Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:27, 3 February 2009

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

SmackBot suggestions

Hi Andrew, thanks for the note. SamckBot is run on a batch basis so most of this stuff would be difficult, however there is a COIbot that looks for autobiographical articles.

It would however be possible to tag for lack of inline citations, and maybe lack of references. Rich Farmbrough, 09:24 15 January 2009 (UTC).

Current sea level rise

I've debated your recent addition to Current Sea Level Rise on the article's talk page. The main issues are (a) the comparability of the Laurentide Ice Sheet with Greenland and (b) the limitations on glacier flow rates. Thanks. Awickert (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was jsut trying to make the point it's worth looking at. People are too complacent! I've included the reference in other related articles such as arctic shrinkage, effects of global warming etc.

(I moved your comment from my talk page to here to keep it together.) I understand what you're trying to do, and I think that global warming and sea level rise are big issues too. The problem is that Misplaced Pages is more about being right than about spreading activism for a cause, so it's really important to keep the science very correct, especially since there are always accusations of Misplaced Pages favoring one side or the other on things in the public light. And that's the problem about attaching something, even published in a scientific journal, that is an end-member prediction, in the lead paragraph. So even if we accept sea level rise as a big issue, we have to make sure we look at all the science. And I hope I didn't come across as too harsh - if I did, I'm really sorry. Awickert (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Just a couple of little things since it looks like you're new here. First, you shouldn't delete material from talk pages, as it's important to have a record, and can make things confusing. Second, next time articles are discussed (and I'm not sure I'm finished with this one, as I might still muck around with it), it should be done on the article's talk page, so everyone can see it easily - I was really just trying to leave you a note to say what I'd done in case you weren't watching the page.

But in general, thanks for your contributions.

Awickert (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Global warming

You're addition in Global warming has been been removed because it was undercited (WP:V WP:RS). The discussion for this removal can be found at Talk:Global warming#"Unduly Optimistic?". ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Advocacy and Importance

The only reason I said that Misplaced Pages isn't for advocacy, is because I couldn't think of any reason other than using the global warming article as advocacy to consider the global warming article to be the most important article on Misplaced Pages. Importance of articles depends on a your perspective and interests. To me, even though I haven't improved the articles, the set of articles on Crocodlians are the most important articles on this encyclopedia. - Enuja (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

References

When adding references, it's best to add a full reference instead of just a URL. Fortunately, you can use the following tags to cite things via DOI or ISBN, and then use an automatic reference formatter to get the rest of the citation. (I have one, so if you don't want to go through the hassle on the Global warming lead, just cite the DOI or ISBN and I'll take care of it.)

{{cite book|isbn=}}

{{cite book|isbn=}}

Awickert (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a template for cite web which can help, but I don't think it can be done automatically, as there isn't a database for websites like there is for ISBN and DOI.

One other thing (I'm sorry if you feel like I'm picking on you!): It's generally policy here to always sign what you write on talk pages, even if I could figure out it was you, to avoid potential confusion - thanks.

Awickert (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for signing :)

Warnings

January 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Global warming, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Awickert (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you.

It would really help us when editing with you if you would write edit summaries to let us know what you're doing. Awickert (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Editing talk comments

Copyright infringement

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. We appreciate your contributions, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Misplaced Pages to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 and later."

You might want to look at Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the "Help Desk". You can also leave a message on my talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Stephen Salter

A tag has been placed on Stephen Salter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Aka042 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources and etc.

• Please do not remove fact tags with reference to opposing data in peer-reviewed literature and replace them with a dubious, non-peer-reviewed source, as you did in Runaway climate change. Please read the clathrate reference I've provided in articles and fact tags, as it's the peer-reviewed one that seems to show that it won't be a problem except on long time-scales, and none of your less-solid sources that you use to say it will be a huge problem really soon actually seem to come out and say that. (by which I mean, that it will be important to global warming soon Awickert (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC))
• Sweeping statements, especially the 2013 sea ice, need a real source, not just a PDF of a presentation. The PDF, while useful, does not make it verifiable. And if it is only an abstract at a meeting (which I, despite all efforts, haven't found), it's not peer-reviewed, and therefore may be challenged. If I were reviewing the journal, I wouldn't let the "trend" he has be anything but a tentative thing, because it's from a selectively cherry-picked set of data, and seems to be undoing itself at the end. Sure, sea ice may be going down fast, but the 2013 number seems at least a couple decades too fast for the data. In addition, statements about sea ice being gone should be qualified by season.

