User talk:FellGleaming

I routinely clean out my talk page, consistent with WP policy.
If you wish to keep a copy of something you post here, please copy it to your own page.

...

About Me

I am a U.S. citizen, though I have lived in Europe and Asia, and at present (April 08) have visited over 50 different countries. I am also a regular pelagic sailor, though I recently sold my 40' Ketch and am now again on dry land.

I am (was?) an avid spelunker, though its been a few years since I engaged regularly.

New article

I thought you'd be interested in the stub article Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions Simesa (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Linda McMahon

Hey there. Firstly, I want to thank you for taking an interest in the Linda McMahon article. I also want to assure you that you are not the first to bring up the issue of the Steroid Trial. I also want to tell you that the edits you made on McMahon's appointment to the Board of Ed[1] and your touch on the oil spill was very valuable [2] Truth be told, I wish I could have made the portion on her oil-drilling policies as fair and balanced as you did.

Regarding the Steroid Trial, I am willing to compromise and want to have a productive discussion on the content. I'm not putting any labels on you, but I believe this is an issue of deletionism vs. inclusionism. Please keep in mind that excess deletionism is thousands of times more harmful to readability and understanding of an article than excess inclusionism. And above all else, please remember that this info is valuable and is Neutral. It is not found anywhere else on Wikipedia, and if it is deleted, any new readers are screwed.--Screwball23 talk 23:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Wikipedia policy for BLPs is to err on the side of removal, not inclusion. I agree your material is quite interesting and well-documented -- but it's simply in the wrong article. Put in the WWF article instead; Zahorian's trial has no relevance on McMahon's life. I don't agree that, in this context it is "neutral". Read WP:UNDUE. For analogy, consider putting a lengthy list of convicted felons into an article on Barack Obama. The material on the felons themselves may be presented neutrally, but including them where they don't belong appears to be "guilt by association". Fell Gleaming^talk 23:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy is completely unrelated. You're not even comparing apples to oranges. It makes no sense why you want to remove material that as you said is interesting and documented, and which is neutral. The Zahorian investigation/trial put the groundwork in place for the 1993 trial. You also need to start reading and listening to others. You clearly don't. And you clearly haven't. i suspect that's why you clear all comments on your own talk page. So you can have the last word and delete all traces of your constant edit warring.

Let your ego go. I know you have no rational basis for this. It's completely overblown, and you are grossly misquoting policy. FYI, I have given plenty of rationales for the steroid trial section, and you completely skipped by them on the talk page. Quit the game, because you are not helping anyone. --Screwball23 talk 02:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael E. Mann edit

May I ask why you made this edit against consensus without discussing on the talk page first? NW (Talk) 12:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Just what I was wondering. The edit comment seems pointlessly provocative too. Note the agreement on talk even amongst editors who have strongly disagreed in the past William M. Connolley (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading the talk page -- it's rather long and muddled, but I'm seeing 2-3 editors chiming in on either side of the issue. Perhaps you can point out where a clear consensus was established? Fell Gleaming^talk 12:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, WMC has made his position clear. Tony Sidaway said he fails to see how this is going anywhere, and Cla68 agreed. Neither of them disputed WMC's statement that the info should be removed. Minor4th said, after WMC removed the info, "I agree with the concept that the section should now be compressed to a single sentence or two". That's a pretty solid consensus. NW (Talk) 13:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks NM. I was reading the 'Cucinelli EPA lawsuit' section, and missed the later one simply entitled 'Cucinelli'. I would self revert, but I see WMC's blazing fingers have already addressed that for me. Fell Gleaming^talk 13:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved

In the context of [3], uninvolved means "not known as involved in the GW wars". That doesn't include you (see Mann, IPCC, RKP etc); you should move your edit William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, William. Generally, "uninvolved" on Wikipedia means not involved in editing the current article. If you can point me to a reference that redefines this specifically for climate-related content, I'll be happy to move it. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You've made 11 edits to the article[4] and 30 to the talk page[5]. So by your own definition you are involved. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My last edit was nearly five months ago, and didn't involve adding or deleting the current content under dispute. I don't believe an article edit confers any sort of quasi-permanent status on an editor. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is good that yuo've seen sense [6] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ta. As I said, it's a temporary move to allow you some time to locate a source to support your position. If no WP policy exists that would define what I consider your rather tenuous position, I'll move my vote back to the appropriate "uninvolved" section. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• You narrowly escaped a sanction some months ago by timely withdrawing yourself from the CC area. If you are simply back here to battle then I suggest you forget it. Your balanced opinion however is welcome. I also suggest you do not represent yourself as uninvolved, if only for the sake of peace. Polargeo (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Why Poleargo, that comment sounds rather threatening. I'll ask a third time -- can either you or anyone else point me to a reference that indicates that, even without any involvement in the current dispute, edits made five months ago confer a permanent status of "involved" upon me. I'm genuinely interested. In the meantime, I'll move my vote, but expect to see it moved back if you can't support your position somehow. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not trying to be threatening. I was aiming for a firm tone of "You are welcome back if you are constructive" Polargeo (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Then I thank you for your paternalistic intent. Did you manage to locate that source? Fell Gleaming^talk 15:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you are on about but don't think you can return to the CC area and start whitewashing BLPs. There is more scrutiny in that area than in the wrestling fraternity. Polargeo (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for histrionics. And are you admitting there's no Wikipedia policy that would define me as "involved" in the current CRU debate? If so, I'll switch myself back to the uninvolved section. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Everybody involved (no pun intended) please just drop it. The matter is settled with FG's repositioning of his vote, which I commend as a mark of good faith. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of the other editors who signed in the "uninvolved" section I believe I've seen editing in the topic area before, but it's no big deal. Like FellGleaming said, unless they were involved in this specific content disagreement it doesn't bother me if they say they're "uninvolved." Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: Since none of those complaining have provided any source to support their belief that an article edit makes one permanently an "involved editor" -- and since at least two of the other editors currently claiming to be uninvolved have also previously edited the article, I am restoring my vote to the uninvolved section. At the time I made my vote, I was not involved in the disputed content, nor had I edited the article itself in nearly five months. Have a nice day. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned

Your conduct has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision as it relates to ongoing edit wars in the topic area of climate change and past sanctions. Thankyou. Polargeo (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge

Are you 99.144.248.213? If you are then it is best to clear this now. If not then I appologise for my speculation. Polargeo (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a formal request for you to keep your threats and innuendo off my talk page. An admin really should know better. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I do know better which is why I have given you an opportunity to deny this before considering taking it to WP:SPI Polargeo (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and the warning to stop edit warring which you removed from this talkpage as part of a larger edit [7] was not "a threat" it was a warning as may be issued by any user to any other. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfounded charges of edit warring is itself an actionable cause. As your charge of sock puppetry, could you clear up if you are in fact editor ScienceApologist? You two have edited far more articles in common than I have with your IP editor. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added the diffs on your edit warring to the PD but to copy it here for your info

You are incorrect your two reverts in the last two days on the same thing were here and here. They have nothing to do with your other edit which I undid/reverted here. Thanks Polargeo (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR Notice Board

This is to inform you that I've posted at WP:3RRNB concerning your recent participation at Watts Up With That?. – OhioStandard (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

The color you chose for your sig is somewhat unique and interesting. Did you get it from another user or did you choose it yourself? If the latter, why? Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol, thanks. If I recall correctly, I believe I chose it after some substantial rework I did on the mauve article. Cheers :) Fell Gleaming^talk 22:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Signs which fellow pilgrims alone might recognize." Got it. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no not quite what you might believe. I simply like the color. Fell Gleaming^talk 13:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply at my talk page

Hello, FellGleaming. You have new messages at Selket's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barnstar of Integrity

