Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:39, 24 February 2010

User talk:Tony Sidaway/Notices

Hi

On second thoughts, I agree - it's better off not going there. But what would be the right venue? I'm really concerned, and am at a loss; there doesn't seem to be any formal structure or place to air this sort of problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you think Arbcom is getting things badly wrong, start an RFC on Arbcom. --TS 03:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If I was looking for a structure where I wouldn't be forced to pay the cost (or have to tolerate) these sorts of comments...I'd be looking for something that no longer exists (if it ever did), right? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If somebody's being obnoxious under the noses of arbcom, have a word with the arbcom clerk who is managing the case. I think that comment is a bit inflammatory but you have to bear in mind that your own comment may seem a bit over the top so in context it might not be seen as too inappropriate. --TS 03:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a huge leap to suggest that it is less inappropriate for the subject of arbitration to make such comments, just because serious concerns and questions about ArbCom were raised. But given that you were previously a member of the arbitration office (that includes delegates), I can't say I'm shocked by your view either. Still, RfC does unfortunately seem to be the only available venue if it goes ahead. Thank you for clarifying. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't collapse/archive sections without consensus

You seem to always do it at points that are embarrassing to the AGW side and I frankly find such behavior to be quite disruptive and hostile. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there is consensus that these great massive screeds of no particular interest to anybody except the participants are a blot on the face of Misplaced Pages. If you know different, do please revert. --TS 03:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved one because I thought my response was relevant, but I also noticed you closed an interesting comment AQFK had made which seemed quite unnecessary. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

After

It says up to 2010, what if after that? Qajar (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's only the date during which the text was worked on and published. Copyright applies for many, many decades after that. --TS 21:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thank. Qajar (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"lack of clue"

"Coming to this Wiki for that purpose probably shows a certain lack of clue, and such poor judgement typically manifests itself independently in other problematic behavior."

That, sir, was a high point in the discussion, and in the entire probation space! You get the Winston Churchill Wit Barnstar for that, as soon as somebody makes one. Bertport (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This may well be the only occasion on which I will be compared to Winston Churchill, unless I should have the misfortune to launch a disastrous naval offensive in the Dardanelles. --TS 11:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me help you out there. Winston Churchill won more Nobel Awards than you did. Your rhetoric skills are less pronounced than Churchill's. Churchill has more postnominals than you have (ok, that last one is a guess ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

He probably took the Torygraph, too. --TS 11:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

For (or against?) digestive problems? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Retreat of glaciers since 1850

Hi Tony...User:Peltoms was notified by you about article probation issues related to the article Retreat of glaciers since 1850. I, Peltoms and WSiegmund wrote the majority of that article...Peltoms is a glaciologist (Mauri Pelto)...whats going on?--MONGO 12:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's just a formality. The probation applies broadly across the climate change articles and I like to ensure that everybody editing them currently is aware of the fact. As I've emphasized more than once on this page, a notification doesn't reflect on the editor's conduct. --Tasty monster 14:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice earlier posts here regarding that, so sorry...no issues, but Peltoms is a rare contributor and he may not be (I am still not understanding) all the more recent crap about this entire GW/CC infighting issues...I sure don't want him to say to himself that we're dysfunctional (even though we are!) and vamoose forever...--MONGO 04:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I hope this reassurance will do the trick. --TS 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Probation subject

Hi!

You substed(?) a message for me and others about certain climate change articles being "on probation". Thanks! However, I had already noted this, and looked it up; but decided that the rules mainly meant that we should be extra careful in editing in the same manner and cooperative spirit in which we ought to edit all articles; and possibly be extra careful in trying to achieve consensus before editing. Did I miss something?

What I did think of, on the other hand, was that probably some IAP statement articles to be written should be considered as falling within the area of probation, as soon as they are written. I'm not quite sure of how to proceed with this; do I propose them for consideration somewhere (where?), or do I just tag and list them appropriately myself? Or should I report the intent to write them already before the fact?

Also, how do I treat articles which only very partially touches the indicated subject, such as the IAP statement on population growth, which indeed concerns population growth, but warns about "greenhous gas emissions" with climate effects as one probable and deterious consequence thereof? Is this article implied in the "probation" or not? How is that decided? Should I notify it somewhere? (I didn't consider it to concern the greenhouse effect enough to categorise it thusly; and I didn't know about this climate change probation until recently, whence I may unwittingly have missed to comply with some recommendations.)

If this is not the right place for my questions, please feel free to move them!

