the truth and they're trying to stop you from voicing it! Since then, I've learned that editors like Grsz11, although a bit prickly (no offensive Grsz!!), are actually extremely valuable in keeping the piece and helping other editors figure things out. He's actually helped me a few times on articles not related to politics simply because he's a good, willing editor. Wikidemon has also helped me on article not related to politics, and even given me advice on sourcing. I've learned his sense of humor is a little dry, but I think he finds my antics amusing at times, and just doesn't voice it! Overall, an extremely well rounded editor who would make an excellent admin. And Gooddamon, another very well rounded editor who truly tries to increase the neutrality of articles as much as possible. I've found all these editors are very easy to work with if you just present your arguments in a civil, articulate manner and consider their position on the issue. All of them are more than willing to compromise, and all of them are significantly valuable to the project.

I suppose my challenge to you is to display good faith with these guys for a while. If you do, I'm willing to bet your side on articles will eventually have more weight and consideration, you'll have very resourceful fellow editors to help you with things you need help with, and your entire prospective will change even though your values will stay the same. But, most importantly, you'll not be blocked every 7 days! Anyways, sorry for the novel. If you have questions or need anything just let me know. Cheers, Digital^NinjaWTF 15:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You have nice breasts

Mr. or Mrs. Locust,

You have nice breast.

Please post this on the request for arbitration page. You are mentioned in a small way. Thank you. ImNotObama2 (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

{MastCell and Speicer}

Initiated by ImNotObama2 (talk) at 01:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

ImNotObama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party

MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Speicer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMastCell&diff=251683895&oldid=251676961

Spiecer's talk page is locked.

Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ImNotObama (MastCell asked to unblock and also asked to request a checkuser)

Statement by {ImNotObama}

This is a case of MastCell and Spiecer indefinitely blocking me because I asked that people carefully and fairly consider what to do with Kossack4Truth. I did not suggest immediate unblock of him. Those two indefinitely blocked me on the excuse of sockpuppetry on the assumption that any (even remotely defending) of a blocked person is automatically a sock. I requested they submit a checkuser request, which they refused to do.

TheGoodLocust said it best when he wrote about me on ANI "I suggest all of you ban-happy people read about the Salem Witch Trials. So far the consensus, to the obvious glee shown by some editors, is the banning of anyone who comes to the defense of these "socketpuppets." This not only prevents any real defense being mounted (which is also trying to be prevented by locked the talk pages), but it also prevents anyone else from coming to their defense or to express their own honest opinion out of fear that they too will be persecuted.TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Instead, MastCell and others say that anyone can edit from a computer that looks like it is in another city and anyone who comes to the defense of someone is a sock. Therefore, there is a consensus because any opposition is a sock. Very specious logic/very flawed logic. This hurts Wikipedia because, frankly, I don't care about Kossack4Truth much but I have much specialized knowledge to add to Wikipedia.

The fact is that I am not technologically saavy and Kossack4Truth is in Chicago while I am a thousand miles away. Speicer violated the Arbitration Committee's finding that administrators must carefully consider all unblock request and not automatically assume guilt. He should have requested a checkuser if he was going to deny the unblock.

Wikipedia must not have hot tempered administrator who block based on their own temperment and against policy. I respectfully request that MastCell and Seicer's power to block be removed.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Please don't disrupt Barack Obama

Please don't make edits which are against the consensus of editors at Talk:Barack Obama, as you did here. In addition to editing against consensus, you didn't cite a source that verified your addition to the article. Note that an edit summary is not a citation; it should be a record of what you did and/or why. Since your edit summary mentioned "Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3 of the US Constitution" I've read that document, and the clause doesn't mention the term "president elect", much less "presumptive", the word you added - the form of words used is "shall be President".

As you're aware, the Obama article is under probation, and given your history of disruption I won't hesitate to block you to prevent more. What I would like to see from you is polite discussion before editing, including citations to reliable secondary sources which verify your proposal. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned that part of the constitution because it designates the day the electors cast their vote, which determines who the next president will be - it doesn't have to say "president elect" and I doubt you'd find such precise terminology until modern times. Nevertheless, you can look at the wiki articles on President-elect and the Electoral college, which, in various areas agree with my ascertation. For example, from the President-elect article:

"The electoral ballots are counted in a joint session of Congress on January 6 (as required by 3 U.S. Code, Chapter 1), and if the ballots are accepted without objections, the candidate winning at least 270 electoral votes is announced the President-elect by the incumbent Vice President, in his or her capacity as President of the Senate."

As you can see - my small addition is quite accurate, to the best of my knowledge and I expect any fair minded person to revert back to my previous edit. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there has been a good deal of discussion at the article, and so far the consensus is:-

• to add a footnote explaining the use of the term "president-elect" (although this has yet to be sourced to anything other than a primary source)
• not to use the word "presumptive".

At the risk of not being thought a fair minded person, I regret that I will not be restoring your edit. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah so consensus is more important than reality. I got it. Thanks for clarifying wikipedia for me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. You're welcome. --GoodDamon 00:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is pretty easy to get consensus when people get emailed behind the scenes, the same group of people, and others are summarilly banned for various reasons - all coming back to having a different viewpoint. Thanks for admitting facts don't matter just a faux consensus. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not accuse others of canvassing, and don't accuse admins of acting in bad faith, unless you have evidence. Without it, you must assume good faith of others.

Consensus is how we resolve differences of opinion when there's a disagreement on how best to proceed - for example, a conflict between what editors "know to be true" and what is verifiable. Speaking of what is verifiable: many reliable sources refer to Obama as "president elect", without putting the adjective "presumptive" in front of it. That, not a conspiracy of liberal admins and editors, is the reason consensus went against you. Now, normally I'd advise any editor who can't accept a particular consensus to go and edit in a less contentious area, to get used to how Wikipedia works, but based on your contributions to date, I don't think you want to edit anywhere else. So is it shape up, or ship out, time? It's your choice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't accuse anyone of canvassing. If you must know my inner thoughts I was refering to my suspicion of Grsz1 and Wikidemon's off-wiki collaboration - as evidenced by this post, which was very quickly scrubbed from their talk pages. If administrators had done their job, and checked their wiki-mail records, incomplete as they may be, then I think they would've been banned long ago for their behavior. As it stands, they've managed to get just about everyone else banned by provoking them and having "the Law" unequally applied to those with a different philosophical bent - as I'm sure you are aware of.