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your tireless support on the sourcing of Climate change alarmism and the subsequent ANI. GregJackP Boomer! 18:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Hi, you're aware that this is an extremely controversial article, yes? At least half a dozen people have it on their watchlists, from both sides of the climate change debate, and they tend to be quite touchy about changes to the wording which was thrashed out over thousands of previous edits (and edit wars), especially if they think the edits make the article more biased towards "the other side". Some of your edits I thought were arguable, some I thought were wrong. I would suggest in this particular case you get consensus on Talk before making changes. --Merlinme (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Merlinme on this one, FellGleaming. Please see my reponse to your posting on my user talk page, in which I point out that your multiple edits "took no account of the lengthy (and sometimes intense!) past discussions on those aspects of the article that [you] chose arbitrarily to edit". -- Jmc (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD specifically says ...but be careful; If you're unsure of anything, just ask for advice; and "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold," but "Be not too bold." I support WP:BOLD, I'm simply giving you advice that in this particular case, with this particular (extremely controversial) article, get consensus first before making changes which could be construed as changing the balance or tone of the article. --Merlinme (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

When an article has severe factual and balance errors -- I'm sure. Fell Gleaming^talk 10:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It must be nice to have such faith in your judgement on controversial topics. --Merlinme (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you, it is, actually. Even more satisfying is my utter immunity to snide, snarky remarks. Fell Gleaming^talk 10:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, being nice was clearly having no impact, so I confess I succumbed to sarcasm. Speaking as a relatively neutral editor of the article (and yes, we all have our biases), I have to say I've not been incredibly impressed by your attempts to find consensus so far. You may find attempting to engage with other editors more helpful in terms of getting the changes you want. --Merlinme (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem; I won't hold it against you. In any case, so far you're agreeing the majority of my original edits have merit. So with all due respect, shouldn't you be a bit more concerned about the article content, rather than your evaluation of my psychological profile?

Addendum: I can't count the number of times tendentious editors have come to this page with no intention of "finding consensus" or improving an article, but simply to issue veiled threats or intimidiation, usually couched in artificially pleasant tones. If that isn't the situation in your case (and to your credit, I've seen no evidence that it is so far), you may rest assured that I can and will work with you to improve the article. However, the viewpoint that clearly inaccurate or biased information should remain in an article simply because its "been there a long time" or had previous consensus is one specifically contradicted by Wikipedia policy. Fell Gleaming^talk 11:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. But remember: Assume Good Faith. I'm always happy to discuss improvements to an article. You just have to persuade me they're improvements. --Merlinme (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR policy

Stop trying to use fear in making change on Wikipedia. I will report you to an administrator if you continue claiming consensus without any support, bullying me for having views you cannot logically dispute, and for making all bad faith edits as you have been doing. Your lack of good faith editing is a major problem; all you do is claim that the article is biased without any look into the references. This is an abuse of policy, and it is completely unfair.--Screwball23 talk 00:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Four editors have disagreed with you over your repeated reinsertions of net worth. If you continue to override consensus and violate 3RR, then I fear you will be sadly disapointed by the results of your planned encounter with an administrator. Fell Gleaming^talk 02:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Challenger Deep

The material was moved to the talk page for discussion. I was saddened to see you revert the removal of this information on Challenger Deep and add an unreliable source to "Helium", a "peer reviewed citizen journalism website."[8] That source is not acceptable for science articles, and I would ask at this time that you confine yourself to the talk page for discussion. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fell, please stop abusing my talk page. You've made your point, and I've read it. And now, I've deleted it. Enough. Viriditas (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Image:Historic evolution of global temperature.jpg

Howdy, I wanted to let you know I removed the image from the paleoclimatology article. The image is a clear copyright violation (which I have tagged on Commons), and should be deleted in a matter of minutes or hours. We don't usually keep such images in articles while waiting (and the image is of such poor quality, there's no real loss to the article). I just wanted to keep you in the loop on this. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to drop me a line on the bottom of my talk page. Thanks for your work on the project. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tea. I understood that the image was currently being discussed for deletion, that in this discussion the author had in fact recently modified the image to address concerns and to help demonstrate it was in fact self-created, and that the majority of the vote so far was to keep the image. Fell Gleaming^talk 12:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The author of that image seemed to have some misunderstandings of copyright. There was clear evidence portions of the image were pulled from other websites which held the material was under copyright. That's a dealbreaker, as far as uploading the material to Wikipedia or Commons (Wikipedia actually allows fair use, but that would not be applicable in this case). The !vote isn't a majority vote, of course, since decisions are based on an examination of the arguments made. It is not that unusual for a deletion discussion to become a speedy deletion, if the image (as in this case) is discovered to be a copyright violation. Thanks for your work, in any event. --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks again for the notice. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:FellGleaming. Thank you. —Viriditas (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Please remember to use neutral headings when initiating a discussion at a talkpage, especially one that is part of dispute resolution. This header was inappropriate per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages: Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 01:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Russia article is being abused by Greyhood need help