Yours, JoergenB (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of articles on the basic subject matter haven't had any problems in editing or on the talk page, and as the probation is really aimed at certain kinds of conduct and is associated with certain attitudes and editors, I would be wary of just tagging any article simply because of its subject matter. If in doubt, don't tag. On the other hand, if you do notice a pattern of tendentious editing on any article, where the tendentious behavior is focussed on climate change, do tag. It doesn't really matter whether the article is about anything related to climate change or not. For instance several biographical articles of non-scientists are under the probation, usually because of what they have said, or what some editors say they have said, about climate change.

If you added the article and its talk page to User:Tony Sidaway/Articles under climate change probation, that would also be cool. We use that page to track all edits to articles on probation. --TS 20:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

All right. I won't do anything with articles peripherically touching the subject, unless and until I feel it is merited. However, the IAP statements number 12 and 13 were directly and explicitly aimed at presenting a 'science academies consensus alert' over climate change and other CO₂ emission effects to politicians and others in connection with the Copenhagen climate conference last December. It is of course impossible to write them without "focussing on climatic change". I do try to write in a non-biased manner - e. g. summing statements as statements, not as facts - but the whole point of these statements seems to be to release well-discussed "consensus" documents, and I do not think this point could or should be hidden.

If you permit, I'll just drop you a note if and when I get around to write them (if no other editor comes first), asking you for deciding whether to include them or not. JoergenB (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. If I'm not active at that time try notifying User:2over0, who is the administrator most active on the probation.--TS 18:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing from two accounts

Hi, I noticed this on the Wikileaks talk page:

By the way. Tasty monster is the account I use to edit Misplaced Pages from a cellphone. Which, fortunately for Misplaced Pages, I do not do very much. --TS 00:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Check the sockpuppet policies, but I think it might be more above board if you were to note this on your talk page; if you are involved in editing partisan articles, such as global warming, you don't want to be anything except a squeaky clean Wikipedian. cojoco (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If the sock puppetry policies were against my using that account, the thing to do would be to rewrite the sock puppetry policies. They do not exist to stop the valid and above-board use of alternate accounts. User:Tasty monster was created over four years ago and its first edit said "I am Tony Sidaway." The user name is a pun on the latin name of the Swiss cheese plant (Monstera deliciosa), coined by Raul654 on IRC. --TS 13:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but the Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Alternate_account_notification policy explicitly allows what you are doing. The only caveat is that you might want a checkuser to confirm it, for some reason. In any case I wouldn't worry about it. Ignignot (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It isn't complicated enough to need a checkuser, really. I'm not doing anything remotely naughty. --TS 11:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I only checked Tony Sidaway, not TS, sorry. cojoco (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change

Unfortunately the very fact that you are willing to walk away makes you a much better editor than the partisans. Don't stay discouraged. I took a 3 year break from wikipedia. Ignignot (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've decided to almost completely withdraw. When everyone around you is slinging mud you're going to get dirty. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

When I get some free time, I'm going to write a script that will automatically block any controversial/disputed article to prevent me from being accidentally sucked into the craziness. This way, I'll be able to continue to improve the project and still preserve what's left of my already compromised sanity. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

One week after this thread was started, I no longer consider myself to be disengaged so I have removed the notice from my user page. I think matters may have improved a little in the past two weeks, or perhaps my negative feelings have dissipated. I think most editors are engaging in a more constructive way than I felt was the case in the first week of February, and certainly problem editing is less apparent than even a week ago. We'll see how long my opinion on this lasts. Of course I'll withdraw again if I think my contributions, which defer to the mainstream scientific opinion as all our edits on this subject should, are becoming associated with inappropriate behavior of any kind. --TS 19:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah. It's still a bad place to bathe. --TS 04:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi (2)

Hi, the user Metalyearsagain created the article Vênus (band). I'm brazilian and that page is SPAM. Can you propose the article from deletion process? I'm from pt.wiki and I don't know how to do this here in en.wiki. Thank you. OffsBlink (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You can do this yourself. Just tag a page like that with {{db-a7}} and then an admin will look at it and, finding that the page meets the deletion criteria, immediately deletes it. This applies to bands, people, etc for which no statement meriting inclusion in an encyclopedia has been made. --TS 23:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thank you very much. OffsBlink (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. --TS 00:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for your attention. OffsBlink (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for taking the trouble to notify the English Misplaced Pages. --TS 00:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

From Talk:Global warming

Since this doesn't concern the article at all, I've decided to copy it, and my response, here:

Regarding the sockish smell... TS, you throw these insults at people, but then delete any pushback. Perhaps you should consider your own behavior. I noticed that you have been reprimanded many times by other editors for being argumentative and that you have been blocked perhaps 20 times for abusing your power to block other editors. I think you should honor your own words and stop editing this article. Does anyone else agree? Mcoers (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)mcoers

You may not be aware of this, but the global warming articles have been visited for some years now by a permanently banned but still rather determined troll and sock puppeteer known as scibaby. That was the sock to which I referred. You should know better than to launch personal attacks on other editors. And finally, beware of taking statements of intent as a kind of promise. It is a volunteer's prerogative to decide what he does with his time. --TS 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you understand that the global warming article is a very important part of our science coverage, so letting the talk page become filled up with interpersonal bickering is not on. However I thought it worth trying to explain to you why comments like this are unwelcome anywhere on Misplaced Pages. --TS 23:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I do understand the importance. That's why, given the fact that the foundational research upon which the science is based has now come into serious question, I start demanding that these facts be acknowledged. Just to clear up a few things, I'm not a troll. The reason I'm on this page is to affect change in how it is managed. My income doesn't depend on one side winning or one side losing. I don't get grant money from anyone to study anything, and I'm not employed by an energy company. My only interest is improving the information people get from sources like Misplaced Pages.

It is so frustrating to constantly see people applying double-standards to this issue. I see from the data that is publicly available that the predictions of these scientists are not coming to pass. When the trend lines start to dip down, some advocate of AGW just changes the date range to make them go up again. Its an easy statistical trick to spot. I am unmoved by people trying to talk over the public's head. There's a bottom line reality to this issue. The predictions are not panning out. But instead of investigating whether the assumptions of the theory might be faulty, the editors of this page circle the wagons...go into defensive mode instead of keeping that "open mind" that scientists are supposed to have (but rarely do).

Which brings me to you. For some reason you have appointed yourself referee and judge of this page. I publicly questioned your judgment and motivation and I'm not sorry for it. I see that you are making these decisions, I look at your profile and see that you have abused so many people and I have to think that perhaps you should go play your games somewhere else. Somewhere where the stakes aren't so high. How do you know this guy is a sock puppet? What makes you think you can lecture me? I'm a pretty smart dude, and academic condescension just pisses me off.

It is clear to everyone who reads this page that it is produced and defended by people who advocate one side of the issue with no equal presentation of opposing information. This kind of academic tunnel-vision is precisely why skeptical scientists have kept their mouths shut for so long on this issue. It doesn't improve the science, but at least they can keep their jobs. This attitude is also directly contrary to the ethic of oppositional editing that is supposed to govern wikipedia.

When someone proposes making a perfectly reasonable change, the proposal is allowed to sit on the discussion page for a few days; some partisan says that the article isn't from a "respected" journal, and then you delete the whole discussion. What tripe! If just ONE person says it isn't reputable, then that's enough to kill it? Seriously? Do you apply the same level of scrutiny to information that supports your cause?

Yeah, that's a rhetorical question.

I proposed a reasonable modification to the first paragraph which has simply disappeared from view. There were a number of people who supported my modifications, but then one or two people made un-sourced objections and the entire thing was deleted. I want my proposal put back up for discussion, and I want a standard put in place by which the decisions are made and how it is equally applied to both advocates as well as skeptics. This standard of judgment should be published for all to see, and the referees should be noted along with their credentials and disclosures about any funding sources that might influence their positions.

I'm not asking for personal control over this page. I'm telling you that if you guys lay out a credible procedure, then you'll get less complaints. Oh, and you'll also look less ridiculous when this whole AGW thing collapses. Mcoers (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Mcoers

You write: When someone proposes making a perfectly reasonable change, the proposal is allowed to sit on the discussion page for a few days; some partisan says that the article isn't from a "respected" journal, and then you delete the whole discussion.

I'm sorry if I've done that. Do you have a concrete example of this? --TS 20:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Climate Sceptics Party

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Climate Sceptics Party. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Climate Sceptics Party. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not ask me to comment upon the nature of the subject of a complaint

I am trying, as ever, to review these matters on the basis if adherence to policy - in so much as I read it, anyhoo. I have asked two of the other usual - but uninvolved as far as I am aware - admins to look over the basis of my comments. I think my viewpoint that activists on both sides of the debate do game the system in an attempt to ensure "their" edits are prominent are well known - and inversely supported/decried, and I would hate to have to consider add more names to those which appear to be more concerned upon a preferred presentation rather than the most neutral. I regret if the above comes across as "snotty", but I am mindful of the original request for my services; I would not wish to let that person down. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate what you're trying to do and we do, definitely, need more independently-minded admins. Please do encourage more admins to go to work on the Climate Change probation enforcement. This is a very strong vote of confidence. Thank you for everything you have done.