As for "reliable sources" - sorry, but moronic reporters from newspapers aren't reliable legal experts (especially considering the amazing about of libel/slander they've had to retract regarding Palin/McCain this season). Just about every source, from government websites, which are linked in the appropriate wiki articles, verifies the statements I've made - he isn't the president elect yet.TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't mean to accuse anyone of canvassing, please read the linked article and decide whether you wish to retract the allegation you made above.

As for the phrase "presumptive president elect", please find a reliable source describing Obama as such. Whenever I look for that phrase, I find forums, internet question sites, and anti-Obama blogs. Of course, if you thnk that only legal experts count as reliable, go ahead and narrow your search accordingly. Otherwise, and I mean this most politely, shut up about it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Of course, I'm not going to find the exact phrasing that you want - you are setting up a task you believe to be impossible with very specific criteria. However, I can very easily prove that a person isn't the president elect until after the electoral college votes. First, you can find about 3-4 sources that say just that under the President-elect wiki article. Second, here is another source that verifies what I am saying:

"But not until the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, when the electors of the Electoral College meet in their state capitals and cast their votes will we really have a new president and vice president elect." TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, are you going to deal with this editor or should I file an AN/I report about it? You gave him what looks like a final warning and he responded by launching a ridiculous unprovoked complaint about me and advocacy that I should be banned. He is not welcome on the Obama article, and there is zero chance that he will have anything useful to contribute - he has not made a single useful contribution that I can recall his whole time here, but lots of nonsense and disruption. This follows some other obnoxious attacks (easiest diff is his calling me a "troll" for warning him not to make uncivil accusations on my talk page)[13] He's singing the exact same tune and making the same accusations as the recently blocked sock farm. The behavior is not tolerable and it is not going to change. Wikidemon (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point wikidemon. If I wasn't right about you emailing each other behind the scenes, then there is no way you would've noticed this conversation. And what a shock - a threat to ban yet another person. How many people have you and your buds gotten banned anyway? TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon noticing this conversation in no way validates your feelings of some email cabal behind the scenes stalking you. Quite a few editors watchlist talk pages of other editors they've had contact with. In all honesty, you've been blocked before for disruption so it's certainly not out of the question that other editors check up on you from time to time. Dayewalker (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Look! Another club member! Can I join too? I'd love to have the admins checksum you people and check your wiki-mail.TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, at least I tried. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, I'm mad I missed this going down. Guess I didn't check my e-mail often enough. ;) Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you need to attend Liberal Wiki Cabal meetings more often. And don't forget to bring the all-natural, vegan, wheat-free, organic cookies (made with fair-trade ingredients, of course) next time. --GoodDamon 00:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

They have to be kosher and parvere as well! L'Aquatique[talk] 02:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny how you people trolling my talk page don't even getting warning for being uncivil - much less being banned. Gotta love those in-group privileges. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love excuses. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 05:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuses? I just think wikipedia is a fantastic example of an arrogance-fueled mob mentality. How often do you guys gather around for your cyber-lynchings? Is it a weekly event? TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Disruption, incivility, personal attacks, and failure to assume good faith. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 05:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I prove you wrong and now I'm blocked. No wonder I can't AGF with you people. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and real classy - YOU tell ME that I've not being civil after you flat out tell me to shut up. You need a mirror. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Honest question

Please, don't take this as anything more than it is- it's not even advice. I'm just curious.
I live in Alaska, and the long, dark winters and short, cold summers are not right for a lot of people. I meet a lot of people who are absolutely miserable here, and they love to just tear into anyone who actually does like it. I always ask the same question: why do you live here, then? Cost of living is through the roof- it can't be because they can't afford to move away.
It seems to me that you are in a similar situation: you don't like the way things are run around here, you feel like everyone's conspiring against you... why do you keep logging back in? It's not like you're getting paid to be a Wikipedian, it's something you do in your spare time. Why spend your spare time doing something that is obviously frustrating and stressful for you? L'Aquatique[talk] 05:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The simplest explanation is that I'm looking up info on wikipedia and see the "new messages" thing whenever I load up a new page. But that doesn't really answer what you are asking. Do you agree with the statement "If you don't like America then you can git out!"? Maybe by answering that question you can understand where I'm coming from. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have heard it, and I disagree with it. But I don't think the situation is really comparable. America is a country, you don't [usually] choose to be an American. Wikipedia is a website that you choose to belong to. Think of it this way: when you leave America (say you went up to Canada for vacation), you're still an American. Are you still a Wikipedian when you're logged off? Arguably not. L'Aquatique[talk] 08:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

April 2009

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Miley Cyrus. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please don't make allegations of criminal conduct, even in discussion pages, unless backed up by a reliable source. NrDg 00:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I realize that you are either an obsessed teenage girl or a gay male, and, apparently, you are the reason the Miley Cyrus article doesn't mention this well-known controversy. As I said in the talk page, it can be added without making any allegations, simply say that her relationship with a 20 year old man has generated controversy since she is still a minor. Try to keep your fanatical fandom out of wikipedia. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Glancing, it looks like your edit's been removed. If you think it should go in the article, bring it up on the talk page with reliable sources. You can't just post something dealing with that subject and say "people say this." It violates WP:BLP. Dayewalker (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make an edit, I made a suggestion in the talk page, and I fully mentioned that it would be BLP to say "statutory rape" in the article. I was honestly surprised it wasn't mentioned in there - they talk about it on the soup (and other shows) all the time. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That's odd, I can't even see my edit in the history - what kind of freak deletes something from the history of a talk page? TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit I was referring to was your comment on the talk page. YOu're right, it appears to have been removed. As per WP:BLP, you can't accuse someone of a crime on a BLP page or anywhere else without proper sourcing. Dayewalker (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't accuse anyone of a crime, I just said that the controversy should be included in her "controversy" section. You can mention a controversy without making accusations. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You made an accusation of criminal conduct without any substantiation or references. That is the sole reason the comment was removed. That is a WP:BLP violation no matter where it is placed. You can make your case on the talk page that this issue should be in the article but leave out the defamation --NrDg 04:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, so YOU claim, after erasing any record of what I said. You are full of crap. Since you've claimed that board as your territory then perhaps you can tell me how many people have asked about this same issue? TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Read and understand Wikipedia:Libel and the policy stated therein "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." That is all that was done and for that reason. Any discussion on the talk page that discusses changes to the article are welcome. --NrDg 05:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Again, if this is something you feel is notable, showing a few reliable sources would help prove your case. Dayewalker (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it has been referenced on the Soup many times, and to be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of anything (other than being creepy), except that this relationship has been controversial. Here are some links, the first one is just one of the Soup clips: [14] (this is fairly funny and succinct)[15][16]