Greyhood is abusing the Russia article assuming he has the information but refuses to respond back vice versa on Russia is either a superpower or not a superpower. He has only claimed but has provided not one source of fact to rewrite the article. Noticed he is changing article before a consensus discussion. He needs to be stopped.--Globalstatus (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, I think he's honestly trying to improve the article. I wouldn't characterize his edits as "abuse". Fell Gleaming^talk 02:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming I forwarded this on the discussions page but forwarding it over to you on some of my sources, I have over 110 articles from 2007 to 2010 articles but these are recent articles. These are all media related sources, one is an acedemic source with resources attached 1. - plus these are from 2010 but what they do all say Russia is a superpower and one says it is becoming a superpower. Just let me know if these look like good sources to you to confirm the superpower argument a little more, I do have a lot more but just sending these ones over for example.

1. Will Russia Be the Superpower That Will Stop Iran from Going Nuclear - The Middle East Media Research Institute By A. Savyon July 29, 2010[9]

2. Why isn't anyone taking Kyrgyzstan's calls?; Foreign Policy By Steve LeVine Friday, June 18, 2010 [10]

3. Georgia: An Insecure Foothold for the United States - The Globalist - Martin Sieff June 02, 2010 [11]

4. The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament by Sergei Karaganov - Project-Syndicate News April 4, 2010 [12]

5. Azerbaijanis, Armenians can be good neighbors (Superpower Neighbor Russia) News Az - March 2, 2010 by Akper Hasanov [13]

6. Perspective of Karabakh conflict settlement unreal in current conditions - News Az - June 2010 by Vafa Guluzade[14]

7. The dangers of nuclear disarmament - TODAY’S ZAMAN News May 1, 2010 by Sergei Karaganov[15]

8. Sergei Karaganov: Weapons that save us from ourselves - Scotsman News: 05 May 2010 Sergei Karaganov [16]

9. Obama restricts America’s use of nuclear arms -San Diego Conservative Examiner by Robert Rische April 6, 2010 [examiner. com ] Because the Examiner is on a backlink I will send a snapshot of the article for viewing asap.

10. Right after the uprising - Sunday's Zaman April 17, 2010 by Dogu Ergil Kyrgyzstan conflict [17]

11. The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament - Saint Petersburg Times By Sergei Karaganov May 4, 2010[18]

12. PM's visit underlines rising Indian interest in Ibsa, Bric - Business Standard News; Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi April 16, 2010[19]

13. Russia’s mission is Eurasian integration - RIA Novosti by Xing Guangcheng August 8, 2010[20]

14. Guam Back to Life? - RIA Novostiby by Bogdan Tsirdya August 3, 2010[21]

15. Armenian base part of Russia's quest for 'superpower' status - News.Az By Leyla Tagiyeva August 30, 2010[22]

16. Boost for nonproliferation - The Japan Times April 10, 2010[23]

17. Syria asks Russia to lean on Israel - Asia Times Online By Sami Moubayed May 14, 2010[24]

--Globalstatus (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Heim theory

Thank you for helping me form the lead. It really helps to have a second perspective.--Novus Orator 05:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain...

this diff in which you removed my ANI report. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't do that; the system isn't always perfect when resolving edit conflicts. However, I'll be happy to restore it if you like, or would you prefer to do it? Fell Gleaming^talk 17:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

So long as there was no specific reason for it, that's fine... I'll repost. EdChem (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Christine O'Donnell. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 19:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Watts Up With That? edit

Hello. When I added the descriptors to the endorsements on the WUWT article, in retrospect I likely should've added sources for the citations. My reasoning for adding those qualifiers is that on a number of articles on Wikipedia which concern political topics, the political positions of parties cited in the text are often noted. I am not sure why this is unhelpful. Could you explain?

