Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tisthammerw (talk | contribs) at 05:02, 11 April 2010 (→Peer review and Sternberg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

¡Oh Gloria Inmarcesible!

Hola, yo traduje los versos III a XI del himno nacional. Gracias por tus comentarios. Creo que tienes toda la razón en lo de las termópilas y ya lo cambié. Respecto a lo de la flor, no estoy segura...cuando se dice, "la flor estremecida mortal el viento hallando," el adjetivo "mortal" debe referirse al viento, no a la flor, sino se diría, "la flor estremecida mortalmente". Además el verbo "hallando" tiene que referirse a cómo halla la flor al viento, y la única posibilidad es mortal (por ello la flor busca refugio). Adiós, Rosa 19:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

al propósito...

Welcome!

Hello, Yopienso, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Este es el formato normal de bienvenida que está en inglés y es de mucha ayuda cuando uno recién comienza a conocer Misplaced Pages.
Muchas gracias por escribir tus comentarios en el discussion page antes de editar el artículo. Aunque en principio en Misplaced Pages se permite editar con libertad, cuando no se está seguro es mejor discutir primero en el discussion(talk) page del artículo. De nuevo bienvenida (o bienvenido, no se jeje)  Rosa 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mace of the United States House of Representatives

Yopienso, I have not edited that article. I tagged the article's Talk Page as part of WikiProject Congress, but have not edited the article itself. I will work to revise it, but had nothing to do with it other than that. If you look at my edits from the last six months, you will find them well researched and cited. The plagerism comment on my talk page comes from an edit I made when I first joined Misplaced Pages over a year ago and didn't quite 'get it'. As for being a person of reknown, I assure you I am not. Thanks--Daysleeper47 13:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wagar

Yopienso, I've identified the"Wagar" referred to on the By the Waters of Babylon page. Rojomoke (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR and SYN

Hi, you've been here for quite a while so I'm sure you'll know that our WP:3RR policy prohibits edit warring at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed or any other article: good that you're talking the issues over. I've left quite a long comment at the section you raised at Editor assistance to try to explain the issues – the extended quote you propose presents a novel synthesis, in breach of WP:SYN, which had not been published in a reliable secondary source as required by WP:PSTS. It's a good idea to become familiar with the whole WP:NOR policy, or at least read it through when in doubt. Rather large and complex, but there for good reasons. Hope that helps, dave souza, talk 09:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave--I've answered you on your talk page. I learned the ropes once, but have forgotten many of the ins and outs, for which I apologize. Yopienso (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Yopienso. I've been following the Darwin quote issue, and I think it comes down to a small misunderstanding. The issue isn't whether or not you're right or wrong (and yes, obviously there is more to Darwin's original quotation than reported by Scientific American), but the issue -is- what we can and cannot include in the article. For that particular section, the main reference is the sciam article, and because scientific american didn't include the entire quotation, we cannot, either. To do so would be putting words in Scientific American's mouth.

My personal feeling is that SciAm made an editorial decision when choosing the length of Darwin's quotation, for any of a number of reasons, possibly even just to save space in their article. While context is important, editors often have to make these choices. Why stop at the paragraph? Why not quote the entire chapter or book?

SciAm might have made an error in cutting off the quotation where they did (though, in my opinion, Expelled was worse...they chopped up entire paragraphs and sentences, leaving out key words and phrases that completely changed the meaning of what was said, even to a casual reader), but that's not for Misplaced Pages to decide. SciAm is the source, we have to report what the sources say. I'm sure that if you could find a better source for that section of the article that could be cited, there wouldn't be an objection to modifying the article.

I hope this helps...Quietmarc (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk page, Yopienso, I've replied there at length to keep the conversation together. Agree with Quietmarc, the sources may not be ideal but we have to be careful not to misrepresent them or go beyond them, and a minor creationist film is unlikely to attract many peer reviewed studies. . . dave souza, talk 19:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dave--Nope, no edit warring from me.

