| Revision as of 02:24, 12 February 2010 editNightmote (talk | contribs)450 edits Put up or shut up.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:27, 12 February 2010 edit undoNightmote (talk | contribs)450 edits ←Replaced content with 'Suck my ass, Guettarda, 2/0, Scjessey, WMC and the rest of you no-science AGW True Believers. Suck it long, and suck it hard. ~~~~'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | Suck my ass, Guettarda, 2/0, Scjessey, WMC and the rest of you no-science AGW True Believers. Suck it long, and suck it hard. ] (]) 02:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Devil's Advocate == | |||
| Thanks for your comment. Not a big deal but you managed to delete like half of my talkpage in the process. I agree that the article needs a complete overhaul by some uninvolved people. ''''']]''''' 19:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Whoa! Sorry 'bout that - no idea how it happened. ] (]) 19:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah no problem really. ''''']]''''' 22:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Please don't ignore consensus == | |||
| Your removal of the Weart statement was rightly reverted, per on the matter. -- ] (]) 18:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It would be so much easier if you would propose your additions on the talk page, rather than just without discussion. Consensus before contention. -- ] (]) 18:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Perhaps I was mistaken when TS seemed to agree that Weart was important, then that Weart wasn't important? I maintained from the beginning that Weart added nothing, and that the section should be eliminated altogether. Since my removal was reverted, I felt compelled to add additional "expert additional commentary" in an effort to balance the see-saw. I am more than willing to seek consensus, but I am unhappy with the bloated mess that the article has become, loaded with irrelevent opinion, AGW defense, and the overwhelming rush-to-judgement on what is a developing story. ] (]) 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Are you aware Misplaced Pages -NEVER- names its articles -gate? == | |||
| Your vote under the discussion page for ] is currently being counted as NO, based on your comment I believe this might be due to a misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages's policy regarding the use of ']' in the names of articles. The only controversy article that will ever have the suffix ']' on Misplaced Pages is the ']' scandal. If you refer to that list of ']s' you will see that none of the main articles are named ], not even the old well-established ones now commonly referred to as -gate. Current tally of the voting: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| 11 users FOR Climatic Research Unit data release controversy and 4 users AGAINST, 5 if you count Nightmote. | |||
| For: Scjessey, Itsmejudith, Jheiv, Adam.T.Historian, Garrettw87, Wikidemon, Sphilbrick, Jc-S0CO, Troed, DGaw, A_Quest_For_Knowledge | |||
| Against: Nightmote(under the belief it will ever be allowed to be called Climategate), Gandydancer, ChrisO, William_M._Connolley, Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris | |||
| Nightmote is still unaware that Misplaced Pages never names articles -gate, if you'd like to make it 12 v/s 4 then we can talk to Nightmote about this, but being from a democratic society I do consider 11:5 an overwhelming consensus. Our presidents and senators are often elected with near 1:1 results, heh. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Also, Boris, your strong oppose still only counts as one vote. And I see no reason why we shouldn't now proceed to finally rename this article Climatic Research Unit data release controversy in order to respect the Misplaced Pages NPOV. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| If it was your intention to be counted with ChrisO, William_M._Connolley, etc then that is your prerogative and so be it. But I thought I would try to explain Misplaced Pages's position on naming any scandal other than Watergate with the ']' suffix, as I just today learned of this. The truth is the e-mail hacking incident name is very bias, and the proposed name '''Climatic Research Unit data release controversy''' will be able to cover the full scope of the '''controversy''' regarding the '''release''' of '''data''' from the '''Climatic Research Unit''', which includes the beginnings of the controversy, where they repeatedly refused Freedom of Information Act Requests which would've allowed peer-reviewers access to the data, this is a very big part of the scandal that is currently being omitted because of the incredibly biased name 'e-mail hacking incident', which does not reflect Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. Thank you for your consideration of the facts regarding the vote for majority consensus and Misplaced Pages's policies regarding the ] suffix. | |||