Thank you, 98.87.42.237 (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(a) Citing the ownership of newspapers is not standard practice, and implies special interest. (b) you gave no RS for calling the award from a "conservative" organization. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Message

Hello, FellGleaming. You have new messages at Talk:Christine_O'Donnell#Witchcraft.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Basket of Puppies 19:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Albert R. Hunt

Albert R. Hunt is the executive Washington editor for Bloomberg News. He is not a "blogger" as you falsely claimed in this edit summary.[25] While I have no problem with the edit, you need to get your facts straight. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A blog and an op-ed are the same thing -- sources of opinion. You cannot portray opinion as fact. Fell Gleaming^talk 09:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A blog and an op-ed are not the same thing. Why do you believe that they are? In any case, you removed a quote from Jim DeMint. The quote was apparently found in a column by Albert R. Hunt. Here's the material you removed:

Senator DeMint considers homosexuality "immoral" and cringes at the notion of there being a gay or lesbian president.[26]

Is this inaccurate in any way? Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is. Do I really need to spell out how and why? Now please confine these discussions to the article's relevant talk pages if you have further questions. I won't respond on my personal page again. Fell Gleaming^talk 10:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to remove this discussion and add it to the article talk page. But, keep in mind, you will need to describe why it is inaccurate. "Yes, of course it is" is not an acceptable form of discussion. You need to explain what is wrong with the material. We both agree, however, that the source could use improvement. I'm asking you a question about the material itself. What is wrong with it? I also notice that you ignored my question about blogs and op-eds. I think I've told you this before, Fell, but you can't just keep ignoring questions all the time. Wikipedia's code of conduct requires a level of intellectual honesty that encourages discussion and works towards resolution of conflict by engaging in question and answers. Whether you are aware of it or not, you have a history of ignoring questions and changing the subject. That's going to have to change, Fell. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP editing

Could you explain why your contribution history shows that you routinely remove factual information you don't like, including quotes, from articles about Republican politicians[27] while at the same time, you specialize in adding negative information to articles about Democratic politicians?[28] Please take a moment to explain this behavior if you don't mind. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please confine discussions such as this to the relevant article talk pages. Fell Gleaming^talk 10:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to, Fell, but since my comment is about your editing practices, it belongs on your talk page, does it not? In any case, I would like to ask you a question. When I see an editor like yourself removing negative information from Republican politician articles and adding negative information to Democratic politician articles, what do you expect me to think or do? Should I just ignore this kind of behavior? Or, should I discuss it with you and try to reach an undertanding? Per dispute resolution, I'm supposed to try and work this out with you. So, could you tell me how we can resolve this problem? Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: U.S. sovereignty

[29] And this rather bizarre accusation that I'm trying to "promote an agenda to weaken US sovereignty" because I cited a Berkeley Law website that says the US didn't ratify the UNCLOS treaty...to support the article text that the US didn't ratify the UNCLOS Treaty.

Please read closer for comprehension, as that is not what was said in any way, shape or form. The argument for weakening U.S. sovereignty comes from the people arguing against the Law of the Sea treaty. If you aren't aware of this fact, then please do some research on the topic. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And you stated on several occasions you believed me to be promoting their "talking points agenda" against ratification of the treaty. The record is clear. Fell Gleaming^talk 10:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, you realize that you just contradicted yourself, as both statements are mutually exclusive. I'm getting the distinct sense you are playing games, Fell. Has it occurred to you, that Wikipedians are not as stupid as you think they are and can look at your edits in the page history to see what you are up to? Let's try to work this out in an atmosphere of mutual respect and friendly discourse. Now, am I wrong to observe that you do, in fact, add "talking points" to various articles? For example, within the last 24 hours, you made this edit to Christopher A. Coons, consisting of a Fox News talking point based on WP:RECENTISM. Surely, you know by now, that adding breaking news from partisan sources is not helpful, right? Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Arbcom

In response to my posting this, Viriditas followed me to several articles he's never edited before, posting threats and more "battleground mentality" responses.