Marc--Hello! Thanks for chiming in. You wrote, "For that particular section, the main reference is the sciam article, and because scientific american didn't include the entire quotation, we cannot, either." When I came across the article, it already had the two references that are still there, footnotes #'s 75, to the SciAm article, and 76, to the text of Darwin's The Descent of Man. I would not want to misrepresent SciAm, but I object to their misrepresenting Darwin. As Nerdseeksblonde said, if we can't complete the quote SciAm mined from the original, we should just drop it. But I think if I delete it, Dave will restore it. No point in that. That's why I'm going to try to go up a level. I still cannot for the life or me understand why a primary source is banned, unless maintaining political correctness is a greater goal than accuracy and truth. For example, in the Wiki article on George Washington, footnote #32 leads to Washington's original writing, not to a book or magazine or newspaper. That's all I'm requesting.

Is the difference between the Expelled... article in Wiki and the one in George Washington that one is a movie review? No, can't be--the reviews of Mary Poppins and Secondhand Lions, for two examples of Wiki reviews, are not so carefully footnoted. This is what leads me to the conclusion that it is to protect Darwin's legacy at the expense of suppressing what he wrote. Just take a look at Dave's talk page to see what a champion of Darwin and opponent of creationists he is.

Please show me where I'm mistaken if I am. Yopienso (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey again, Yopienso. I'm definitely not an expert on wiki policy, so I'll be following the mediation (or however this discussion continues). I still think that the quotation is fine as is, but the reason gets more subtle. If the article was on Darwin, or Darwin's views, then I would be siding with you, but the article in question is on a film, and this section is specifically about what the film says about Darwin and eugenics, and how the experts respond to the film's claims. Because Darwin couldn't have responded to the film (he's dead), we can't use his words. We have to use an expert's interpretation of his words.

It's a -very- small leap to guess what Darwin might have thought about eugenics given his entire passage, but in this case it is a leap, and that's where the OR and SYNTH comments come from. You're making an assumption (albeit one that's very natural to make), and on wikipedia, in this case, we can't let that assumption in. We have to use the assumptions and responses of experts, even if their perspectives are incomplete.

I really don't think that Dave et al are trying to "protect" evolution or obfuscate the issue, I think that they're trying to uphold a subtle piece of NPOV. But again, I'll be watching to see how the discussion goes....Quietmarc (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Out for a few days...

Hi - just to let you know I'm off for the weekend (it's Friday night here) so I won't be around to carry on the mediation until my Monday morning (Australia time).

I can certainly see both sides of the issue at the moment. I think you have a very strong point in that it is clear that SciAm misquoted Darwin in order to accuse Stein of misquoting Darwin.

However I also see the argument that anything we do that even hints at making that observation could be deemed as a violation of WP:NOR, and that could easily include extending the quote beyond what SciAm used. You are also basically at risk of appearing to comment on the SciAm article instead of the documentary, (this is why I asked about the "direct relationship" issue).

Of course mediation has yet to continue and I stress that I have NO authority whatsoever to "judge" the issue. I'm just speculating on how things might pan out, based on my years of policy experience. I don't think anyone is trying to bias the article in any direction.

I'd also advise you to avoid EVER using the phrase "common sense". Although I know exactly what you mean, this phrase has a charged meaning in Wikiland. Everything on Misplaced Pages now gets done in terms of policy, basically because no-one can agree on what constitutes "common sense".

While I am away, please look for a secondary source (eg. a different article) that illustrates this selective quoting by SciAm in the context of the film. If you can find one then this entire dispute will automatically disappear. (The web comment you found doesn't count, unfortunately).

Talk on Monday, Manning (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up as well as for your ear and advice.

Odd--official Wiki policy requires using common sense. I've edited my comment to show that. It seems the letter of the law here is violating the spirit of the law--obviously the intention of the policy is to prevent cranks from blathering on about all kinds of nonsense, or, conversely, hopeful writers from trying the public waters at Wiki first. I realize policy develops as situations are encountered and this clause may be obsolete. Too bad; it seems designed specifically for cases like this one, where I'm not making anything up but just want the whole context given. I think the very fact that people objected to including the last sentence reveals a bias they hold: Never allow anything--not even his own words--that could possibly be construed as casting Our Exalted Darwin in a poor light.