To be "fair" she has backtracked on what she has said and now denies there is a relationship (after the controversy came out). TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Civility at AfD

You've made several comments suggesting we (people voting 'delete' on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 New York City airplane scare) are biased, unaware of policies, fascist, and "stupid". A friendly suggestion: stop doing that. APK straight up now tell me 18:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tell people to quit misquoting wikipedia policy in order to censor information. Oh wait, its information that you want gone - nevermind. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So I assume that's a "no" on being civil, assuming good faith, and not attacking editors? APK straight up now tell me 18:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming what you like, people are intentionally misquoting wikipedia policy, selectively quoting it which causing a misconception about its application and using these misunderstandings to justify censorship. AGF - but not in the face of contrary evidence. The last user was trying to use Wikipedia:News_articles as an argument (from authority) for censorship, but didn't for "some" reason point out several significant parts of the essay like, " While it may be difficult to determine whether or not an article's subject will have long lasting significance, articles which clearly do not meet these criteria are likely subjects of only very short-lived usefulness to the readers, and therefore should be considered for either deletion or merger with an appropriate corresponding article on a broader subject (such as merging information about a one-shot news event involving a celebrity with the celebrity's main article). This should be done with due caution, however."

Nor did he mention the actual criteria in the article which were:

1. The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services. This includes being the subject of books, documentaries or non-trivial academic study (i.e. excluding non-scientific surveys), or incorporation in an important public debate.

2. The subject of the news item has set, or has caused to set, a precedent in some way. This includes new laws being passed, novel interpretations of existing law, first tests of new law, notable "first of its kind" achievements, new or increased safety legislation, causing a notable change in societal behaviour or norms, etc. (Predictions that it will set a precedent, however, are inappropriate attempts to predict the future). The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services. This includes being the subject of books, documentaries or non-trivial academic study (i.e. excluding non-scientific surveys), or incorporation in an important public debate. The subject of the news item has set, or has caused to set, a precedent in some way. This includes new laws being passed, novel interpretations of existing law, first tests of new law, notable "first of its kind" achievements, new or increased safety legislation, causing a notable change in societal behaviour or norms, etc. (Predictions that it will set a precedent, however, are inappropriate attempts to predict the future).

Can you honestly say this event doesn't meet ANY of those criteria? And, more importantly, is it responsible to so quickly delete this article? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I can honestly say your reply is too long. I was just looking for a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Never mind. APK straight up now tell me 19:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You've been blocked four times, and 90% of this talk page contains instances of other editors complaining that you're being rude or uncivil. Have you ever thought that it's not all a big conspiracy against you, and that all these other editors are right in their opinion of your actions? Have you ever considered a change in your way of editing? One that doesn't see you being accused of being uncivil, or making wild accusations all the time? 163.1.146.198 (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that unlike other editors, I don't "clean" up my talk page this is no surprise. I guess it comes down to this - if enough people told you that you were insane would you believe them? Sorry, but I've seen how wikipedia works when it comes to political articles and it is frankly pretty disgusting. And no, I don't think there is a conspiracy against me, I just think that certain editors want certain articles to read a certain way - and if other people get in the way then they will get them banned. I suggest you look at [who] is giving these warnings, deleting conservations (pissing off new users until they get banned) and then think long and hard about how many editors have been banned, many times needlessly, due to the actions of a few people.TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

As you clearly appear unable to interact with other users in good faith on Barack Obama related articles, per the terms of Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation I am imposing a topic ban on all Barack Obama-related topics of six months. This will expire at 23:09 UTC, 7 November 2009. During this time you will not edit any article or talk page related to Barack Obama. If, when the topic ban expires, you wish to re-engage productively, you will be welcome to do so. If you resume being disruptive, the topic ban will be extended indefinitely. Violation of the topic ban will lead to your account being blocked. Black Kite 23:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Civility

You seem to have multiple civility issues. Can I suggest that you behave politely at Talk:Urban heat island‎. At a bare minimum, it will make it more likely that people take your comments more seriously William M. Connolley (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, I find it very uncivil of you to delete my arguments (multiple times) on article talk pages. I suggest that you behave more politely - and not just at the urban heat island article, but at every global warming related article. Anyway, my arguments can't be taken seriously, by you and Kim anyway, because you refuse to respond to them - you simply set up straw man arguments and then go off on obscure tangents against comments I never made and then claim "consensus" that the straw man is false - you are obviously a very experienced wikipedian. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:3RR and the exemptions thereunder. I think you'll find that your claim of a vandalism exemption for [17] will not be upheld William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Thegoodlocust, though I'm sure you're aware of 3RR, this is a warning that you are about to break it. Aside from the civility issue (please refer to another editor by their account name or another ID which they find agreeable) if you revert again you may be blocked. Also, please refrain from commenting on editors and instead focus on content (see WP:TPG). R. Baley (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Blacketer

Thanks for the kind comment. I am not active enough on Wikipedia these days to follow wikidramas, but he doesn't seem to have done much wrong in the big scheme of things. Still, he had that smell about him, IYKWIM. Grace Note (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed him too much, but from what I understand his damage was of a more subtle nature (other than the obvious hit to wikipedia's credibility).TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages

Article talk pages are for discussing proposed changes to the articles, not to private conversations with other editors. In addition, comments like the one you have kept re-inserting into the UHI talk page are inappropriate for any venue in Wikipedia - please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please refrain from comments like that. Thank you. Guettarda (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Friend of Dr. Watson

That was news to me. I read your analysis of admin-collusion via facebook on AN/I, and I must say I was surprised at the scope of the problems you have detected, and at the cool and calm manner in which you presented your evidence. I suspect you are absolutely correct in your conclusions: I was appalled at the rude responses and demeaning insults to your highly objective comments. It is laughably pathetic, and a somewhat sad comment about today's youngsters, that those people could be so dim as to think insulting you would resolve the problem. Also, Kudos to you, for being so kind anyway: you must have the patience of Job to maintain such a kind disposition, when many others are slinging mud at you. I guess we should all be thankful, that we aren't mentally warped to act like them. Doctors have shown that prolonged cocaine abuse destroys brain tissues, so you never know about youngsters. Just imagine: it must be awful to be dim-witted. Meanwhile, I hope those debates do not harm your outlook with normal people: I get easily upset, and I have to constantly remind myself of the millions of good people helping Wikipedia, rather than the tiny snakepits of wiki-jerks, even among the 1,650 admins, that think they rule the world. Of course, with nearly 3 million articles, no one really controls anything around here: even the developers couldn't stop the 3 million articles from being copied to other websites. Anyway, I am truly amazed that you have kept such a healthy outlook. Well done, sir. -209.214.44.66 (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I've now learned that calling a William a Bill is a "personal attack" - I learn something new from wikipedia every day. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A good deal of the above post constitutes personal attacks, in case you hadn't noticed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good fight!

