Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:46, 21 March 2010

User talk:Tony Sidaway/Notices

Arbcom statement

Today's statement was pretty much brand new, written from scratch, and I began work on it in a series of edits which started at 10, and didn't get the message until I had pretty much finished work. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 06:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It may have been new, but its freshness and novelty surely cannot have wiped out the memory of the multiple warnings you had received to keep your statement to length. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 08:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Watt the hell?

You just removed over half the article and most of the refs, why? Self revert that please mark nutley (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Don`t bother i did, you know you can`t make such massive changes without consensus mate, sorry mark nutley (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Why do you say I can't make bold edits? Of course I can. --TS 20:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression we were not to be wp:bold in the probationary articles? mark nutley (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you were under such an impression. That would explain it. --TS 20:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

Tony Sidaway. This edit summary was belittling and, worse in my view, did not provide a justification for the enclosed edit. If you believe the content removed was germaine, explain why. I admit I won't be monitoring your talkpage for an answer, as your POV pushing has never deviated on the basis of discussion. But newcomers will have less of an idea what's on your mind, and you should make that clear in your edit summaries in the future.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you were being naughty, naughty. Very naughty. Your edit summary was "Keeping things germaine" but you removed quoted statements germaine to Bob Ward's response to the hacking. I can't think of a better way to put it: that was naughty, naughty, very naughty. Don't do that again. --TS 22:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with TS. But I'm mostly appalled by the spelling: it is "germane" William M. Connolley (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I've been rolling without a spell-check for several months now (I'm on a French OS). I think my track record is rather impeccable given that :) Heyitspeter (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The most appallingly misspelled of the Jacksons. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 00:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation on Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

You might not have noticed it, but you have 2 reverts within 12 13 hours on that article:

1. 09:14, 12 March 2010
2. 22:41, 12 March 2010

I fixed the latter one; it really isn't germane to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --TS 00:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For it was a good read. --BozMo talk 17:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Denial...

- ok, but do you deny the holy spirit? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Worse than that even, I deny the existence of the One True Editor.

<fnord>I think the moment I realised that religion had truly jumped the shark was when I discovered that emacs had abolished the rsi-mode and vi abandoned the "Accidentally type a command in upper case and get your file scrambled" behavior. Shorn of such arbitrary behavior, both editors shook my belief in their divine nature.</fnord> --TS 02:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Now this is a nasty position. Of course there is one true editor. But I'm tolerant - I told my students there are three editors: Emacs, vi, and the Wrong Choice ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Which reminds me: you liberals must also answer for your role in the death of religion. Presenting things in anything other than stark black-and-white terms deprives the chosen ones of their righteous joy in the certain perdition and inevitable eternal torment of all who choose the wrong editor. --TS 02:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you ever get used to one of the nominally acceptable editors, you know that all others suffer eternal torment. It's learning by doing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Death of Olbermann's father

How is the death of a family member less important then the fact that the article's subject appeared in Boston Market ads in the late nineties? It absolutely has a place in the biography. --BLM Platinum 01:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. The thing that concerns me is the blog sourcing. If that's the best source then I'd say it's probably not a matter of much relevance (though obviously of great personal relevance to Olbermann and his family and those who knew his father). --TS 01:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you comment upon the following...

Re Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#TMLutas; is there a problem that requires Probation Enforcement, in your opinion, and are either the allegation(s) or the response closer to your understanding of the situation? My view is that wikilawyering (or what might seem to be that practice) is in fact an appropriate way of carefully determining consensus before acting, so I am more interested in whether this is an attempt to gain consensus by exhaustion. As you are the other party to this matter, your comments are likely to be very useful. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a conduct problem involving TMLutas.

I don't agree with some of TMLutas' characterization of the dispute and I don't want to get into an argument with him on that, or to appear to agree with his characterization by commenting there without expressing a different view of the dispute. It wouldn't be helpful in determining whether there is a conduct problem, so I'll stay away.

It's okay for me and TMLutas to disagree with one another on the precise nature of the dispute, that's not a problem at all and we appear to have reached consensus at talk:Global warming despite that. We do agree that the previous version of question Q22 in the global warming FAQ was not satisfactory and we've resolved that now.