Policy can never cover every situation; therefore common sense is required. That's why we have the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution--no amount of legal logorrhea can ever cover every contingency. (Oh--you're Australian--they just basically say, "We couldn't list all the people's rights, and whatever we didn't take from them is still theirs even though it's not down on paper.")

I can't understand why I have to find a reliable article that comments on the biased SciAm article. Of course I won't find one. Who goes around writing things like that? I've never caught, for example, USN&WR second-guessing somebody else's article. Why not just ignore that article and compare Stein's quote to Darwin's original? There's no synthesis there--it would go, "Stein said blah-blah-blah. Darwin's actual text reads blah-blah-blah." I don't see how insisting on saying, "Smith says Darwin said" makes for a better encyclopedia than simply, "Darwin said." In fact, this whole process has taught me Wiki isn't half the encyclopedia I thought it was. Encyclopedia Britannica hires knowledgeable people to write accurate stories. During this process I've discovered Jimmy Wales actually said he doesn't care what the truth is; all he cares about is that his policy is followed. It's his site and he can make whatever rules he wants, but now that I know them I respect the work far less. At least I am fair warned and will be alert in the future when I consult it on any subject that has any PC issues: do not trust.

Just to check how correct my conclusions were, I very appropriately added some information to the article on Richard Sternberg. Shot right down. I'm not going to argue with the PC boys over there. Finding websites that contradict each other has been frustrating. I have given up knowing the truth about the Smithsonian-Sternberg controversy. Somebody or everybody is lying and I have no way of knowing who. Certainly have to take Wiki's PC stance with a grain of salt. Nobody cares that the Mary Poppins article is poorly sourced, nobody cares that an article I wrote on the Caqueta River is unsourced. No, there's an agenda here: allow all kinds of shoddy work, but strictly keep the PC gate.

I do appreciate all the excellent editing people such as yourself do, all the effort to bring order out of chaos, to revert vandalism and weed out cranks and take time to listen to honest but perplexed people, to say nothing of writing and correcting.

I will be very busy the next couple of days in preparation for a short trip Sunday and Monday, and may just have to drop this, which might be a mercy. I had originally planned to appeal all the way up the line to the very top but, honestly, I've lost my faith in Wiki and am losing the heart for trying to make sense of it all.Yopienso (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

PS It's 2:15 in the morning here and I'm drained and discouraged, feel like I've wasted days of my time. If later I regret being so morose I'll apologize. Have a great weekend!

Hi

Hi Yopienso, I only know about you because I copy edit Dave souza's article, such as History of evolutionary thought, Fertilisation of Orchids, The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, On the Origin of Species. I completely understand feeling morose. Don't lose heart! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi from me too, a clarification: History of evolutionary thought and On the Origin of Species are articles by Rusty Cashman, I've helped out a bit with these, particularly the latter one. Thanks for removing your remarks about Shoemaker's Holiday, my feeling was that it was worth going ahead with mediation without bringing him into the argument but his views will still have to be taken into account, however bluntly they've been put in the past. As for the issue of using primary sources, our aim here has to be to use secondary sources for any interpretation or selection to avoid introducing our own interpretation. This is the opposite of good scholarly practice for historians, but makes sense where editing is open to everyone and we can't check expert credentials. Some use of primary sources to back up secondary sources is welcomed, but of course it's a bit of a judgement call. Not always easy, as I've been reminded! . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Yopienso...I've been eavesdropping on the talk pages of Dave and Mattisse regarding the mediation, and have noticed that you seem somewhat deflated by how it's progressed. I'm hoping that we can continue this, as I'm fairly new at being active on wikipedia (long-time lurker), and this is one of my first opportunities to see how mediation works from beginning to end. From what I've seen, this is an ideal situation, where the editors involved are assuming good faith and are willing to devote their time to resolving this.