Thanks for being a conservative keeping up the good fight against the liberal bias here on Wikipedia. The biggest offender as of late is Blaxthos.PokeHomsar (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing survey

Hi Thegoodlocust. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please be aware of WP:3RR. Though I know you are anyway; this is just a reminder William M. Connolley (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am quite aware of what goes on behind the scenes Connolley, and I know you read WUWT, which is why others are taking over "cleaning" duty. Everything I wrote is well-sourced and well-written, but the plain fact of the matter is that the IPCC must remain credible and demonstrating that they aren't doesn't fit in with your world-view. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you feel strongly that what you have written is "well sourced" then I would like to invite you again to take your proposal to the talk page. I've looked at your edits, including your three reverts, and I don't see anything "well-sourced". Please use the talk page of the article to convince me and others that you are right. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert 3 times and my sources are perfectly fine. You've been unwilling to engage in conversation - you simply delete because it is easy to do and you people WANT to delete what I have to say. I suggest you re-read my new section - I'm sure you'll come up with some new reason why it can't be included (and you'll continue to do so until I get blocked or give up). TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You reverted four times, and you are the one who needs to use the talk page and explain why you won't follow our policies and guidelines regarding NPOV and RS. You used an unpublished, personal blog to add a new section to the IPCC article, and you added primary sources that had nothing to do with the disputed material to deceive people into thinking your sources were acceptable. You have a lot of explaining to do, and since the burden of proof rests on the editor adding material to the article, you need to start using the article talk page to explain your edits. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the blog is a bit dicy. The BBC article, however, is a RS as long as your text only claims thing that are in THAT article. --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR notification

You have been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for violating the 3RR and for repeatedly adding unreliable sources after being warned. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you go here and try to explain yourself ASAP. You have managed to land yourself in a fine kettle of fish. Your best option for avoiding being blocked at this point are likely to be lots of humility, tons of acknowledgement that this was a mistake, and a heart felt pledge to leave that article alone for a suitable (per the admins) period of time, and finally to actually live up to that pledge. --GoRight (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Article locked. Please be more careful in future to seek consensus at the talkpage and avoid edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Go away

Stay away from me and my userspace. Never post anything on my talk page again. I think that makes it clear enough. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You were the one that started stalking me buddy - heaven forbid you ever have to listen to someone who doesn't have the exact same worldview as you. You, on the other hand, are welcome on my talk page anytime - with the exception of ridiculous faux rule violation warnings that are always without merit.

I actually believe in freedom of speech and information instead of giving it lip service and becoming pro-censorship when encountering ideas I disagree with. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

True freedom of speech and information requires responsibility. It does not mean allowing people to scream "Fire" in crowded movie theatres or to hack into your bank account and withdraw your cash. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, because that's exactly what global warming alarmists are doing - yelling "fire" based on flimsy or false evidence. All I did was add some facts that show how the IPCC will break its own rules and misstate facts in order to increase alarmism - if there was no global warming scare then their organization would cease to exist. That's another "inconvenient truth."TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You're not here to push your point of view about the IPCC, you're here to create a high quality encyclopedia that is verifiable, neutral and does not contain original research. Save your opinions for the blogs. --TS 22:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything I added was neutrally worded and well-sourced. This encyclopedia will never be high quality because the nuts always wind up controlling the madhouse. The very fact that you feel the need to bully me for responding to someone on my talk page is proof of the bias in this institution. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It was your use of terms like "global warming alarmists" that prompted my response. Now you add "nuts controlling the madhouse", and accuse another person of "bullying" you for reminding you of our mission. Could it perhaps be you who are biased? --TS 23:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> That's funny, I don't recall your outrage when Stephan Schulz, Kim Petersen, or W.M. Connolley have referred to skeptics as "deniers" - using propaganda to equate us with holocaust deniers. I'm quite open about my opinions, which means my bias is easy to see and easy for me to control. That's why I strive to make my actual edits to articles as neutral as possible - I'm not pretending to be robotically impartial, because such subtlety is far more dangerous than the open opinions from my open mind. As for bias, I flat out asked Kim Petersen what evidence would be enough for him to include my section in the IPCC article - he refused to respond because if he set a bar then he might have to comply with my (and others) attempts to put my section in.

Is that scientific? Is that unbiased? Of course not - and that's merely a recent example - definitely not the best proof of their bias.

As for AGW, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I could be wrong. I simply don't think so, but if evidence presents itself then I will change my mind. I'm the same way with my atheism. I don't believe there is a god, but it is possible that I'm incorrect and will be forced to change my beliefs if presented with sufficient evidence. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks (again)

I came here to say this in relation to your series of three comments here on talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

TheGoodLocust, I'm not sure if you're aware of it, so I'll mention it here. Wikipedia has a No personal attacks policy, and a Assume good faith policy. At the moment it looks as if by your personal remarks you are skirting dangerously round both. Let's stuck to the subject matter, please.

