| Revision as of 15:06, 22 October 2010 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,029 edits →ATren: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:26, 22 October 2010 edit undoTasty monster (talk | contribs)1,023 edits ATren and WMC in rare agreement--that it's all my fault. To paraphrase Adam Savage, "My work here is done"Next edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| :::::I should have poked more, but RL... I doubt he's actually read the arbcom decision. ] (]) 11:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | :::::I should have poked more, but RL... I doubt he's actually read the arbcom decision. ] (]) 11:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::::: Another recently returned editor referred to a report on a science blog that reports on global warming from a skeptical point of view, that the arbitration was about breaking a "clique" that controlled article content. Unfortunately this makes some of these returning editors likely to attribute any lack of success to continued cliquism. Since some of them are quite determined to push a climate skeptical point of view, this is set up for a self-fulfilling prophecy. --] 11:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | :::::: Another recently returned editor referred to a report on a science blog that reports on global warming from a skeptical point of view, that the arbitration was about breaking a "clique" that controlled article content. Unfortunately this makes some of these returning editors likely to attribute any lack of success to continued cliquism. Since some of them are quite determined to push a climate skeptical point of view, this is set up for a self-fulfilling prophecy. --] 11:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ==ATren== | |||
| I can perhaps understand why maybe you brought me into that mess, perhaps having misinterpreted my sincere question to Lar. But when I asked you to retract and apologize for your error, you simply ignored it. Why is that Tony? The diff you cited was a question to Lar, and was clearly not in any way addressed at WMC, whom I've almostly avoided for ''months'' now. So why would you allow that implication to stand? I'm frankly sick of people misrepresenting my actions -- it happened during that entire case and it's still happening. Please retract your accusation. Even though the section is closed, I would like a retraction either here, on my talk, or perhaps even within the hatted section. I will not have my reputation here further sullied by groundless accusations. ] (]) 13:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm not ignoring it. I've acknowledged it. At this stage your involvement in that thread and the involvement of several other editors who are supposed to be topic banned from processes related to climate change creates a grave problem and I've decided not to exacerbate it by further involvement. I recommend that you take the topic ban seriously and find other things to think about. Anything else I could say would only encourage you in further risky behavior that might break your ban. --] 14:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| (sorry for butting into this thread; remove this if you like) I don't think this most recent episode has been your finest hour; indeed I think you got it badly wrong. But I hope it won't dissuade you fron continuing the good work you have been doing on the misc Cl Ch article talk pages in calming folks down, etc ] (]) 15:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:26, 22 October 2010
User talk:Tony Sidaway/Notices
Views of Prominent Climate Sceptics
Any idea if anything needs to be done about this? Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- This appears to be a content fork of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I think a merge would be best. Tasty monster (=TS ) 10:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'll leave that for someone else, I was just wondering really if it might be a rename of a deleted article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I honestly wouldn't know that. Perhaps there are editors who have spent longer on this topic than my 12 months or so, who might know. --TS 10:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Your memory seems better than mine, lol. I'd completely forgotten that, I don't often touch this area. We'll see what happens next. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh I just poked around and there it all was. He's assuming he can do stuff that didn't succeed before, and if that doesn't work he seems to be saying that it will be reported elsewhere. His reference to the "supposed change in attitude towards 'climate skeptic' views" seems to come from misreporting of the recent arbitration in some traditional media and blog sources. --TS 11:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I should have poked more, but RL... I doubt he's actually read the arbcom decision. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Another recently returned editor referred to a report on a science blog that reports on global warming from a skeptical point of view, that the arbitration was about breaking a "clique" that controlled article content. Unfortunately this makes some of these returning editors likely to attribute any lack of success to continued cliquism. Since some of them are quite determined to push a climate skeptical point of view, this is set up for a self-fulfilling prophecy. --TS 11:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I should have poked more, but RL... I doubt he's actually read the arbcom decision. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh I just poked around and there it all was. He's assuming he can do stuff that didn't succeed before, and if that doesn't work he seems to be saying that it will be reported elsewhere. His reference to the "supposed change in attitude towards 'climate skeptic' views" seems to come from misreporting of the recent arbitration in some traditional media and blog sources. --TS 11:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Your memory seems better than mine, lol. I'd completely forgotten that, I don't often touch this area. We'll see what happens next. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)