To digress a bit, I ended up "defending" wikipedia to my dentist this morning when he mentioned how the pages change every day. What I told him was that at least these articles are sourced transparently, but what I could have elaborated on (had his hands not been in my mouth) was that for every article, the development is completely transparent: the discussion about this relatively obscure point on a relatively obscure article is recorded...any user can read the Expelled article and, if he cares to, follow the discussion about Darwin's full quote, the SciAm article, and the questions of what those editing choices mean.

On many (evolution) articles, many of the discussion page comments are more about ideology than about improving the article, so it's refreshing to see people engaged in a sincere attempt to grapple with wiki policy and to make the encyclopedia better. This is not to say that I'll agree with you, but I've appreciated your honest attempts to follow through with this issue, and I hope you are able to find the motivation to continue. Quietmarc (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

. Bazj (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

and again...

. Bazj (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've created a talk page for that user--wonder if he'll ever see it.  ???

I've never done a Talkback; crossing my fingers to do it right. Yopienso (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Latin America HDI

Hello there. Thank's for your help to translate the Spanish text. How do you can see English and Spanish aren't my primary language. I think that the editors should make a decision in this article. I already post a source saying what we can't make this list, but the user Prodigynet are very authoritarian and always undo my changes and he even tried to block me. I suspect that him has other accounts, like TownDown and now PuebloUnited. If it's true, it goes against the rules of Misplaced Pages. Why don't you review the page or ask to editors to review? Thank's very much.--Italodal (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit

Copy edit means I go through the article to make sure it is well written, with no grammar or wording errors. I am usually not the content expert. I did not know there was a mediation over evolution. I do know from experience that mediation can be very difficult and draining. I was interested in you because I thought, perhaps, you are fluent in Spanish. Also, you have such a wonderful way of expressing yourself. I wish I could copy it! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

February 2010

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Thank you. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 15:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must respectfully yet emphatically disagree with you. As I said, I spent many hours working with a number of editors on this. I will not get into an edit war with you, a PC gatekeeper, nor a discussion here, as we both know what I said yesterday is true. If you want some history on my hours of work and good faith attempts, see archive 11 on the EE article and this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-07-07/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

Dave Souza I have found to be a respectful person. He and I are of different persuasions, but able to communicate intelligently and politely. He has integrity and follows the rules by his lights, as I do. Several other editors exhibited the same good character; a few did not.

Misplaced Pages is definitely PC and does have a strong controlling bias. As I said in the helpful comment you removed, once a user recognizes the bias, Wiki is doubly useful.

Happy Valentine's Day! Yopienso (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop referring to Misplaced Pages as "wiki". "Wiki" is either a Hawaiian word meaning "quick" or a type of software. Misplaced Pages is a wiki. It would be like me referring to you, randomly, as "editor" and expecting everyone to know I meant you, specifically. Its nonsense. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the faux pas

I am still trying to get used to Wiki etiquette. Thanks for your advice. I am hoping that there is a chance that Misplaced Pages could be better. I agree with you that there really isn't much out there that isn't biased one way or the other. But I think that it is possible to make Misplaced Pages better, even with the current rules and the biases of the senior editors.

I made my changes to the Richard Sternberg article and will move on the Expelled after a few days.

I am not asking you to get involved, and I think that I can win when I move my debate back over to Expelled. But I am not asking for your help. I just thought you might be interested since you had a similar experience as I.

Anyway, God bless you and let's keep in touch.

Math Mathezar (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Souder Report included in Wiki article

Yopienso, I thought you might be interested to know that I think that I will be able to get the McDiarmid quote from the Souder report included in the Richard Sternberg article. Then I will take the debate back to the Expelled discussion page. Some editor tried to use an article from Scientific American to "prove" that the report was unreliable. But failed to read the entire article which stated that the quotes and appendix of the Souder report ARE reliable.

Anyway, I think I have won this round. I expect that when the Sternberg page is corrected all heck will break loose when I move the discussion back to Expelled. Thanks for your advice and pray for me as this debate heats up, as I know it will.

