Xavdr

This is Xavdr's discussion page

Please insert in this page the discussions about edited articles in Wikipedia which you think are better to be set outside the discussion of the article, first.

Article on Michael Mann

Editing War on Michal Mann page due to Mr Petersen discussionless reversions

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michael Mann (scientist). 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. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. --Kim D. Petersen 01:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have provided factual arguments in the discussion page of the article on Mann.

KimDabelsteinPetersen just reverts with no argument nor any kind of legitimacy.

Following Wikipedia rules, KimDabelsteinPetersen should get into dialogue through the discussion page but he does not.

Xavier 11:15 14 July 2007 GMT

Civility

(

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia has standards regarding civility and personal attacks, to which all editors are expected to adhere. Occasional lapses may be overlooked but your persistent breach of these policies at William M.Conneley is unacceptable. If you have a well-founded reason to suspect sock puppetry, take it to the appropriate noticeboard. Continued disregard for Wikipedia standards of conduct will lead to blocks. Raymond Arritt 22:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

) copied from the IP "account" in which this remark was originally published following an unlogged edition of the page on Michael Mann

I fully agree to civility especially in the case of Wikipedia which is based on philantropic contributions (or so it would like to be). I am quite shocked by the behaviour of the pair William M.Conneley and Kim D. Petersen acting as censorship noticeably on Michael MANN page, with mecanical undoing with no explanation from Kim D. Petersen, with peremptuous, misleading, not especially civil and underinformative rejective statements from William M.Conneley. This seems so unfair to me as I have used hard but fair words on their behaviour.

1- The only ever mentioned breach on civilness, and maybe the only criticable word I ever used in Wikipedia in several years of contributions under various IPs and before my loggin xavdr is the word "puppet" I used once about login Kim D. Petersen since this one used to keep undoing day after day the changes to Mann's page made by various contributors, including me, with a devoted discipline and no argumentation at all, and in case of request for argumentation comes immediately ... William M.Conneley of personal conflict of interest in this page.

2 Beside this only mentionned breach, maybe you refer to some other words used for replying to similar words and/or censorship and/or misleading arguments from the pair William M.Conneley and Kim D. Petersen.

2a- Against my valid, evidence-based statements William M.Conneley used misleading statements and used the words "admit that you just made it up or copied some septic propaganda", "old tired nonsense", "total twaddle".

2b- Based on precise facts I then used words "biased", "void", "misleading remarks" about the remarks of William M.Conneley.

2c- Facing the coordination of the pair William M.Conneley and Kim D. Petersen and their unacceptable censorship on the page on Michael MANN I used the words "dictatorship".

2d- Facing William M.Conneley biased overinfluence on many pages especially on Michael MANN page (and given their official relationships e.g. though their scientific / activist / polemic site RealClimate), I have used the words "illegitimate influence" and "conflict of interest".

--Xavdr 01:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

On the "Hockey Stick"

Michael MANN has got huge famousness worldwide much beyond the scientific community from the huge propaganda made by UN/IPCC and "global warming" alarmists from the "Hockey Stick" graph. However some months latter it was shown that the "Hockey Stick" graph was an artefact of poor statistics.

As an expert of data analysis, I can certify that the method described by both camps as the one basing the "Hockey Stick" is a WRONG procedure. To be precise : before analysis such as PCA it is a very dangerous method to normalize serials of heterogeneous lengths through a millennium from means computed on a century and this method is completely wrong when used before processing serials having various behaviours on that century compared to the whole millennium. This ERROR is especially damaging for variances/covariances computations such as those of PCA.

This ERROR has led to the junk body of the "Hockey Stick" graph which negates the known evolution from warm Medieval Period to Little Ice Age then warm modern period, essential to the understanding of majors parts of History, and also reported following the curves provided by other physicist/paleoclimtlogists (although the warm Medieval Period is reported warmer than the 20th century not by all publications). Since PCA is a summarizing technique, and its first component is quite an immediate summarizing of the serials, the shape it provides should be seen in the source serials at first sight. Therefore the ERROR described as being at the base of Michael MANN's "Hockey Stick" is infamous in a serious scientific publication.

Furthermore other major defects such as instability against minor changes in the source data have been reported.

UN/IPCC promoted the "Hockey Stick" so heavily as it gave it de facto an historical influence. Other reconstitutions provided more classical shapes, with at least Little Ice Age and for the allegeably more reliable ones in the temperature scale (i.e. boreholes e.g. from POLLACK et al.), a Warm Middle Age warmer than the modern period. Anyway UN/IPCC have heavily promoted "Hockey Stick" without having it checked first. Some months later, the "Hockey Stick" is shown to be the result of a FLAWED method. This completely aberating situation is at the very base of the history of Michael MANN's "Hockey Stick" graph.

In my discipline nowadays the "Hockey Stick" is used as a pedagogic illustration of flawed procedure.

--Xavdr 00:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Liberland

Please stop editwarring over your unsupported edits as you did on Liberland. - Rothly (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As a mere reply I can say that since then User:Rothly Bladje has been conviced of being a sock puppet account of User:Guido den Broeder. Sock puppet accounts are illicit and dishonest since they provide the ilusion of several independant contributors, thus biasing the editing process especially during editwars. Through User:Rothly Bladje and several other sock puppet accounts User:Guido den Broeder has cheated with the edition debate of the Liberland page as well as some connex pages such as the one dedicated to the Serbia-Coratia border debate.

--Xavdr

Sasha Johnson

Do not continue inserting falsified racist claims at Sasha Johnson. Please read WP:RS and WP:RSP if you continue to misunderstand what a reliable source is. I don't care if you knew it was a hoax or not, because if you're adding content then it is your job to know. — Bilorv (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)