Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:32, 4 August 2010

Archive 1 12/2008 01/2009 02/2009 03/2009 04/2009 05/2009 06/2009 07/2009 09/2009 10/2009 11/2009 12/2009 cfwar 01/2010 02/2010 03/2010 04/2010 05/2010 06/2010 07/2010 08/2010 09/2010 10/2010 11/2010 12/2010 02/2011 03/2011 04/2011 05/2011 09/2011 10/2011 11/2011 12/2011 01/2012 02/2012 03/2012 04/2012 05/2012 06/2012 07/2012 08/2012 09/2012 10/2012 11/2012 12/2012 01/2013 02/2013 03/2013 04/2013 05/2013 06/2013 01/2014 02/2014 04/2014 05/2014 06/2014 GGsockfarms 12/2014 01/2015 02/2015 03/2015 04/2015 07/2015 11/2015 01/2016 11/2016 02/2017 10/2017 12/2017 11/2018 08/2020 11/2020 04/2021 05/2021 06/2021 07/2021 08/2021 09/2021 10/2021 11/2021 12/2021 01/2022 02/2022 03/2022 04/2022 05/2022 06/2022 07/2022 08/2022 09/2022 10/2022 11/2022 12/2022 01/2023 02/2023 03/2023 04/2023 05/2023 06/2023 07/2023 08/2023 09/2023 11/2023 05/2024 Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Pov tag on "Climate Research Unit email controversy"

You placed the tag on 7/16, and there is currently a discussion underway as to whether it is still warranted. If you feel it is, can you please explain the problem, and if not, can you remove? Thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably (hopefully) out enjoying his weekend. I'd give him till 7/27 or so, it is vacation season after all. That reminds me, why the hell am I not on vacation!? Arkon (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A response to this point would be appreciated, though I believe he is now in favor of the tag being removed. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Derek Smart Surrogate

Hipocrite, I don't know who I can go to. Since I no longer have an account that I can edit articles or talk page articles. An editor that is apparently another Derek Smart surrogate has edited a BLP, David_Allen_(game_designer) with what I consider problematic edits. Mr. Smart is currently involved in a civil suit with Mr. Allen. The David Allen article appears to me to contain multiple violations of policy violations. Derek Smart surrogates have been problematic in the past, something near a half dozen accounts banned. I suggest that semi-protecting the David Allen article may be considered. I would really appreciate attention to this matter. Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bill, I thought you had promised ArbCom that you would stay away from Derek Smart in Misplaced Pages because of your ongoing off-wiki feud with him. Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am asking for help on the David Allen article. BTW, on SirFozzie's talk page you have another opportunity to explain why you told ArbCom that brazen total lie about me. Bill Huffman (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, in case you aren't aware of it, Mr. Huffman runs a website dedicated to criticizing Derek Smart. Cla68 (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, you made this inaccurate statement before. The more accurate description, I believe is that the website is dedicated to documenting the Derek Smart flame war follies. In particular, those activities primarily focused on the Usenet portion of the Derek Smart flame war follies. Bill Huffman (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I apologize for bringing this additional distraction to your doorstep. In case the miscommunication here is mine, the issue that I'm asking for assistance on is the David_Allen_(game_designer) article. I would appreciate it if you could take a look. An editor, Wildcard999, has edited this article and may be an editor that has been banned multiple times for disruptive editing. I notice that Orlady has very recently looked at the article. Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Once bitten, twice shy. I don't edit bios related to possibly litigious persons. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle :-) Bill Huffman (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Monckton

Who's the aggrieved party you mentioned on SirFozzie's talk page? You don't mean SlimVirgin, do you? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

lol

Is it just me or do you share a sneaking suspicion that, lately, common logic is having to be spoon-fed to those who aren't much in the area of critical thinking? BigK HeX (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy based reasons for not using Climategate

Hi, just wondering if you've considered my 23:29, 29 July 2010 response to your 21:22, 29 July 2010 post at this page. Do we agree? Regards, --Yopienso (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Following people who have announced a desire to no longer deal with your vexatiousness to their talk page is highly problematic. Stop it. Hipocrite (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry--I missed or forgot your announcement. --Yopienso (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Deadly Serious???

Probably too strident. Try dialing back a little, please. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a long walk away from this talk page, Lar. You have no credibility here - your and SlimVirgin faction games, where you collaborate off-wiki to try to get people to scratch eachothers backs is so tired - especially when the failure to scratch back means that you start with the nonsense above. Go away. Don't come back. 05:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I'll warn you as and when I think it's necessary. Or block you if that's what's needful. You were out of line. Internalize it and stop with the bluster. That goes for your whole faction, in fact. Hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 05:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What's out of line is your faction lying about the facts. Over, and over and over again. And you - lying about the facts. You're threatening to block your adversaries in an arbcom case? Sounds deadly serious to me. Now, I'll take the last word - don't return to my talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