Then I looked at your talk page and recent comments in your block log--the latest on November 18, 2008 when you were blocked for one month for "Disruption, incivility, personal attacks, and failure to assume good faith". This changes things somewhat. Consider this a final warning. The next block may be longer than one month. --TS 03:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Those comments by Thegoodlocust are not a "personal attack." It is a fact that certain editors are trying to prevent certain true, relevant, well sourced information from being in the article. I myself have been topic banned from articles relating to U.S. politicians and politics, when all I ever did in those articles was add true, relevant, well sourced information. Thegoodlocust's block log looks a lot like mine - and it seems that just like me, he was punished for adding info that was critical of Obama to the encyclopedia, in order to balance out all the praise of him that's in the Obama related articles. I've added good and bad things about Obama to his various articles. Almost all of the bad stuff was deleted, but none of the good stuff, ever, has ever, ever been deleted. There is definitely a movement going on here to censor articles about Obama and climate change, and anyone who doesn't conform to the leftist ideology has their content removed, and potentially gets topic banned and/or blocked. The BBC is a reliable source, and the edit that you cite is a great example of how people can get punished here just for adding true, well sourced information that is critical of the political left. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If you or User:Thegoodlocust should possess evidence to support your charges against other editors, you must follow dispute resolution. It isn't optional. Even an honest belief that somebody is up to no good does not merit spreading personal attacks on them around Wikipedia. --TS 18:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks grundle, the fact of the matter is that I'm fairly liberal on just about everything except economics/tax policy, but I have this nagging personal flaw of "honesty" that makes me edit articles in certain ways (facts w/o viewpoints). Oh well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

ipcc 4th ar

I have come to the conclusion that the usual suspects will not engage in debate on this article. [[18]]

i have also noticed an increase in reverts since it`s protection was removed which leads me to suspect another lock out on the "right version" will soon happen. How do i create a new section in the article for your text? Whom should i speak to about this refusal to debate and then reverting of edits for no just cause? Thanks. --mark nutley (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ping

[19]. This is a one-time service. In the future, please check your own mail. You can do so by clicking "watch" on the page in question. It's free. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby

Actually, I didn't even know you were still around until I saw some climate change article yesterday. I'm sure lots of people watch your edits, you've given them pretty good reason to. Grsz¹¹ 06:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the aversion to truth around here is quite amusing. :) TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You've broken 3RR on the IPCC article - please be more carefull:

1. st revert [20]
2. nd revert [21]
3. rd revert [22]
4. th revert [23]

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The 4th edit wasn't a revert. I'd changed the text a bit, and added a source due to requested clarification about Dr. Zemps qualifications. I thought I made that clear by the edit summary. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The 4th edit was a revert back to an old version (you reinserted a version that had just been removed - check the diff's) You may have changed a tiny bit of the text - but it was still restoring a section that had been removed earlier. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time 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.) 03:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring again, and wait for consensus at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change before repeatedly inserting material. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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).

Vanished user oerjio4kdm3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

First off, I didn't break 3rr, this was already explained above and easily shown in the diffs. My 4th edit added a new source and the title of an individual because there was some concern in the discussion over his credentials - I simply added the updated section to the article because earlier (if memory serves) another earlier version had gone back and forth when I'd already updated it to have better sources. Second, my edits were quite obviously for consensus as shown on the talk page (scroll down a bit to see the list). Third, I have sought dispute resolution as evidenced by my RfC, but most of the editors who want inclusion aren't as "devoted" as those who keep deleting the section. Finally, by my count of 2over2's block log my account is the 9th one, this month, that he's blocked that has made edits counter to the AGW clique - and he hasn't blocked a single one of them. If he can't apply blocks evenly and fairly over subjects he is personally invested in then he should recuse himself from administrative duties in those articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

edit warring is clear when reviewing the history of the article noted above. Regardless of the number of reverts you wish to claim, you seem to be editing tendentiously over this article. Additionally, seeking dispute resolution does not give you a trump card with which to force others to accept your version of an article. The correct behavior when seeking dispute resolution is to leave the wrong version showing while the dispute is worked out. There is no evidence here you understand the correct way to go about solving these problems, nor is there any indication you will change your behavior to ensure this doesn't happen again. Because of this, I am declining this request. Jayron32 05:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

		The Original Barnstar
		Never Give Up 68.26.119.230 (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

Of course I am sympathetic about this [24], it must feel like harrassment but it is also true that the "skeptic" editors generally have a much shorter half life on the GW articles. UBer and GoRight have been around for a bit but few of the others, for whatever reasons, are well seasoned. In all the time I have watched the articles (say since 2007) I have not come across an "AGW" sock. There have been more than 500 proven skeptic socks and there are a dozen AGW editors who have been there at least three years with an "AGW" position. --BozMo talk 19:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems like the very same users who started and maintained this scibaby thing are abusing the very existence of such a scapegoat. I'm sure a lot of legitimate users have been unfairly driven away - that's not right. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. "Started and maintained" meaning what exactly? I assume you are not suggesting that they are hidden operators of the sock accounts? --BozMo talk 19:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that is possible, sort of like the Reichstag fire, but no, I was actually refering to Connolley being the initial person to ban Scibaby, and all the same group of people accusing/banning people as being his "socks" for many years, which has allowed them to accuse people as "socks" based on extremely flimsy evidence in order to get them banned. I'm looking into the matter a bit more and have created a new page, albeit with not much on it yet, to document the whole scibaby matter. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

To help you, AFAIK Scibaby started in mid 2006 or earlier as Obedium on the Nanotechnology article. When an argument started new editors kept "appearing" to support Obedium and when checkuser was authorised it turned out that all of the new accounts were started whilst the PC used still had stored details for a previous account, so checkuser was pretty clear. Unfortunately Scibaby got wind of this "giveaway" but several others exist and are not discussed on Wiki. There are other sock groups with different MOs and clear differentiators exist. You will have a job convincing anyone that the socking is a figment of our imagination, however the relevant data is privacy protected so you have to make a case to get access to it. Originally WMC was one of several admins who did the clear up. It is possible the socks all migrated across to Global Warming just to try to irritate him. --BozMo talk 21:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are socks, perhaps a lot of them, but I think false positives are an inevitable result of checking so many people. These tools are certainly not perfect and seem more like "art" than fact.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, were you User:CreepyCrawly? I just noticed you started a few days after CreepyCrawly was indef blocked in Mar 2008 as a sock of Scibaby, and have a similar set of interests plus a slightly related name? If you were falsely indef blocked as a Scibaby sock it would explain quite a bit of your evident interest in the subject? --BozMo talk 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not at all, but with so many accused socks due to such an interest in the subject there will always be coincidences. I think I mostly edited Barack Obama when I made an account and I did some minor IP edits before that for a few years. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I was actually accused of being some other sock account during my Barack Obama tenure, which is why I'm kind of annoyed at this apparent pattern of checkusering people who hold opinions that WP:OWNers don't like through the use of some boogeyman/scapegoat.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was a bit annoyed that Bluefield has apparently turned out to be TDC since I had spent a while talking to him [25]. I am not sure that indef blocking all accounts of sock masters and then hunting them is beneficial to the community but (as with life imprisonment) the cost to the community of policing the policy is probably not the point. --BozMo talk 23:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, he does deny it, I can't say either way, but I truly hope he isn't a sock and that his name is cleared through further investigation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

