94.113.129.238

Talk:Medieval Warm Period

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Medieval Warm Period, 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. -- TS 17:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (94.113.129.238) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Radiation effects from Fukushima I nuclear accidents

Can we please discuss this series of edits? Can you explain the removal of seemingly-legitimate text from the article? Guoguo12--Talk--  21:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I second that. Please make your case at talk:Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents and we can discuss what is wrong with them. As the data is sourced it is not fully clear why you say they are not sourced! L.tak (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
1 more thing. While discussing the case is good, stating that wikipedia can be met with legal action is against the rules and frowned upon. Please read wp:no legal threats for more info! L.tak (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The claim made by Mr. Wotawa from ZAMG is clearly unsubstantiated, overstated and unsourced in the linked document. Currently there are preparations made to bring criminal charges against ZAMG, Mr. Wotawa and New Scientist, because they failed to substantiate their claims - even they were asked for the sources on several occassions. It is clear the ZAMG figures are subject of controversy, even the legal one, so I think they shouldn't be promoted by Wikipedia, because they could potentially make the Wikipedia liable as subject of criminal charges for startler dissemination. The realistic estimation of the Fukushima plant fallout is not available at the moment, but all available measurements at the site of the plant and around point to the conclusion the total radioactivity fallout from the Fukushima plant was in order of <<10% of that experienced in case of the Chernobyl disaster.

April 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

--John (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

There are ongoing preparations for bringing criminal charges under § 276 StGB sec. 1 in Austria against Mr. Wotawa and ZAMG for dissemination of the unsubstantiated claims about the Fukushima fallout cappable to alarm and scare public. It was my duty to notify the Wikipedia editors about it and repeatedly delete the highly controversial statements for this reason, because the wittingly persistent dissemination of them can be considered being a criminal offense. No disclaimers or rules on Wikipedia can possibly supersede the penal codes or avoid possible criminal charges and conviction for startler dissemination - at least not in civilized world. If you insist to be barbarians then keep me blocked - it can only be considered then as the aggravating circumstance and can possibly lead to involvement of Wikipedia among the potential defendants. This are not the "legal threats", but the legal facts. In your own interest I would recommend you to consult the legal counsel to find out what is the difference.

Decline reason:

What you just said is a continuation of the legal threat, not a withdrawal of it. An unblock is therefore not permitted. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:20, 15 April 2011 (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.

It's unfortunate that you couldn't just explain what's incorrect about this information, and point out better sources where it could be verified. Wikipedia does require that you stay blocked while you're using legal threats to try to get your way, instead of simple, courteous reasoning. If it's true and important, though, someone else will inevitably fix it, so don't worry. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:33, 15 April 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

below

Decline reason:

Continuing to insist that your legal "warnings" were correct does not constitute withdrawing them, and going on to make "cover up" allegations does not demonstrate the collegial approach that we strive for here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2012 (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 think what is really unfortunate but revealing here is that the now "fixed" wiki article now claims the Austrian Meteorological Service estimated the Cs-137 air release to be 5 PBq/day - which is in fact not the full truth, because the Austrian Meteorological Service in its widely disseminated startling report (see the primary source: http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?%20seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-23GMT10:57 the Wikipedianists now chose rather not to cite at all) in fact "estimated" the Cs-137 air release to be not just 5 but 40! PBq/day. This fix says alot about the "credibility" of the primary source and its parrots here respectively. Moreover apparently a simmilar false fix is also now in (more than a year later into the history of this!) for the air release of the I-131, which according to the same original report of the same Austrian Meteorological Service originally "estimated" being 120 PBq/day. But somehow now the Wikipedia falsely atributes Austrian Meteorological Service a TOTAL air release estimation 10-700 PBq (which need to be noted here the linked Austrian Meteorological Service report, which is by link pretended to be the source of the estimate range "10-700" numbers, DOES NOT contain AT ALL and obviously cannot contain because it was released on 03/24/2011 so any total air release estimate would be premature to put it extremely mildly!!) and keeps silent about their original and again impossible daily "estimate", keeping to promote them fixing in one case without any sources whatsoever their obviously overstated "estimates", moreover made by known Austrian antinuclear activist without any notice that the source of the "information" is not non-impartial and probably attempting to win publicity by stratler rather than publish serious results in serious peer-reviewed literature. This case clearly shows that - instead of admitting at least here that the Austrian Meteorological Service with their "estimations" was obviously wrong by orders of magnitude and I was right deleting from here their criminaly startling nonsenses which seriously frightened people all around the world for months - there is clearly an ongoing cover-up of their startlers even trying to "indefinitely detain the terror suspect" messenger here using absolutely irrelevant censorship rules, because only what I made here were the legal warnings not "threats", which - as the obviously false fixes of the article now show - were absolutely legitimate especially after repeated deleting of the by real world data absolutely unsupported and startlingly invalid numbers order of magnitude higher than the numbers which are in the article "cited" from the same originator now. (Good to note that at the time I edited the article at the Wikipedia first time I already personally asked both Mr. Wotawa and his seniors at the Austrian Meteorological Service for the data they based their simulations and subsequent estimations on, but always to no avail.)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I presented clearly the case and pointed out what should be corrected in the obviously non-impartial article and provided the primary source proving that what is now written in the article is again - as many times in the past - incorrect and possibly deliberately false concerning the estimations made by Austrian Meteorological Service in the wake of the Fukushima accident - because it is so not just in one case, which could be considered a "typo" or whatever error, but at two separate instances in the article concerning the two key radioisotopes air release -which is absolutely crucial for correct evaluation of the Fukushima accident severity. I'm not your colleague, because despite the presented facts, I'm not allowed to correct the false information -and this repeatedly by invoking quite irrelevant rule - which surely raises the suspicion the incorrect information is held in the Wikipedia for reason - perhaps to not embarras Austrian Met Service and CTBTO who overshot their estimations orders of magnitude above actual reality. The spirit of collegiality surely shouldn't be invoked to keep false information publicly disseminated without even reviewing it. I'm not going to withdraw from insisting that the dissemination of false information publicly and internationally is a legal offence and the organiztion supporting it and wittingly not allowing it to be corrected on notice surely is bearing involvement in such an offence. It is a legal fact not a threat. If you don't wish to unblock me on Wikipedia for me to be able to correct the false cherry-picked informations, I only can wish you with your colleagues good luck with the dissemination of lies and bullying the people who want it to be corrected, but don't wonder then if people will again consider Wikipedia being not serious and reliable source of information.

Decline reason:

Since you are still continuing with your legal threat, I have reblocked this IP and have revoked your ability to edit this talk page. You are well aware that you are not allowed to edit while the legal threat and/or legal proceedings still stand. --MuZemike 04:23, 16 May 2012 (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.

---