But wait nah...didn't good old Lar edit the CRU hack talk page? So now we have a new definition of "uninvolved" which not only excludes editors who import prior disputes, not only excludes people involved in active arbitration cases, it also excludes editors who actually edit pages in the subject area. Kewl. Guettarda (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, when Lar asks "Why do skeptic BLPs get stuffed and AGW alarmist BLPs get puffed?" ] - note the terminology there - it's pretty obvious that he's abandoned any pretence of neutrality. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: Yet again, you reveal a fundamental lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages basics. "Skeptic" is the most commonly used term by reliable sources. Therefore, it is the most neutral term to use. Likewise, "Climategate" is the most commonly used term for that article's topic; so it's the most neutral term. You've been on Misplaced Pages for far too long to keep making these beginner mistakes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to "AGW alarmist", which is both a violation of BLP and an obvious dog-whistle term. It's a bit of a give-away, don't you think? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

But we have an entire article devoted to Climate change alarmism. This isn't something I've researched too much, but I know that it was recently nominated for deletion and the community's decision was to keep. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know the specific "alarmists" to which Lar was referring. It's interesting that he used that term, given the frequency with which he himself has offered opinions on climate change that broadly fit the "alarmist" description. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am an "alarmist" in terms of my personal views on AGW. I'm just not a member of the "alarmist faction", or of any faction other than "trying to be a good wikipedian". If you have an accurately descriptive name that you'd prefer used for your faction instead, let me know. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That begs the question. You said, "Why do skeptic BLPs get stuffed and AGW alarmist BLPs get puffed?" Which BLPs are "alarmists"? ScottyBerg (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss any of this further, bring this to my talk page where there isn't a danger of my responses (or yours) being arbitrarily deleted. (this applies to anyone, not just you ScottyBerg...) ++Lar: t/c 21:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Without conceding the validity of your characterization ("arbitrarily deleted") above, have complied with your request. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Take this somewhere else, since my defense and responses such as this one get removed by Hipocrite. Accusing me of lying is a fairly serious breach of civility, you know... I'm wondering if Guettarda or ChrisO have a problem with that? As for Guettarda's charge, the edit I made carefully said I had no view on the particular tag but pointed out common practice. It seemed to have sparked a useful discussion. ++Lar: t/c 13:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Lar, you do seem to have a problem with factual accuracy. Please see User talk:Lar#Request for clarification. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep Lar, I wasn't saying you weren't uninvolved. I was just commenting on your ever-expanding definition of "uninvolved". As for accusing you of lying - well, I suppose there are some hairs to split. Calling yourself "uninvolved" is, of course, a falsehood. But there's more than one way to use the word "lying". Mostly people use it in reference to statements that are false, and that the person making the statement should have known to be false. Obviously, given the past discussions, it's reasonable to assume that you knew that the statement was false. There's another use of lying, of course, that goes specifically to intent. It's entirely possible to concoct scenarios wherein it is possible that your intent was not to deceive, despite the fact that you should have known what you said was a falsehood. But if I had to choose between "falsehood but not a lie" and "using 'lie' in a relatively loose sense", I think the latter requires far fewer convolutions. So while I'd rather stay out of it, since you asked I would have to say that Hip's use of "lying" is far less egregious than your use of "uninvolved". So Lar, consider yourself warned, that you should not make false claims of "uninvolvement", like you did here, and Hip, you should be a little more parsimonious in your use of "lying". Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. If you want to warn me about something you'll have to be far more coherent than that, and you'll have to do it on my talk, not here. You and ChrisO are really on a roll, ABF-wise though. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You asked for my opinion. When you ask for someone's opinion, it's really bad form to attack them when you don't like an answer you get. As for assuming bad faith - on the contrary, I went to great lengths to try to assume good faith. But the point is that your statement is a falsehood, and you should be aware of that. Guettarda (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

New sanction for CC articles

You may wish to take a look at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Article tags. Sincerely, NW (Talk) 22:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Out of curiosity, why did you modify WMC comment here? Was it an accident? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That is a failure of the new edit-conflict parser.

Furious edits

Chalk it up to being furious, but if you cannot keep from letting your emotions get the best of you and behaving incivility, I will enforce that wikibreak for you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I don't know if you saw it, but Greg has now stated he wasn't aware of your dyslexia when he made that comment. I hope when you re-read this in a calmer mood in a few hours or days, you'll agree that the whole thing looks a lot less harmful under that assumption.

I hope you'll calm down and do your part of what needs to be done to restore peace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not common knowledge that you were dyslexic. It is now, since you added a userbox to your userpage, but I had no idea, and apparently, a lot of other editors were in the dark as well. Hopefully, you will simmer down and return in the near future, but understand that not everyone is familiar with other editors' personal issues, especially when there is no indication about said issues. Horologium (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've removed a couple of posts that appeared to inflame the situation more than to solve it and engaged in further unnecessary sniping. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

FPAS missed one, I've removed it ++Lar: t/c 13:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I'm sorry that you were insulted and treated poorly. To me it seems there may be a negative campaign going on here. It pains me that your reaction seems to be exactly what they were hoping for. The environment will be improved. If you want to be, you can be an important member that can help make that happen. Hopefully after a good nights sleep and reflection you can return healed and refreshed. Bill Huffman (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)