God bless, Math Mathezar (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I see your contribution has been allowed to stand, but unfortunately, the link to the BSW journal has died. Suddenly. Mysteriously. I was independently visiting that site myself yesterday in regards to the intelligent design article, and copied and pasted the the very same link into a document so I wouldn't lose it. Dead. Soon after I posted this link on Feb. 15, 2010,

http://souder.house.gov/system/uploads/31/original/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf?1254246064

the page went from being the full report with appendix to just the cover page of the report.

C'est la vie.

Absolutely no problem about any faux pas. Yopienso (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Etc.

Thanks for broadening my perception on the use of "Climategate."

You're a climber--cool! My son climbs mountains, frozen waterfalls, rock cliffs. I manage to climb out of bed in the morning! Best, Yopienso (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, may I suggest it's useful to bear WP:TL;DR in mind. On climbing, I don't do rock climbing, but Scottish hillwalking involves going up rather steep and tricky mountains, so "walked" rather understates that particular hill. Your son would probably have found it fun, but might have gone up the crags we skirted around! . . dave souza, talk 19:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, thank you, Dave. I conducted my own poll today and found the people in my immediate vicinity are quite unaware of the whole flap. Perhaps I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. Of 20 adults, 3 recognized both "CRU hacking incident" and "Climategate." The others recognized neither, but half of them were dimly aware of some trouble over some hacked emails somewhere in England that allegedly show scientists fudging data. This was a very casual, unscientific poll, but it did make me think I'm attaching too much importance to the issue.

"Omit unnecessary words!" The humorous part is that Strunk uttered that dictum thrice in a row for emphasis! As I have done on several occasions. Will try to practice what I preach without being a gruff Hemingway.

Here's my son a few years ago on a hike with two friends, one of whom created the pamphlet for the Park Service. My boy's wearing the black "jumper," as I think you call them over there. http://www.nps.gov/wrst/planyourvisit/upload/Skookum%20Creek.pdf Best, Yopienso (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

To whom it may concern

You are most welcome, and I greatly appreciate your acceptance. I will try to figure out how to archive comments, as I have absolutely no idea how that's done. Today I'm short of time in real life. You have already archived your talk page and removed your name from my comment about titles on the article talk page. The only other place I know of is above on this page with Dave Souza, on your notice above, and right here. Dave just may come by and at least point me to the instructions on archiving. If there are more comments you'd like me to remove, please advise. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The easiest way is to create a subpage of this page - click on User talk:Yopienso/Archive 1 and cut'n'paste the conversations you wish to archive there, noting in the edit summaries that you have done so. When that page gets inconveniently large, just start copying to /Archive 2. The full instructions as well as alternative methods are at Help:Archiving a talk page. Personally, I use MiszaBot| to automatically archive stale discussions. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Apollo 13 did not explode

The NASA pages you refer to were written as public relations and are not authoritative. Please read the Apollo 13 article which corrects the misconception and refers to the official NASA investigation. The word "explosion" is never used there; they determined that the tank ruptured or burst in response to the pressure, as it was designed to do, not "exploded" as ground control feared at the time (which is why they were afraid of engine or heat shield damage which never occurred.)

It doesn't matter if the whole world calls it an "explosion"; they are wrong.

A similar thing happened when the Space Shuttle Challenger was destroyed; it certainly looked and sounded to everyone involved like an "explosion" but the official investigation determined that was not what happened, and the Misplaced Pages article is very careful to avoid calling it an explosion. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This, "the tank ruptured or burst in response to the pressure," describes an explosion.

b. A violent bursting as a result of internal pressure. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/explosion

I'm curious as to why you want to avoid the word. WP is not a technical journal but an encyclopedia for the general public. At WP, it does matter what the whole world calls it. Please don't be pedantic. Yopienso (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is, why are you on a cruisade to keep the word in, and only in this particular incident? The world probably still refers to the "Challenger explosion."' Why aren't you equally concerned about Space Shuttle Challenger disaster? The exact same situation applies there, and the public perception of an explosion must be even greater. The technical analysis says it did not explode but rather disintegrated, and Misplaced Pages reports it as such. (Even I, myself was surprised by something I missed in the popular press.)