| Sincerely, ] (]) 02:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Kind of you to drop by old chap, and thanks for the consideration. The "-gate" suffix comes under the aegis of words to avoid as opposed to words that are banned. I respect the sentiments of those seeking to name this something other than Climategate, and I have just posted what I hope is a truly neutral proposed title on the talk page in a gesture of good faith and reconciliation. I suspect - strongly - that what is happening is we don't agree what the article is *about*. I think it's about the scientists' unprofessional behaviour. Scjessey, ChrisO, and others believe that it's about a cyber attack on a respected institution. Four blind men and an elephant, savvy? One touches a leg and says "tree" one touches the trunk and says "snake" and so forth. Honestly-held beliefs and good faith efforts, but a lack of direction. The argument about the title is a proxy battle, I'm afraid. We need to find common ground on the subject before we can reach consensus on the title. ] (]) 14:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes indeed, I do understand that. But I was hopeful that if we can make the '''Climatic Research Unit data release controversy''' name stick, it would then be well within the scope of the article to include CRU wrongdoing, in that they refused to release data, bucked the peer-review process that is the pillar of all good science, and ultimately the data was released anyway. It's far better than the current title, which is blatant whitewashing and seeks to undermine the full scope of the ''controversy''. It wasn't what I wanted, but it is by far an improvement.. I'll try to take a look at the talk page soon, New Year's Eve is often busy around my house... and Happy New Year to you, by the way :-) ] (]) 18:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's one of the reasons I have (re-)proposed CRU Documents Controversy. The title doesn't preclude any discussion of theft versus hack. My (not so) secret (not very) hidden agenda is to try and split the article into more manageable sections; places where we can limit discussion to one aspect of the event, and limit extraneous (and contentious) material. I think that we can more easily reach consensus if we talk about fewer things. In particular, I want to see whether it's possible to limit the references to the validity of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I think that the controversy, here, can be limited to the theft and the fallout without touching the third rail of AGW. Any AGW arguments belong on the AGW page, methinks. ] (]) 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Redacted == | |||
| I preferred your non redacted rant :), and i am sorry for making a comment with my post, it was bad form as you had requested no comments. --] (]) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::(grin) In addition to being an environmental engineer, I'm a policy enforcer at an ice hockey rink. I tend to over-react from time to time. It is a weakness I am working hard to counter. ] (]) 18:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal attacks == | |||
| If you keep reverting my closing of the discussion containing personal attacks against me, I will report you at ]. There is no justification for it, and it is no better than if you made the personal attacks ''yourself''. '''Stop it'''. -- ] (]) 18:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, you may not have noticed – "All editors are reminded to adhere strictly to the topic of improving the associated article when posting to an article's talkpage." Unarchiving such offtopic remarks clearly fails to comply with ]. . . ], ] 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::" ... Weeks in, and now that the "pool" of editors has been reduced to a group of hard-line AGW sophists ... Scjessey is applying the old "soap boxing" angle as an excuse to remove detractors' comments even from the discussion page ... he's all over this page, squatting on it, and trying to insinuate an intimidating manner -- for instance, giving little rules-lectures whenever a "noob" like myself has the temerity to chime in ... within minutes I was singled out by aforementioned person who has clearly assumed a role as some sort of "moderator" here ... wonder what kind of dynamic is being fostered here(?) ... " Off-topic? Dave, I'd say that the comments were explicit and possibly insulting, but they're pretty much on-topic as far as I can see. The assertion has been made that Scjessey is trying to ] the article. Scjessey needs to address or ignore the accusation; sweeping it under the carpet seems a bit small. ] (]) 19:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ec)I replied on your talk page in a civil manner, and then came to my talk page to find this. You're out of line, Scjessey. I reverted in good faith because I believe that feelings are running high on that article, and shutting down discussion - even angry discussion - closes safety valves and prevents editors from hearing things that they may not want to hear. In addition, I honestly feel that you need to face the situation openly and either refute the accusations or live with them. The accusations and language were pretty harsh, and one of you is out of line and deserves sanction. As for seeking administrative against *me*, rock on. I'm not your enemy. I object to the amount of editorial pressure you have put on the article, but I have not made any recent meaningful edits to it, feeling that to do so would be unproductive and likely to inflame the situation. I tried reason, I sought consensus, I was reduced to outraged condemnation, and I have pretty much thrown in the towel on trying to make that article read as "objective" (from my point of view, of course). That article belongs to you, and ChrisO, Guettarda, and William Connelly. It's all yours. Is that what you want to hear? Of course not. But I'm telling you that it's heading that way, and you're just too close to see that. ] (]) 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| would be unacceptable on any talkpage according to the ]. Given ], doubly so. If you have a