CC Probation

I have recorded my objections on the AN subpage as well as on Ryan's talk page. Depending on his response I intend to enter a new arbitration request regarding his premature closing and implementation of these sanctions. Since you have expressed a similar set of concerns would you be interested in being a named party to such a request? --GoRight (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sure, I think I'm getting fed up with all this bullcrap though. I'll let my opinion be known, and hope this latest batch of arbcom actually has the stomach to do what needs to be done. As a fellow WUWT reader I'm sure you know how much cooling we are in for - they may be able to ignore the last 10-15 years, but they can't ignore the upcoming three decades of cooling. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change Probation and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --GoRight (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Can i ask what this climate change probation thingy is about? --mark nutley (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See [26]. This is a reaction on Ryan's part to try and avoid the Arbitration request at: [27]. I am seeking to challenge the implementation of these probationary sanctions on the grounds that they were improperly closed and implemented. --GoRight (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Please refrain from making personal observations on article talkpages, as you did here. The talkpage exists to discuss improvements to the associated article, and should not be used as a forum for your views on the IPCC. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from bullying editors for providing constructive criticism to articles. You should recuse yourself from these articles - you have too much opinion to moderate objectively. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

@2/0: What's supposedly wrong with that comment? --GoRight (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No kidding. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

and blows holes in the oft-heard argument that the IPCC should be trusted because they only use peer-reviewed science. If that article is ever going to be editable again, people need to concentrate on the topic of how to improve the article rather than whether or not they like the IPCC. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So calling a spade a spade is a crime now? TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent and edit conflict) Hey guys, time for the peanut gallery (i.e. me) to weigh in! This page is on my watch list from a disagreement a long time ago in a galaxy far away. I think 2/2 is technically right that the talk page is for improving the article, not speaking your mind, and his/her/it's comment here is made in good faith. But the "forum" caution comes off a little harsh. Maybe a friendly chat instead? We all sometimes use talk pages to sound out our understanding of the subject, to test ideas, to work through things. In theory you could preface every statement with "I think the article should be written in view of the fact that.. XXX" or "Have you considered XXX in your approach to the article subject?" If TGL's comment had included that throat clearing it would comply with talk page guidelines, so can we all just do it in our heads? It's like reading an "in my opinion" into everything anyone says. For TGL, maybe consider people's mood on the article page. Sometimes you need to challenge them, sometimes work with them... The climate change scientists' conduct raises all kinds of valid questions, even if people disagree on the answers. I think you'll get farther by saying that than with more informal words like "blows holes" and "trusted". Remember, you win people over with sugar, not vinegar. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks wikidemon, one of the reason why I use the language I do is because I don't think the truth really matters at wikipedia. People believe what they want and put what they want into articles - I'm rather jaded over the whole process. In other words, since truth can't persuade (some) people then I don't really feel the need sweeten my words when the outcome is predetermined. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec with below - sorry to hear about the quick demise of your RfA) Is Wikipedia any different than any other forum in that regard? I do agree with you that Climategate raises serious questions that need serious answers. As a cultural matter, I don't know if you're on the left coast, the right coast, or somewhere else entirely, but in some places you're judged more by whether you can be friends with people than whether you speak the truth. Wikipedia is such a place. I haven't decided whether that's a bad thing or not. I know it's the largest compendium of knowledge ever created, but in the end it's just a website, and a pastime. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries about the RfA, it conlcuded exactly as I thought it would, but I'm guessing I wrote one of the more amusing/honest RfAs :). As for my political orientation, I'm socially very left but fiscally very right - I tend to side with underdogs though (I don't like people getting picked on), which, in the case of wikipedia, means I'll side with conservatives more, because I like debate to be more balanced.

My main concern with wikipedia is that centralizing knowledge makes propaganda easier. In the past people would have to find all the books and burn them - it is much easier to destroy dissent, and any record of dissent, now than any time in the past - but whatever - I have guns! TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective, Wikidemon. I intended the comment as neutral, uninvolved, and impersonal, but rereading it now I can see how it could be taken poorly. Thegoodlocust - in my experience, commenting directly about the subject of an article is a sure way to derail any productive discussion that might be occurring in favor of drawing up the battle lines for an excessively long argument. Check Talk:Homeopathy around the time of that arbitration for a particularly egregious example. In the linked comment, you also discuss productively, so I decided that a polite note here would be more useful than collapsing that part of the discussion. My apologies for not having conveyed my reasoning adequately. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 04:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

RFA

I'm sorry to inform you that I have closed your Request for adminship as unsuccessful per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW. Please read over WP:ADMIN, and our other policies dealing with adminship, do some more editing for a few months, and then feel free to come back to RFA when you feel you're ready again. Cheers, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user oerjio4kdm3. You have new messages at Coffee's talk page.
Message added 03:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming

Your note here says "there have already been several admins who've lost their various privileges involved in these articles" - can you document what you say and 'prove' their de-syssoping was mysterious? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious examples would be Raul, who I believe lost his checkuser privileges and was told to quit interfering in those articles. Connolley also lost his admin privileges, although that was for another article, it demonstrates that he wasn't fit to use them and, in my opinion, should've lost them a long time ago for his actions in global warming related articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Research help request

I agree with your overall sentiment, but unfortunately, local temps aren't the right metric, and the response is correct in this case. It is my belief that the recent decade, as measured by global temps, isn't within the range of uncertainty of climate models, but I'll have to do some research to nail it down. I wanted to support your point here, but I cannot in the context of local predictions. I have been meaning to look into the broader issue, as I think one of the legitimate criticisms of climate models is that they imply far more certainty about the future than is warranted. --SPhilbrickT 15:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Isotopic signature...