• The word "explosion" carries biased emotional connotations of serious danger, damage, and injury, usually involving fire and fragmentation into shrapnel. One would expect (emotionally) an "explosion" to do much more physical damage than occurred on Apollo 13. As it was, the damage was limited to the oxygen tanks and the fuel cells which killed the power; that was quite enough. The danger to the astronauts was that of suffocation and being entombed in a high earth orbit.
• I added the appendix to the review board's report as a citation, the same as is used in the Apollo 13 article in the section which explains the misconception.
• Are you familiar with the fallacy of requiring one to disprove a negative? Where is the citation that it was an explosion? Ron Howard and Tom Hanks aren't reliable sources. :-) The Review Board's report of course didn't get much popular press coverage at the time, and I don't think most people thought about it much over the last 40 years, until the movie came out, which I think reinforces perception of "explosion".
• Yes, I agree that technical details are beyond the scope of a biography; but technical ignorance of the public doesn't trump facts, and technical, scientific and historical facts are not out of scope of an encyclopedia. That said, it really ought to be unnecessary to go into the details here, which are covered in Apollo 13. But there seems to be a bit more in this section that is redundant to the article, including the sound link. Maybe Lovell's missions should be converted to main article links accompanied by brief descriptions, and this style should be used for all astronaut (and cosmonaut) biographies (in the classical space program; it obviously becomes impractical for Shuttle and ISS.) What do you think? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Justin. I would ask you to retract the word "crusade," however. Due to my accidentally posting on your page and my page rather than the article talk page, you may have missed my recent post on the article talk page with a link to an msnbc debunking of a Challenger explosion. I will put my comments on that page. Yopienso (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Accusations

You have made some pretty serious accusations of dishonesty against me. I have asked you for sources. Please supply the sources that you claim I have "ignored", or retract your accusations. Guettarda (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have been writing each other at the same time, so this may be redundant. 1. The sources are on the Archive 30 of the CRU talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_30#List_of_reliable_sources_which_use_the_term_.22Climategate.22 in several places: first, in a collapsible file at the top, then in a table further down the page. I have more recently posted two from the BBC and one from the UEA, which I will reproduce here. I'm surprised you didn't see it when I originally posted it; it still hasn't been archived, and is in the "Jimbo Wales' editorial status" section.

"Sir Muir Russell is currently conducting an Independent Review of the issues surrounding what has become known as ‘Climategate’ and we very deliberately made our handling of FOI requests part of the terms of reference. I look forward to receiving his report and as I have said before it will be published and I will act accordingly if he finds there is indeed substance in these allegations." http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/vcstatement

2. Please specify the perceived accusations.

I hope, if unable to come to an agreement on the issues, we can amicably "agree to disagree." 22:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As I explained in the section you linked to, these sources do not discuss usage of the term. The fact that you linked to that section makes it pretty clear that you are not acting in good faith. I'm fed up with your . Find someone else to harass. Guettarda (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, I am not interested in arguing with you. Please come by anytime you should wish to outline the issue to me in a friendly way. Yopienso (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Floppy Disk Drives and Media

Since this doesn't actually belong on the Floppy Disk page, Talk or not:

A selection of 3.5" USB floppy drives that you should be able to hang off any laptop or desktop with a USB port. Windows is certainly supported, but you might need to verify driver availability for other OSs:

http://www.cdw.com/shop/search/results.aspx?wclss=T8&cx=0

And some 3.5" media selections:

http://www.cdw.com/shop/search/results.aspx?wclss=T45&pCurrent=1

Rwessel (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness and helpfulness!  :) Yopienso (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul Hudson

The discussion in the article talk page is already getting fairly long but in case you're still confused, I thought I'd post a simple bullet point version here:

• Did Paul Hudson receive some of the e-mails that were contained in the hacked archive?

Yes.

• Who sent Paul Hudson these e-mails?