problem with another editor, please seek ] while remaining ] on article talkpages. - ] <small>(])</small> 21:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see. You believe that I am being uncivil. I, on the other hand, believe that I am being forthright. I am quite certain, ], that you are aware of the edit wars on the Climategate page, and the largely unsuccessful efforts to achieve consensus on anything but themost trivial points. To suggest that I have a problem because I encourage Scjessey - on the talk page and in context - to deal with accusations from a third editor begs the question of why the comments were posted in the first place. Wikilawyering has no place in this space, and yet its "business as usual" in that contentious article. Can there be any wonder that some have grown frustrated as time has passed? I submit that Guettarda, Scjessey, ChrisO, and William Connelly are exhibiting what could easily be seen as very civil ownership of that article, and that Scjessey would have exhibited better judgement to either refute the charge or back off. That he chose to instead collapse the thread seemed - and seems - to exhibit hubris. ] (]) 22:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks for the kind words == | |||
| Didn't want you to think I missed them. A "voice of reason"? Something to live up to, for sure. | |||
| Unfortunately, I'm working on an intense project, and spending a couple weeks in Zürich to see if we can made some needed progress. I decided to take a break to see how the article was coming along. Same ol', same ol', mostly. I may find time for a couple drive by comments, but won't be able to get back involved for another couple weeks. I trust it will still be there when I get back.<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 16:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are welcome. (grin) Bask in the sunlight of good opinion! ] (]) 20:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Code Section edits == | |||
| I'm trying to understand . Could you state your position re this section for me along with your objections to the proposal that's starting to gain consensus? I know its a frustrating, asymmetrical editing environment but IMHO it's a lot easier to make progress towards neutrality when editors are concentrating on content. When the flame warring starts progress comes to a screeching halt. Thanks! ] (]) 03:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problem, JP. WP policy is firmly against using votes to establish "consensus", which is why Nigel used !vote (not vote). One of the main reasons that voting is frowned upon is because it creates: 1. a false set of limited choices; 2. a false sense of consensus. Let's say - for the sake of discussion, purely pie-in-the-sky fantasizing, you understand - that we have three proposed paragraphs. Let's say that one of those paragraphs is biased to the left, one is biased to the right, and the third is neutral. After having blocked, harassed, and wikilawyered most of the right-leaning editors out of the process, a "!vote" establishes that most of the remaining editors favor the left-leaning paragraph. Would that constitute consensus? What if a last-minute flood of editors changes the choice from what you perceive to be an acceptable compromise to a choice that you strongly disapprove of? Would that constitute consensus? The question answers itself. Einstein's theory was once condemned by 100 scientists. His observation was that one scientist would be sufficient, if that scientist were correct. My strongly-held position is that Nigel - and others - need to focus on the process of editing, rather than trying to somehow "finish" this paragraph. As for my "compromise" mention, it relates to ] comment at the very top of diff, where s/he says, " ... I will no longer compromise ... " Probably just a fit of pique (I am sympathetic), but a poorly-timed one.<br><br>By way of full disclosure, I confess that I at one point, attempted to establish a vote on a proposed title for this article. The vote failed utterly due to the constant in-fighting (no, I didn't try to name it "Climategate"). My comments are not "tit-for-tat", though they could be perceived to be. Rather, I am more convinced that the approved WP processes are the way to go to achieve consensus. ] (]) 14:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Bold == | |||
| That's some boldy boldness. I was going to discuss it on talk before daring someone to revert us, but I'm on board. My only note is that when it gets reverted, don't re-revert it back out! ] (]) 19:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| :::To boldly went, as Star Wars almost saith. Gets things moving, good start. . . ], ] 20:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(sniff) Thanks. I'd like to thank all the little people .... ] (]) 23:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Comment on the content, not the contributor == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&diff=343430116&oldid=343428565 <br />- ] <small>(])</small> 22:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::" ... No, we shouldn't use yet another piece of journo tripe that just happens to fit with your POV ... " Are you shitting me, 2/0? Seriously, are you shitting me Old Fruit? You yahoo? ] (]) 02:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:27, 12 February 2010
Suck my ass, Guettarda, 2/0, Scjessey, WMC and the rest of you no-science AGW True Believers. Suck it long, and suck it hard. Nightmote (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)