However in my opinion you did step over the mark and comment on the nature of the subject of a complaint, and I was asking you to step back. I have asked you to read up on a guideline that you yourself have quoted. When a veteran Wikipedian asks you to do that, he isn't trying to win an argument but to bring you round to understanding what the project is about. I could recite them in my sleep. If you think a hypothetical "perfect article" on the CRU hacking is in any way related to the fuss over the IPCC, then you're as wrong as the bloke who thinks a hypothetical "perfect article" on Elvis would mention pedophilia, or that a "perfect article" on the Navy should mention Lamb's Navy Rum.

I strongly disagree with the notion of parity that you seem to be introducing here. We have consensus on Misplaced Pages that, on matters of science on which there is substantial mainstream agreement, the intrusion of fringe points of view must be given only the attention they merit, which may be none at all. There is a fringe point of view that seems to be determined to link the CRU fuss and the IPCC fuss. I'm waiting to see evidence that there is even a tiny link to them that doesn't involve a link with Kevin Bacon.

When you make a comment prejudicial to one side or another in a dispute, and you cite a guideline, you must be certain that you are citing it correctly. I know you agree with this, I'm just asking you to consider that you might have got it wrong.

I will now withdraw from that dispute, because you at least perceive me to be too involved. So if you think I am, maybe I am, and I'm not involved enough to want to contribute to the perception that there are sides of which I'm a member. --TS 23:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused and I need an explanation

Was there a reason for this message and for your and the redact of my comment. Please to explain. Thank you--Jojhutton (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The first edit is a standard template that I and others post to alert every editor on the climate change articles that a probation applies. The notifications are all logged at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log#Notifications.

In the second edit I was just resetting the level of indentation, which was getting out of hand.

Neither edit represented any criticism of your conduct, which is fine. --TS 23:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Still, I would have appreciated some sort of notice that you were moving my comment. What I find a bit more alarming is that I am now on some sort of wiki watch list. Don't understand that at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well you could look at it like that, but really all edits on those articles are being exceptionally closely watched (as you know all your edits can be watched anyway, that's how wikis work). The reason for the notification is to ensure that everybody editing pages subject to the probation is aware of the fact and knows to be on their best behavior.

As for removing the indents, I do that whenever the talk page becomes unreadable. I take it the indents aren't some kind of secret code? <smile> --TS 00:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No code intended on the indents. I didn't see how the comment was unreadable, but I digress.

As for the addition of my user name to the probation notification list. I would suggest that we should be more careful how that list is compiled. The list should be reserved for a bit more serious comments this one. I would think that it can and I'm sorry to say in my case has be taken the wrong way.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't seem to have expressed my point well. I'll try again. Being notified of the probation in no way implies that there is anything remarkable about your edits. It's just a record of the fact that, having made a substantive edit on an article under probation, you've been notified of the probation. Speaking for myself, if somebody just makes a wikignome change such as a spelling correction or a minor formatting edit, I don't notify them. All other editors are notified. Check for yourself, I've personally notified over 100 editors in the past seven days. --TS 00:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know. I'm not angry, I'm just very concerned. I know that the message is just a from letter, that is sent to everyone. I just think that there should be a bit more caution in the way it is done. It shouldn't be done to just anyone who happens to edit or make a nuetral and innocent comment on the talk page. Stuff like that should be reserved for what it was meant to be reserved for. Those who unknowingly violate the probation. As it stands now, anyone who visits the log might think that those editors on the list may have been causing some form of trouble. I'm just not comfortable with that. Perhaps, since the log and the topic probation are new, a discussion should be approached on how exactly to use this list.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The notification really is not intended for "hose who unknowingly violate the probation." If you read the final sentence, it actually tells you: Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. As you suggest further discussion on this, I suggest that you make a comment at Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log. --TS 01:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you think that, but if you visit the log, there is no indication that what you are saying is true. A larger community discussion on how to use these notices and the log needs to begin. I will inform you of the discussion, when I figure out the best place to begin. As you are the one who has edited the log more than anyone, I think perhaps you should be aware that my view of how the log and the notices have utilized is not flattering.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a standard template, Template:Uw-probation. --TS 01:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ken Ham

He was once described as being "an embarrasment even to other creation scientists" so the comparison did seem a little excessive)) Best, Jprw (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It was an unnecessarily brutal comparison. I could have made the same point in a way less likely to cause offence. I regret adding to the acrimonious atmosphere. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 14:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Mrbill465?