It is unclear precisely who, it may be multiple parties, it is clear it's someone who was part of the discussion and therefore had legitimate access to these e-mails.

• What did several blogs, the Daily Mail and other sources get wrong?

They imply that Paul Hudson was aware of the hack early on. This is clearly untrue, since PH had no way of knowing that the criticism he received as part of his everyday work, by people involved in that criticism would later be stolen and illegitimately release. Some even go as far as to imply that he was sent the entire hacked archive early on which is clearly nonsense since some of the e-mails are from after PH received thhe e-mails.

• Why didn't Paul Hudson speak up earlier before the hack?

Paul Hudson was planning to write an article or blog on the feedback he had received relating to his article, however as explained above, he had no knowledge there had been a hack, so there was nothing to speak up upon. There is no reason why he had to mention he had received feedback including criticism of his article.

• Surely Paul Hudson should have realised the e-mails he received were going to later be stolen and released by some third party?

Sorry Paul Hudson isn't psychic so he had no way of knowing that criticism he received as part of everday journalism were going to later be stolen by a third party and released illegitimately. If he was psychic he probably would be living in luxury with his lottery winnings and not worrying about all this shit.

• Okay even if he isn't psyhic, surely he should have realised that if people were criticising him, someone was going to get angry enough to hack into their computers and steal and release their e-mails including that criticism of him to try and embarass the people criticising him?

Paul Hudson is probably not that arrogant. Also Paul Hudson would be disappointed if he was, since few people even care about the criticism of Paul Hudson. Also, we have no reason to think the hack happened because people criticised Paul Hudson.

• Why is it necessary in the FAQ?

Several people are still confused by this point, including apparently you and the chairman of the ABC and still think Paul Hudson received part or the entirety of the hack early on, as explained above this is untrue, Paul Hudson knew nothing of the hack until he read about it.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Hi Yopienso

You wrote this on the ID page.

"This article covers a lot of great material and it helpfully summarizes the scientific consensus. But it seems like WP:NPOV is beginning to slip through disregard of WP:UNDUE. Noting in the lead that ID is "not science/pseudoscience/junk science" is totally appropriate, doing so five different times seems like a bit much--more than a bit really. Saying that there is a clear scientific consensus against ID is likewise totally appropriate, saying that the consensus is "unequivocal" seems like slight over-reach, especially considering the statement is connected to a footnote that states that "over 700 scientists" support ID. Also, some of the counter-points in the sections dedicated to the specific ID arguments give the impression that any stick is good enough to beat the theory. There must be better responses to "specified complexity" than Richard Dawkins' amateurish forays into philosophy that were met with chagrin by professional atheist philosophers like Thomas Nagel... not to mention the almost gleeful refutations by Christians like Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig. And Victor Stenger, against fine-tuning, really? The issue of fine-tuning's appropriateness on this page aside, given Stenger's marginal standing in the field and open misotheism, why in the world is he the go-to critic here and not someone like Martin Rees or David Malet Armstrong? I'm afraid that the FA quality of this article is in serious jeopardy. Please, regular editors, get the article in shape so it can keep its FA status. Eugene (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)"

I just want to say I appreciate your engagement against the nasty treatment of ID. Thanks. COMDER (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review and Sternberg

I saw the little bit you had in here. It's a valiant effort, but I found there was a surprisingly high amount of obstinate thinking. For example, I found the "Sternberg paper was not peer-reviewed" questionable, and I noted that the citation allegedly supporting this claim did not actually support the claim (you can see how that went here). Incredible as it may seem, this fell on deaf ears, as did many other reasonable objections on various Misplaced Pages writings regarding intelligent design. Even now, this sentence, "Sternberg's claim of following proper peer review procedures directly contradicts the published public statement of his former employer, the publisher of the journal, that the proper procedures were not followed resulting in the article's retraction" still has the attached questionable citation.

Bitter opponents of intelligent design seemed almost immune to reason. While I can understand how one might not like the theory, the loathing goes to far as to (however unintentionally) distort the facts and ignore inconvenient evidence against dubious claims. --Wade A. Tisthammer (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)