There is a tension between keeping the article focussed on the science and incorporating important new developments. FAQ Q22 is an attempt to explain why so many requests to include references to newly published single papers (which are very common at that article) do not often gain consensus. There is always a danger that the wording will be perceived as an attempt to selectively exclude material that should, to cover the subject completely, be in the article. It is in the nature of the current state of climate science that the few papers suggesting new mechanisms or suggesting that previously considered mechanisms may contribute either more or less to climate change than previously believed, get a lot of public attention. What we tend to consider, though, is whether they prevail and become influential within the science. --TS 13:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being a gentleman. That we can agree on a Q22 is a very happy example of how cooperation *can* work on the wiki model even when we fundamentally disagree on important content issues. I can get testy sometimes and I apologize for it. I don't think that either of us intend it or we'd have filed multiple charges against each other long ago. TMLutas (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I would not have requested your response, knowing your intention to withdraw from the enforcement aspect as far as is possible, were it not for the fact that you were the other involved editor, so am grateful for your detailed response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend to withdraw from commenting on probation enforcement--don't get me wrong. I just didn't see how I could say anything useful except "there's nothing to see here." In the event I seem to have found a way of doing that. --TS 22:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Stupid is as stupid does

Regarding your comment:

If a schoolchild made such a stupid error, we'd give him an F.

Didn't the IPPC do something similar with their faulty 2035 Himalayan glaciers claim? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to equate the generally reliable IPCC and the notoriously unreliable Christopher Booker aren't going to cut any ice. --TS 16:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If Christopher Booke's book is notoriously unreliable, then you have a very easy argument to make. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

False analogy. E=(amount of errors)/(amount of factual information). E(IPCC)<E(Booker) . --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that singling out one error is not a valid argument that a source is unreliable. In any case, things on the WP:RSN have taken an unfortunate turn and I've posted a comment in your favor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A compendious list of enormous gaffes by this author has been assembled. You are aware of this. Do not falsely claim that only one error in one work has been described. --TS 18:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

GW FAQ Q

How did this change the meaning of any of the sentences? -Atmoz (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the words loses cues linking points conceded in the replies to points made in the questions. The replies thus lose nuance and appear disjointed. Tasty monster (=TS ) 09:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note

Concerning the article Climate change denial, Mackan79 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has opened an enforcement case against me at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. As someone involved with the page, I thought you should be informed. ► RATEL ◄ 06:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily

I have amended the text of the WorldNetDaily article and invite you to contribute any observations you might have to the discussion page. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

CCE Request closed

Hi Tony (or Tasty), I've closed a Climate change probation enforcement request you opened recently as "no action". There was no specific enforcement request, some productive discussion ensued, you appeared to be satisfied with the outcome, and two uninvolved admins felt the thread should be closed (one being me). If you're dissatisfied with the outcome, please let me know. Regards! Franamax (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Vanishing spirits

Hi, Tony, you've asked Lar to look at a squabble at User talk:Ghost which seems to have vanished into mysterious invisible realms, leaving only traces of the days when KC was a young puppy ;-) Perhaps you were thinking of talk:Ghost? . . dave souza, talk 10:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the link. Tasty monster (=TS ) 10:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you might clear something up for me ...

Care to weigh in on the following: , , , , and ? I ask because you seem to have a lot of experience with collapsing such discussions so I want to benefit from your experience. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing isn't a universally accepted practice, but it often works to the benefit of the quality of discussion. I regard such edits as "bold" in the Wikipedian sense, and I always expect such edits to be reverted, at which point I forget it and move on.

I seem to recall that this and similar practises are loosely discussed on WP:TPO. The problem with such guidelines is that they outline the kind of actions that are usually permissible, but do not really help in the particular case, so if somebody objects it's better to defer rather than to start a discussion about it--which would itself be off-topic.

I hope this brain-dump delivered over breakfast coffee and shredded wheat helps. Tasty monster (=TS ) 10:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)