I really don't enjoy policing articles, it takes up my time that I'd rather be spending elsewhere, but you're performing a phenomenal amount of edits, often with less-than-desirable sources and references to nothing more than URLs, across a broad swath of articles, and don't seem to understand the need for verifiable information before coming in and re-writing the lead section of articles that are by nature a big deal and therefore controversial. Although you may be passionate about this, Misplaced Pages is by nature a non-creative endeavor, in which verifiable information from the most reputable sources is offered up in understandable form. Awickert (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Unwelcome advice

You need to slow down your editing and stick rather more closely to what is scientifically justifiable, if you want to edit scientific concepts. Otherwise, you face having a whole load of your wise words slowly whittled down as it becomes clear that they can't be justified. Having your heart in the right place is not good enough William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

All advice is welcome, when it's applicable. I am happy for people to edit/comment my work, as long as it's in accordance with wiki guidelines. I've think I've created over a dozen articles on wiki, and they're mostly doing just fine. Obviously, I make the odd blunder with a poor explanation or a duff reference, and I'm grateful for those who improve my work. What I don't appreciate is reckless editing or deletion of my work where people might think it's under cited or under-developed. The tag is what's needed here or a message on my/its talk page asking me to work up an article.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the big issue is that you need to slooooow doooooooown. The problem is that your POV is clearly über-environmentalist, and while I think we're all in the same boat as you ideologically, William and I are concerned about the state of the encyclopedia as an unbiased source. It becomes very hard to keep up when you throw things with questionable citations all over the place, and so that's why I think things have been more drastic. I think let's just take a deep breath, follow my two sets of rules (made up in this moment, actually):

I. The information

1. Does it have a proper peer-reviewed journal source?
2. Is it neutral and representative of the overall understanding of the situation?
3. Is it quoted in a way that neither overstates nor understates the conclusions?
4. Am I putting it in the proper section of the article?

If yes to all of these, go ahead.

II. The state of the encyclopedia

1. Should I ask about this on the talk page first?
2. Is this already mentioned on the talk page?
3. Are my spelling, grammar, and style acceptable for an encyclopedia? (more important on highly-trafficked pages)
4. Am I worried that this edit might incite a string of edits that would unduly disrupt an article?

If no to 1, 2, and 4, and yes to 3, go ahead.

If you follow these rules, things will progress more slowly, but be less volatile, and what you write may stand the test of time.

It's also important to note that the adherence to these rules depends on the article. Global warming, for example: 100% strict. Sediment transport, which I built, has super sucky references because I've been lazy - though I can assure you I think it's right - but it hasn't been a problem, because way fewer people care about citations on mathematical descriptions about gravel and dirt in a river than they do about global climate change.

Awickert (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a lot more constructive. I will be much more careful in future when sticking my head over the parapet on high-traffic articles.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - thanks. Awickert (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The future starts now, man. Your recent edits to global warming (later reverted) broke many of the above rules for avoiding controversy. You didn't listen to what I told you about the clathrate sources and the Archer paper that questioned the rate. You didn't listen to what I told you about finding a real source for the 2013 prediction before using it again. Using some sources and not others is cherry-picking and is a clear break from the neutral-point-of-view. Many of your sources were newspapers, some were environmentalist websites, also unacceptable, especially in a high-traffic article. If you don't know, learn it now: full citations are required on everything, URL's don't cut it, especially on big articles like global warming. Just take a look at the rest of the citations, and match that quality. The abstract on your one peer-reviewed journal reference actually said that clathrates would be released during periods of global cooling, not warming; the Buffet and Archer not-peer-reviewed abstract was the one source that supported you on clathrate issues; go down that road if you want to pursue this. Finally, you say that catastrophic climate change would likely lead to an end of human civilization, which is an exceptional exclamation and does not relate to its (non-scientific web page) reference. After being patient, I see that what I say is simply ignored in the face of dogma, and I feel like I am wasting my time trying to provide reasoning to help you contribute to Misplaced Pages. Or maybe my final plea to reason may make you justify this better to yourself and your environmental advocacy: if the Misplaced Pages community allows you to use unreliable sources to make scientifically questionable statements, and we agree that Misplaced Pages must remain dispassionate, the community is therefore charged to treat global warming denialists with exactly the same courtesy, and allow every news article and questionable un-reviewed study and blog that they come up with to be added to the article. The result would be a total mess of edit wars from both ends of the spectrum, and a huge disservice to those people using Misplaced Pages as their source to learn about climate change. Awickert (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd revised the edit even before I'd seen your comment on it. It was work in progress.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about this version. Awickert (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