Not true, Fell. Ever since I filed the initial ANI report on the 18th of September, I've been looking at your contributions. I've found a very disturbing pattern of misusing sources. Per the first step of dispute resolution, I'm supposed to contact you and discuss the problem with you directly. Since you have refused to address my queries, I will be forced to take this to the next level. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: RealClimate

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. Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Also note that you are blind reverting, removing other changes which you are not objecting to, which is poor form William M. Connolley (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fell, you're making a series of controversial edits to RealClimate. Could I ask you to hold off a bit and use the talk page and work towards consensus? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, [30] doesn't look like its from a RS. Please consider carefully whether you wish to use that ref William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV notice

Hello. This is a courtesy notice informing you of a report filed at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard that may involve you. The thread of interest is entitled Endocrine disruption. Thank you for your attention. Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This is quickly devolving into a quintessential WP:HARASS pattern. I advise you to moderate your behavior accordingly Fell Gleaming^talk 11:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not harassment. I have explained to you the problem, both here and on the talk pages. You refuse to discuss the problem. Therefore, I take each problem that you refuse to discuss and elevate it to the appropriate noticeboard. When a certain editor has a history of making problematic edits, it is not harassment to try and discuss the problem with that editor and fix the problem. You refuse, so what else can I do? Help me out here. What are my alternatives? Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, given your firestorm occurred immediately after my posting in relation to your own case, it seems clear uninvolved admins will see this as the retaliatory WP:POINT measure it is. Secondly, I'm happy to discuss any and all my edits, on the appropriate article's talk pages where, I believe, I have done so in all cases. Fell Gleaming^talk 11:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Look up the page, Fell. I've been posting here since the 17th,[31] and notified you of the ANI report on the 18th.[32] I don't have a "case", and you didn't comment about me on the climate change arbcom until today. Try to follow the page history and don't make things up. Fixing the encyclopedia of errors is not "retaliatory", Fell. It's what we do here! I invite you my good fellow, to join me in this endeavor. As for discussion, I'm sorry, but no, you haven't discussed anything. You avoid questions about your edits and change the subject. This is the pattern. You need to engage in actual discussion with other editors and address the problems and work towards resolution. "I'm right and you're wrong" is not how we work here. My door is open to you, Fell. Would you like to help me? Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Christine O'Donnell

I think I'm starting to see the problem. When you make edits like this, it tells me you don't understand that Wikipedia is driven by consensus, not by unilateral edits decided by a single editor. Your latest edit to O'Donnell removed a paraphrase of her famous "masturbation is adultery" quote that she is now known for, and replaced it with a quote nobody has ever heard before. You can't continue to edit like this. Anyone can find a source that reflects their own personal POV on the subject, but that's not how we write articles. She is well known for saying masturbation is equivalent to adultery and you just decided to delete this. You need to start using the discussion page for all future edits. Viriditas (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why am I not the least surprised to discover that this was extensively discussed several days ago on Talk:Christine_O'Donnell#Masturbation, and you have now unilaterally deleted content when you were asked not to do so? Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Linda McMahon

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Linda McMahon was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 23:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouter Schievink

Fell, did you randomly come across this article and decide to nominate it for deletion? Basket of Puppies 02:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

libertarianism

Hello, I have reinstated the "synonym" term with an expanded reference.

Colin Ward, Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 62. "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers..."