[from t:GW - moved here] I'm looking at it and seeing self-described liberal blogs as sources and a lot of inaccuracies. For one, the "isotopic signature of fossil fuels" would also be the same signature as plants - and plants release more CO2 than anything else on Earth (by far). In fact, land use changes and local heating effects from roads could easily speed up their CO2 release and give that same isotopic signature. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect. If it had been from the biosphere, you would only have seen a decrease in the C13/C signature - but we are seeing a C14/C decrease as well.. The C14 signature is incompatible with a biosphere release. When you combine that with an O2 decrease - you get to about as certain as you can, that the extra carbon is from fossil-fuels (without measuring our emissions). This is the Suess effect. (hint: it rules out: volcanic (C13 normal, C14 none, O2 no change), sea surface (C13 normal, C14 normal, O2 normal), deep ocean (C13 normal, C14 none, O2 no change, ....) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

C14 have been drastically altered by nuclear testing in the atmosphere. There is no way you know what the signature is. It is also created by cosmic radiation, and since (I believe) that has decreased somewhat then you'd expect less C14. Also, fossil fuels DO contain C14, they were theorized not to because of their age, but actual testing has revealed that they do contain it - scientists just aren't sure why it is in there. Additionally, the biosphere release may be from an older source, like limestone deposits, which should have low levels of C14. All this stuff is quite complicated - it is silly to say there is only one possibility/source (e.g. fossil fuels). TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Fossil fuels contain extremely minuscule amounts of C14. It's not quite zero, but irrelevant for the discussion here. Nuclear testing did indeed change the C14, but the effect can be compensated for (and regularly is for C14 dating). Moreover, nuclear testing released additional C14, i.e. it increased the C14/C ratio, while fossil fuels decrease it. And which "self-described liberal blogs" do we use as sources? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that they have estimated releases but they don't really know. There is no way to know if C-14 levels are decreasing because nuclear testing has increased them so dramatically. In fact, I'd be quite curious to see if plants are adapting to better make use of the increased C-14 (diff. plants prefer different carbon isotopes), which would help them remove it from the atmosphere. After all, plants and humans both adapt to higher CO2 levels. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but nuclear isotopes are fairly well understood, as is the half life of C14. You are grasping at straws here. Also note that Hans Suess described the original Suess effect in 1955, long before climate change became a topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was so well understood then their estimates of zero C-14 in oil would be accurate - they are not. Additionally, I don't think they can accuratelly measure how much of these isotopes were created through nuclear testing other than "a hell of a lot" - and they certainly don't understand how they've interacted with everything else on the planet. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Limestone wouldn't influence O2 levels. (Remember: lower C13/C, lower C14/C as well as lower O2), and everything in tallies up so that the double ledger (isotope levels, emission figures) balances. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of things influence O2 levels (like the 6+ billion, and growing, people on planet earth). Another thing that would decrease O2 levels would be landuse changes, for example, our forests don't burn down nearly as much these days and are more mature - growing plants absorb more CO2 and produce more oxygen than our mature forests. Again, these are just examples, there are lots of things that can effect these measurements - take into account human error/standard deviations and it really isn't all that convincing. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but each of these would influence the carbon content as well. The O2 level is falling proportionally to the increase in C (and the C13/C as well as the C14/C levels), which makes all of your speculations moot (since none of these would influence the isotope levels this way). As for your measurement argument - this forgets to take into account that we aren't talking about a single point of measurement - but instead several different independent measurement stations, which would have to make the exact same errors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>Well, there are a couple of counters to this, but the most obvious one is - YEAH OF COURSE! Mature plants produce LESS oxygen, explaining why O2 is falling, and mature plants absorb LESS CO2, which would explain rising CO2 levels. This explains their proportions quite nicely. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Errr? No. Please see Carbon cycle. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Errr? No. Please see eyes. But seriously, what part of this don't you understand? Plants absorb less CO2, which means more CO2 in the atmosphere, plants produce less oxygen, which means less oxygen in the atmosphere - this theory perfectly lines up with the observed facts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change probation notification

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Carbon sink, 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. -- Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I added this because I saw you edit warring on Carbon sink and noticed personal attacks in the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific, please stop personalizing disagreements over article content - comment on the content, not the contributor. Below are a few examples from your recent contributions where you stray from the topic, namely reliably-sourced potential improvements to articles, and instead insult, disparage, or inappropriately impute motive to your fellow contributors. If you find a particular editor difficult to work with, please discuss the matter with them or seek dispute resolution rather than lashing out with hostile comments.

• You are destroying the readibility of this section - you did the exact same thing in the Carbon sink article where you claimed something wasn't in the source and then altered the text to your liking.
• You should at least fix the messes that you make Connolley
• Of course, perhaps you have a source from "Real Climate" to better make your case?
• You are attempting to ignore core wikipedia policy in order to do what you want - and I have a very hard time believing you are unaware of this.
• Again Kim, you've looked through the haystack, found a needle and conluded there is no hay. I think I've demonstrated quite clearly that you and Connolley will continue to ignore wikipedia policy and evoke your own rules over clearly stated wikipedia policy.
• Again, as with the other articles, you seem to be looking for every excuse to cut certain things - even if wikipolicy is violated.

- 2/0 (cont.) 17:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Those comments show you have quite clearly engaged in personal attacks, assumed bad faith and are promoting a battleground mentality to editing. All of these are breaches of the current article probation on climate change articles. I strongly advise you to raise your game, or you are likely to find an enforcement request being made against you. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI Noticeboard

You are being discussed at the ANI noticeboard. You may respond here: [28] The Four Deuces (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The exciting conclusion! TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement thread close

Please don't revert admin's closes at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Even by the rapidly sinking standards of behavior on that page, it's over the line. If you do something like that again, I or another admin will block you. As a side note, you were given some good advice about 9 months ago by Thatcher, Risker, SarekOfVulcan, et al. which probably bears re-reading. MastCell ^Talk 00:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course you will, you'll ignore 10+ BLP violations from Connolley and then ban someone for daring to suggest that a non-biased admin close the case. Wikipedia has now been given several chances to do the right thing, refusing to do so it will now continue building up the joke that it so obviously is. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of the expression "the fix was in"? You never had a chance. This is the new Conservapedia, mirror edition. ATren (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep yep, I had some small hope that some editors would feel shame on other editors behalf, but I knew it was a pipe dream. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Connolley didn't even have to defend himself. "BLP violations? Constant incivility? Whatcha going ta do about it?"TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

TGL, I appreciated the reformulated complaint you made; however, rather than focusing on reopening, sugest staying focued on the appropriate result in the other reopend complaint. You can certainly refences from what was closed. It's likely the aggressor will not reform and still face further enforcement. Regards. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is they are ignoring his huge number of blatant BLP violations because 2/0 said "some" of the complaints were covered in the previous one (not all). He's been asked by several people to keep that one open and has refused to do so. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK ... how would you propose to change the resulting outcome from this? Might be better to explain that in the other reopened section. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm? I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Uncollapsing