The more contentious the conversation, the stricter the rules MUST be. That is why large bodies follow Robert's rules of order and small clubs just wing it. With Global Warming, most of what is written is simply propaganda (religion, etc - pick your own synonym) without even the weakest of supporting data. Therefore, only extremely strict rules can attempt to control what is allowed. That said, even if you meet the most strict of the rules, your edits will be removed if they don't get the support of the "mailed fist". (Hey, he said it, not me.) I've had one important edit reverted because, even though it was properly sourced, it did not support the "correct" position. (Remember, science always encourages dispute,[REDACTED] editors run from it.) Does this answer your question? Q Science (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I haven't said much since when I gave you the notice that your edit have been removed. However, you're talk page is filling up, and might I recommend you set up an automated archiver. To do so, copy and paste the following the the top of this talk page:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = User talk:Andrewjlockley/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archivebox|auto=long}}

All threads older than 14 days will be automatically moved to you're archive page (it hasn't been created yet, but it will by the bot).

I'm not into climatology other than I'm a bit jealous that you guys get a whole lot more attention than we do in Virology and Epidemiology projects. This is probably more of a suggestion to Awickert than to you, Andrewjlockley, but the central point is that there is a liberal overtone. I am very glad that the article goes to a lot of trouble sticking to the science rather than the political controversies, however you have to understand that the reader does not know or understand everything the article alludes to. The biggest issue I see is "the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.", there's no link or further explanation of the IPCC's main conclusion; and to a certain extent, it can seem off-putting if the reader does not have prior knowledge about the conservativeness of the IPCC's conclusions. If you want me to peer review it for tone when you're done with you're rewrite, I can provide one. Other than that, check your bias, advocacy can be very damaging to the article's integrity. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Archer&Buffet(2005) reference.

Will you please stop inserting this one? The time-scales considered for the release of the 2000 Gtonnes is 10,000-100,000 years. You are stating this as if its in the immediate future.

Please stop citing scientific literature, if you haven't actually read the papers, or at least have a decent understanding of the complexities involved. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you rephrase anything you see as misleading, rather than making an ad hominem attack.Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You've officially exhausted my patience - a first on Misplaced Pages for me, even including fundamentalist creationists and the "global warming isn't happening" crowd. This is not a personal attack. This is supreme annoyance at repeated mis-citations of science, and as the "fact" and "dubious" tags on articles didn't work, and even trying to place a nice rubric on your talk page didn't work, I don't see what else I can do. I suggest that you take the personal resoponsibility to make proper citations instead of asking others to replace misrepresentations that you propagate. Clean up your act and all will be happiness. Don't clean up your act and you'll have lost the rest of the goodwill of the community that works on the climate change articles. Awickert (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no ad-hominem in the above text. Lets make it very simple: You either haven't read the paper - or you are deliberately trying to misinform and create undue alarming statements. Personally i'm assuming good faith, and i'm assuming that the former is the case, and that you simply have misunderstood the paper's abstract.

As for rephrasing - there is nothing to rephrase, since the paper is being used in a wrong context, and with a faulty conclusion. And that is the trouble here. (you have btw. been pointed this out before) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

3rr / edit warring: warning

You've broken WP:3RR on .

Rubbish - I've never made a direct revert on this section. I've only ever made NEW edits. Please remove your warning and retract your accusation.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• is a revert (cf ) even though you didn't mark it as such.

It's a completely new edit, based on Enjua's concerns.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• is a marked revert

It was a PARTIAL revert - removing the bit YOU complained about, replacing the other bit that wasn't controversial that you removed as 'collateral damage'.

• is a revert, unmarked

I reduced the section, as YOU asked!Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• as is

No it's not, it's an updated reference, as per editor request - as can clearly be seen from the history.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please will you live within the rules, and mark your reverts as such, and stop edit warring. You have a whole pile of different people reverting your changes, and rapidly losing patience with you William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is demonstrably false. Each revision is different, and is designed to take account of concerns raised in earlier amends.Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please read WP:3RR. It doesn't matter if it was in different sections, or on different subjects ... All that matters is that it was 3 reverts on the same article. (its a common mistake to make - but those are the rules). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• (ec, Kim said most already, but I stress a slightly different point) Please read WP:3RR. A revert in the sense of this rule is any edit that undoes or partially undoes some other editors action. It does not have to revert to any particular previous version and the reverts do not have to pertain to the same issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It was just normal editing which directly took into account actions other editors had asked for. How can doing what someone's asked for be a revert?Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To simplify: Do not make edits that change sections, paragraphs or sentences in part or wholly, so that it resembles edits that have previously been reverted or changed, when you are close to the 3RR boundary. No matter if you think its merited by comments or in other ways seems reasonable. Otherwise you will end up breaking 3RR again, and may end up being blocked. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)