N6n (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

German American National Political Action Committee

I'm at a complete and total loss trying to figure out why you removed the term "right wing" from a description of the German American National Political Action Committee. In your edit summary, you claimed that political extremism expert professor George Michael of The University of Virginia's College at Wise was "not a neutral source".[33] Dr. Michael is described as a "political extremism expert" by The Christian Science Monitor , and was awarded the University of Virginia's "Outstanding Research Award". You removed his book, Confronting Right-Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA (2003), which is classified as a reliable source on Wikipedia. This kind of editing cannot continue, Fell. Let's look at some non-academic sources:

• "U.S. Publisher of Rightist Newsletter Jailed in Germany" (1995)[34]
• "Right-Wing Publisher Arrested in Germany" (1995)[35]
• "Rightists Fear Unfair Trial" (1995) [36]

So, once again, Fell, we see the same problem crop up. The reliable sources are at odds with your edits. Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"...organization devoted to fighting perceived anti-German sentiment in the media, as well as setting the record straight on WW2, "that Jews were not gassed by the Nazis" and that the numbers killed by extermination have been exaggerated. They have been called revisionist." Is that your attempt at NPOV, Fell? The organization is not even notable, only Hans Schmidt is, mostly due to his criminal record, although we should consider deleting it altogether. I'm therefore moving the page, for now. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Usage of libertarianism outside U.S.

Can you please provide some basis for the oft-repeated claim you recently made at Talk:Libertarianism?

The real issue here is that the word "libertarianism" has entirely different meanings in the US and outside it

Ideally, you would show usage in English secondary sources, that are not translations from other languages like French, within and outside of the U.S., that is significantly different in a relevant respect, and indicates an "entirely different meaning". If no such basis exists, please stop making this claim. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, however I would prefer to continue the discussion at the article's talk page, where it seems several other editors agree the current form of the article is severely deficient. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion should continue there. However, warnings against repeating unsubstantiated assertions belong on the talk page of the user who makes those assertions. That many agree the current form of the article is severely deficient, including myself, is not relevant to what I'm requesting here. Thanks.

By the way, your assistance on the Talk:Libertarianism/scope subpage would be appreciated, as that would and should include exactly the kind of substantiation I'm requesting here. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You did it again in this statement:

The fact remains that a US-branded libertarian ...

Please stop making unsubstantiated insinuations that the meaning of the term "libertarian" means something substantially different in the U.S. from what it means in the English speaking world outside of the U.S. Again, I bring your attention to the Talk:Libertarianism#Mainstream_libertarianism section in which examples of usage of the term outside of the U.S. (U.K., Australia, New Zealand) are given in which the meaning is the same as it is within the U.S. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk

Hello, FellGleaming. You have new messages at Talk:Christine_O'Donnell#Witchcraft2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please note

Please note that I have modified my original statement. I honestly did not intend for it to be perceived as a personal attack, although now that I think about it. I can understand how you saw it that way. My apologies. Please remember that we both have the same goal: to make the best articles possible. Basket of Puppies 20:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Basket. I appreciate the gesture, and commend you for the character shown shown in giving it. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Uncited"

Could you explain this revert? You removed a description of The Heartland Institute as "right-wing", saying it was "uncited". But of course, the descriptor is sourced. The footnote at the end of the sentence links to the Irish Times, which states: "They include right-wing think tanks such as the Heartland Institute..." Did you just not see the citation? MastCell ^Talk 04:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

See the talk, and my lengthy comments both before and after the edit. The statement is flatly inaccurate. They are not "right wing". I left in the text which said "they have been described as right wing" as they certainly have been described as such. Their philosophy corresponds to right wing conservative on essentially no significant points. Fell Gleaming^talk 04:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If they have consistently been "described as right-wing" by numerous independent, reliable sources, then at some point it becomes appropriate for us to describe them as "right-wing" (with appropriate citations, of course). MastCell ^Talk 23:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But the only sources so far have not been neutral and reliable. They've been op ed pieces or environmental reporters, all outraged at Heartland's hosting a climate conference skeptical of AGW. And "right wing" was never very encyclopedic to begin with. Conservative isn't terribly accurate either, but at least it's an attempt be neutral, rather than simply denigrate. Fell Gleaming^talk 00:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed FoF notification

I notify you of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Proposed_FoF:_FellGleaming.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_multiple_violations William M. Connolley (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Hope springs eternal to the human breast". Fell Gleaming^talk 18:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes we agree William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