Could you do your templating on User:Mrbill465? Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Arctic shrinkage wasn't on the probation radar because it's been so quiet. Of course if somebody is going to drop soap boxy stuff like that into the article, it should be on probation. I've added the relevant tags and notified the user in question. --TS 17:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, that, as far as I'm concerned, is a message to all intelligent, educated Wikipedians to stop writing about climate change if their intentions are to give due prominence to the state of the science. It looks like ownership, and whether it is ownership is irrelevant. Jehochman made similar comments a few weeks ago. Nobody can edit in such a corrosive atmosphere. The years of bad faith accusations have hit the mark in spades. I'll find other articles to edit. --TS 18:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed

With respect to your most recent comment on Lar's talk page, I agree - there is no room for editors who A. Care about the appearance of propriety, B. Understand the policies governing content on the encyclopedia, C. Are aware of the current science and D. Are not conservative activists. This is because the conflict has been successfully redefined as "Misplaced Pages regulars riding herd on good-faith newbies who just want the articles to be neutral," when in actuallity I suggest it is "Misplaced Pages regulars riding herd on bad-faith agenda-driven accounts who just want the articles to reflect their political views." The problem is that good faith editors who pass A, B and D, but fail C react to the narritative of "those regulars driving out good newbies," as opposed to "One sentence out of 700 pages isn't notable, regardless of what conservative activists put in their blogs." Hipocrite (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not even a matter of the individual issues, but take for example the Booker book. I've done the arguments to death on the talk page but they're being ignored and people are still trying to edit war the reference into the article. Multiple editors have individually and severally raised problems with Booker's reliability--sourced to reputable authorities on the fields on which he writes. But if those excellent arguments can be viewed--even for a moment--by an administrator as stubborn obduracy designed simply to keep non-majority criticism out of an article, then there's no sense in continuing. The quality of the arguments no longer matter, even the numbers of those opposing inclusion on well established policy grounds don't matter. It's a part of Misplaced Pages that is being cast adrift by some admins. t's a free-fire zone where every scientifically literate editor is a potential targetand where knowing your field is an active liability. --TS 18:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)On a further note, it would be very interesting if one of the massive hordes of people reading this and commenting oh-so-negatively about the conduct of the "owners" of these articles but were aware of the state of the science (IE, that the so called "owners" were right), could provide suggestions as to how the "owners" could deal with the "agenda-driven single purpose accounts who just want the articles to reflect their political views." I'd be very interested in listening to a well-informed gadfly who thought the tactics, not the result, were problematic. Certainly, one of those could be found, if there was a substantial and broad conduct problem amongst the regulars, right? Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not my concern. The next lot of editors who come after me will have to find a way of living with the assumption of bad faith that now hangs over the articles. --TS 18:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

After talking to Lar a bit more I think I may have misread what he was saying. We had one very bad falling out a few years ago but he is a good chap and always worth listening to. --TS 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean I'm not staying away. I want to wait at least until Muir Russell has made his report. --TS 23:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Another issue is that Misplaced Pages is harsh on experts, especially if you're not exceptionally good at suffering fools gladly. A Scottish historian was adding great content when someone decided to tag all his articles as lacking encyclopedic style, probably meaning that his writing style wasn't boring enough. As a published author he blew up about this, and retired hurt. Yet some admins are much more concerned that we should be nice to anti-science pov warriors, as in the dreaded vanished user case. But that's not what I came here to talk about, just to say thanks for the Shockwave Rider reference, amongst the greatest SF ever. My paperback copy has the image of a computer on the front cover, a large grey box with tape reels. Not sure if it'll hold together for another reading. . . dave souza, talk 09:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Here seems to be a good place for me to say, thanks - I'm impressed with the work all of you are putting in to the climate change articles. I find them too frustrating to edit myself. Hal peridol (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

2/0 made a appeal/request of multiple editors a few weeks ago. A copy of that request can be found here. Your comments made here appear to have the effect of diverting the discussion from the main point of the enforcement request, namely WMC's civility or lack thereof, to one of analyzing the behavior of other participants in the discussion. As such, it would seem to be off topic from the perspective of the request itself.

Please consider this my version of a pseudo-"templated" notification and request similar to those that you tend to deliver to other editors, and a friendly request to try and avoid disrupting these important deliberations moving forward. I think that 2/0 has tendered some good advice that you might benefit from as well so I just wanted to make you aware of it. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)