Can I ask why you uncollapsed here? Hipocrite (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to understand how and why COI applies to some people and not to others. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, if you have questions about a guideline, you should ask those questions on the talk page of that guideline. I strongly suggest that very few people who are reading your contributions will, at this point, believe that you actually "wanted to understand ... COI," as opposed to "wanted sanctions against WMC and KDP." If you uncollapse a collapse I make in the future, you must include a reason, or I will seek that you be prevented from further disrupting talk pages. Hipocrite (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Do what you feel is right, but please assume good faith. It is relevant (and amusing) that people are charging COI when they appear to have COI as well. I wanted to know how an editor might compare his own possibly COI-tainted SPA activity with the possible COI-tainted behavior of another. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Friendly advice

I highly advise you to take a walk away from climate change discussions for the next couple of days. You're helping to promote a battleground environment that has been plaguing the area for quite some time now, and I would really prefer not to topic ban you. NW (Talk) 20:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous, I point out WMC's long-time flagrant BLP violating tendencies and I'm the on that get's threatened with a topic ban. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

TGL take the advice and take a few days to calm down, you are getting angry and it is clouding your judgement. I know why you are angry, and you have every right to be, but continual anger makes you a target. Have a beer and just kick back mate, you`ll feel better for it after :) --mark nutley (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I know you mean well, it is frustrating how people will continually say things that are proven to be incorrect and the double-standard is just as annoying. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd get out of there too my friend since I've seen many a good editor perish by the few who rule those pages. I'm not sure I've seen anyone really make it very far before they throw up their hands in disgust at trying to bring even a little balance to the topic. Good Luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazongate?

Probably enough for an article but i doubt it would survive long. I do believe there is enough material now available for a Criticism of the IPCC article though, i have made a start on one if you`d like to help feel free [29] Let me know what you think --mark nutley (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You appear t be in some danger of violating WP:3RR at Global warming controversy, if indeed you have not done so already William M. Connolley (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification

[30]--BozMo talk 15:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikilawyering...

Re [31]

1. "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators." - I think we can argue my level of involvement, but certainly not your level of adminship...
2. Please never edit comments by others in a way that changes their meaning. In particular, do not move a given statement out of context.

I'm fairly certain that LHVY, BozMo, or Lar would have been quite capable of moving my comment if they felt it necessary. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you were involved in the edit war and discussion yourself then you should've kept your own comment in the appropriate section. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Granting your point for the sake of argument, how does make your two violations any better? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My "violations?" I just moved your comment and then gave it a title similar to what I'd seen in other areas of wikipedia (so it wasn't lost in the muck). If anything you should thank me for giving it a title. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You edited a section that should only be edited by uninvolved admins. Do you agree or not? You moved my comment out of context. Do you agree or not? I claim WP:IAR for what I consider a useful and certainly non-partisan comment. What's your argument? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fun, I claim WP:IAR too since I'm not the first editor who had to remove comments from that section by AGW advocates who do indeed WP:IAR (as you just admitted). TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC

Outcome of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC:

• Thegoodlocust is restricted until 2010-05-03 from making more than one revert to any article in the probation area in any 24 hour period. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Thegoodlocust is banned until 2010-08-03 from reinserting any of his own text to any article in the probation area that another editor has removed from the same article for any reason.

- 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I hope it all works out. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You asked

You asked somewhere if getting blocked for PoV pushing was how Scibaby was born. It was not. Scibaby was sockpuppeting on topics totally unrelated to GW before his first block - see User:Obedium and User:Scibaby on Nanotechnology, F. Albert Cotton, Manuel Real, and others. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note for you

Your recent edits to a number of talk pages either (a) don't seem to be related to improving the said articles, or (b) are diatribes about other editors. Neither of these is productive, and they can actually be counterproductive in that they can make uninvolved editors think less of you. I'd strongly suggest that when you get frustrated to take a little time away from this online encyclopedia and enjoy the better things in life. Take a deep breath. It'll be healthier in the long run! Awickert (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That mudslinging going on the RfE about me

It's pretty bad. What did you do to piss these people off, bro? Macai (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Truth. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, seriously, what's their beef with you? XD Macai (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

lol, I was being serious, although, on second thought, I suppose they might be a bit upset about Connelly's 1rr restriction, but I didn't even file that complaint. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

This is to notify you that I have started a thread on AN/I here regarding your behavior and effect on the community and its productivity across climate-related articles. I expect that you'll be unhappy about this, but I hope that we will be able to reach a solution that is better for everyone in the long-term, Awickert (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban from all articles and discussions related to climate change until 2010-08-08

You have engaged in significant soapboxing, use of talkpages as a forum for general discussion, treatment of the probation area as a battleground, incivility, anti-collaborative sarcastic remarks, and tendentious and disruptive editing. For these reasons, you are banned for six months from all articles and discussions related to climate change under the provisions of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. For the sake of transparency, a few sample difference links from the past two weeks follow. When this ban expires, please keep in mind that the goal of Wikipedia is to be a high quality, free, and respected reference work produced by volunteers through collegial collaboration.

• If anyone cares I could easily show KDP/WMC tag teaming on other articles
• Yep, they stonewalled the inclusion of that stuff in the IPCC article with the same excuses - when they were flat out shown to be wrong they removed a section that'd been in the article for 5 years as some sort of "revenge."
• [32] - battleground mentality, civility violations
• you are your friends have essentially controlled since its inception
• [33] - describing another editor's contributions as "revenge"
• [34] - comment on the content, not the contributor
• [35] - do not reopen an off topic thread closed by an admin at the RE board
• [36] - snide personal attacks should be avoided in all venues
• [37] - denigrating a fellow volunteer and further polarizing a debate
• one side ... my side
• [38] - accusations of bad faith
• [39] ditto
• AGW advocates
• [40] - accusations of bad faith and impugning the motives of a fellow volunteer
• [41] - WP:NOTFORUM
• [42] - more bad faith and soapboxing
• [43] - soapboxing and discussing the topic itself instead of improvements to our coverage of the topic
• [44] - ditto
• [45] - ditto
• [46] - battleground, anti-collaborative accusations, and soapboxing

Thank you for your contributions. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)