User talk:Minor4th

Oh brother

This is all very predictable. Note that the admin who denied the unblock request cited 3 diffs -- 2 of which are exactly the same diff is a redirect of an improper merge. If a redirect is a violation of BLP then the editor who I was redirecting is also an egregious BLP violator.

The actions that have been taken since the article went to mainspace is why the article was written in the first place and why the subject is notable and sourced in secondary sources.

Now an SPI? LOL.

Oligarchy is right.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

• News and notes: Politician defends editing own article, Google translation, Row about a small Wikipedia

• In the news: Wikimania, Former Wikimedia employee looks back, Editing controversial articles

• Vandalism: Vandalism edits fool media and a government, become object of bets

• WikiProject report: Up close with WikiProject Animals

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom to appoint CU/OS positions after dumping election results

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Advice re BLP noticeboard

Minor4th, as a relatively new editor you might not be fully aware of the purpose of the BLP noticeboard. It's not meant to substitute for article talk pages. If you have an issue with a particular article, please raise it first on the article talk page. If the matter can't be resolved there or needs further input, then feel free to raise it on the BLP noticeboard. Most BLP issues can actually be resolved without going near the BLP noticeboard. Could you please try listing your concerns on the article talk page first? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but I'm familiar -- the issue has been raised on the talk page among other places. As you know, BLP issues have not been easily resolved and remain an intractable problem in some of the article spaces on which I have recently had the privilege of interacting with you. If you still have questions about the particular issues with the Monckton BLP, I will perhaps be able to make a list for you on the talk page. I don't have time now to do that or to address the issue more fully on the BLP noticeboard. Later this afternoon or evening. Thanks again. Minor4th 19:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do post a list on the talk page. I would be happy to help with resolving any issues you identify. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No offense, Chris, but you are the BLP violator and I think it's appropriate for someone besides you to look at it and hopefully resolve it. I will make a separate heading so that you can continue your advocacy unimpeded on the existing discussion of Monckton. Thanks again. Minor4th 20:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th: more advice: don't take BLP advice of someone who doesn't understand the policy. Editors can and should bring any conflict to the noticeboard. Perhaps if others had done that, we could have avoided a huge mess at Monckton and Marknutley would not have been blocked. ATren (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Precisely my thinking. Thanks ATren. On the BLP discussion Chris chastised me for changing the heading to include the name of the BLP expressing concern about incoming links -- this, despite the fact that an hour earlier the heading had been edited to clarify that the BLP was a subject in the global warming area. How does that make sense? Minor4th 20:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't, and if the rules were enforced equally, someone so ignorant to BLP policy would not be allowed to edit BLPs, especially those people with whom he disagrees. It's a travesty that it's allowed to happen, but that's the state of affairs here, where the house POV trumps neutrality. ATren (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I do hope ArbComm comes up with a good way forward. Minor4th 21:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"CRU regulars"

ChrisO just means the editors who hang around the CRU article and contribute to the article and talk page. --Yopienso (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks but it wasn;t Chris' comment and that really doesn't make sense. Minor4th 18:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, right--it was Viriditas to ChrisO. The point was a suspicion that Duchamps was trolling and just trying to get a rise out of the people who show up at that article or its talk page. I don't know if it's true, but it makes perfect sense. --Yopienso (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I was assuming you understood "CRU" stands for "Climatic Research Unit." --Yopienso (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I do know what CRU stands for. Its use in this context is peculiar though because it appears V was referring to some subset of Wikipedians as "CRU regulars" -- I know there are Wikipedians who were formerly associated with CRU, and I don't know if there are currently any Wikipedians who are associated with CRU. Clearly there are editors who are supportive of the scientists who belong to the CRU who are having a great deal of trouble with the CRU email article. There are really many possibilities as to what the author of the comment was referring to, and that is why I asked that the editor educate me about what they meant. I appreciate your helpfulness, but I'm afraid only the author of the comment is able to answer this question. You could be right about the meaning, but it seems more limited that what you described. Minor4th 21:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification of article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please tone down your comments

I certainly do not have "an agenda to denigrate this BLP". Please do not make personal attacks against other editors, and please bear in mind that Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is under article probation, which means that problematic conduct by editors may result in sanctions by uninvolved editors. I've notified you above of the terms of the probation. If you have specific, substantive issues with the article content or with content proposals then please feel free to raise them, but you need to refrain from assuming bad faith or making personal attacks in future or you may find yourself being sanctioned. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)