We agree on Joe Romm and Alexander Pope. It's a start. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72h for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Christine O'Donnell. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I don't believe I have been warring here. I have addressed a large number of BLP violations; in fact I recently posted the article to the BLP noticeboard, where consensus agreed with me that BLP violations were occurring: [37]. Today I have 6 edits, but I don't believe 3 of those count towards as reverts. This one for instance [38] removes uncited contentious material (the source does not say she is a lobbyist) -- as per BLP policy, such edits do not count towards 3RR. isn't a revert: I added material, not deleted: [39]. In the third case, I removed a highly inaccurate summary of what the source actually said: [40]. The 3 remaining edits would probably count as reverts (though one had such an UNDUE issue, I could argue a BLP violation), but in any case I discussed them all on talk, and I don't believe I was "warring" or disrupting the article in any way. I've made dozens of edits here and, with the sole exception of the issue I took to the NB, there has been no serious disagreement with any other editor.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I don't believe I have been warring here. I have addressed a large number of BLP violations; in fact I recently posted the article to the BLP noticeboard, where consensus agreed with me that BLP violations were occurring: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Christine_O.27Donnell_2]. Today I have 6 edits, but I don't believe 3 of those count towards as reverts. This one for instance [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Christine_O'Donnell&action=historysubmit&diff=386476704&oldid=386476209] removes uncited contentious material (the source does not say she is a lobbyist) -- as per BLP policy, such edits do not count towards 3RR. isn't a revert: I added material, not deleted: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Christine_O'Donnell&action=historysubmit&diff=386574234&oldid=386573677]. In the third case, I removed a highly inaccurate summary of what the source actually said: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Christine_O'Donnell&action=historysubmit&diff=386458965&oldid=386440202]. The 3 remaining edits would probably count as reverts (though one had such an UNDUE issue, I could argue a BLP violation), but in any case I discussed them all on talk, and I don't believe I was "warring" or disrupting the article in any way. I've made dozens of edits here and, with the sole exception of the issue I took to the NB, there has been no serious disagreement with any other editor. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I don't believe I have been warring here. I have addressed a large number of BLP violations; in fact I recently posted the article to the BLP noticeboard, where consensus agreed with me that BLP violations were occurring: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Christine_O.27Donnell_2]. Today I have 6 edits, but I don't believe 3 of those count towards as reverts. This one for instance [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Christine_O'Donnell&action=historysubmit&diff=386476704&oldid=386476209] removes uncited contentious material (the source does not say she is a lobbyist) -- as per BLP policy, such edits do not count towards 3RR. isn't a revert: I added material, not deleted: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Christine_O'Donnell&action=historysubmit&diff=386574234&oldid=386573677]. In the third case, I removed a highly inaccurate summary of what the source actually said: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Christine_O'Donnell&action=historysubmit&diff=386458965&oldid=386440202]. The 3 remaining edits would probably count as reverts (though one had such an UNDUE issue, I could argue a BLP violation), but in any case I discussed them all on talk, and I don't believe I was "warring" or disrupting the article in any way. I've made dozens of edits here and, with the sole exception of the issue I took to the NB, there has been no serious disagreement with any other editor. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I don't believe I have been warring here. I have addressed a large number of BLP violations; in fact I recently posted the article to the BLP noticeboard, where consensus agreed with me that BLP violations were occurring: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Christine_O.27Donnell_2]. Today I have 6 edits, but I don't believe 3 of those count towards as reverts. This one for instance [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Christine_O'Donnell&action=historysubmit&diff=386476704&oldid=386476209] removes uncited contentious material (the source does not say she is a lobbyist) -- as per BLP policy, such edits do not count towards 3RR. isn't a revert: I added material, not deleted: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Christine_O'Donnell&action=historysubmit&diff=386574234&oldid=386573677]. In the third case, I removed a highly inaccurate summary of what the source actually said: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Christine_O'Donnell&action=historysubmit&diff=386458965&oldid=386440202]. The 3 remaining edits would probably count as reverts (though one had such an UNDUE issue, I could argue a BLP violation), but in any case I discussed them all on talk, and I don't believe I was "warring" or disrupting the article in any way. I've made dozens of edits here and, with the sole exception of the issue I took to the NB, there has been no serious disagreement with any other editor. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}