| Revision as of 02:19, 10 February 2010 editUnitanode (talk | contribs)Rollbackers6,424 edits now you go from baiting and harassing Giano to harassing and baiting me? good luck with that. and stop now. you're becoming quite a master harasser and master baiter; i've told u to leave, now leave← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:37, 10 February 2010 edit undoBusterD (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,056 edits →Edit summary language: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
| ::::I personally believe that the embarrassment caused by the hackneyed silliness of the current name needs to mount before anything will get better. That said, I'm probably actually closer in my views on the underlying science to those who are "pro-AGW" than I am to the skeptics. I just have a ''huge'' issue with all the impediments that have been thrown up against making necessary changes in the GW articles. I will think on it, but right now I'm 50/50 at best on supporting what I consider to be an equally-hackneyed, though slightly less silly, title. Also, I'm not so much interested in chalking up a "win" (even a minor one), as getting things right. And right now, I'm just still wondering whether the new title is that much more "right" than the current one. ]] 19:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | ::::I personally believe that the embarrassment caused by the hackneyed silliness of the current name needs to mount before anything will get better. That said, I'm probably actually closer in my views on the underlying science to those who are "pro-AGW" than I am to the skeptics. I just have a ''huge'' issue with all the impediments that have been thrown up against making necessary changes in the GW articles. I will think on it, but right now I'm 50/50 at best on supporting what I consider to be an equally-hackneyed, though slightly less silly, title. Also, I'm not so much interested in chalking up a "win" (even a minor one), as getting things right. And right now, I'm just still wondering whether the new title is that much more "right" than the current one. ]] 19:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::: OK, fair enough. We all have our reasons. I wouldn't support the proposed title if I didn't consider to be appropriate, though, so what about it makes you refer to it as hackneyed? I see it as a rather bland, no frills description of the whole affair. --] (]) 19:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | ::::: OK, fair enough. We all have our reasons. I wouldn't support the proposed title if I didn't consider to be appropriate, though, so what about it makes you refer to it as hackneyed? I see it as a rather bland, no frills description of the whole affair. --] (]) 19:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Edit summary language == | |||
| uses a pun which IMHO is intended to escalate (as opposed to neutralize). While I'm a firm believer in users managing personal talk pages as they wish, I encourage you to recognize that inflaming a situation usually isn't as effective as diffusing a situation, when possible. Good editing. ] (]) 03:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:37, 10 February 2010
- About My PROD tagging
The discretion I use when deciding whether or not to place a PROD tag on a BLP is simple: is it referenced? If not, I place a tag. If it's poorly referenced, I look a bit deeper, and either place the tag, or stub-ify. I never take much more than a minute or so, and I'm not going to research 50K+ unreferenced BLPs. The tagging has worked, as several of the articles are now being sourced. I'm not going to stop doing it, so I respectfully ask that any notifications that someone has removed the PROD (while adding references) leave out any lectures on that issue. It's not going to change.
Here is where I will be manually archiving any DYK or ITN notices.
| This is Unitanode's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 days  |
| This is Unitanode's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 days |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
I edit some political articles; please read this before accusing me of bias.
My votes in the last four presidential elections: Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama. I do not have a bias for (or against) any political party.
Nathalie Bouvier
It is sourced, OK? I hope all's well with your family. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the good wishes. And great work sourcing the article! UnitAnode 03:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding surveys of uneven enforcement...
Regarding this edit, see this. I believe the evidence is strong. By my recollection, he banned TGL and JPat very impulsively and on suspect evidence (particularly JPat). He later begrudgingly overturned JPat, but only after much groveling from JPat. JPat's was clearly bad. He also indef blocked GoRight and sat on it for 3 weeks, and again the evidence was not compelling for such a drastic action. And he was this close to imposing a lengthy ban on Gavin Collins before others stepped in. That's 4 strong actions, all directed at those editing from the skeptic side, and only the token warning at WMC for the other side, after which he quickly nullified by defending WMC after he quickly violated his warning.
Particularly compelling was his extended defense of WMC (I think it was on the enforcement page) where he analyzed each of WMC's edits in detail, and where he dismissed WMC's "yahoos" smear with no comment and his "idiots" smear with something like "minor incivility". I think it might be instructive to compare his defense of WMC against his decisions on GR, JPat, Gavin Collins, and TGL, at the very least. The important consideration here is the uneven enforcement -- in other words, some of the actions by those 4 editors did deserve sanction, but the level of sanction was way over the line given 2/0's leniency towards WMC and other abrasive proponent editors. So we're not defending those editors per se, just asking why the enforcement is so uneven given similar misbehaviors.
If you're interested, chime in on my page. I'm insanely busy lately, but I think the evidence is strong enough and recent enough to put together a quick case. ATren (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's my view that if this unevenness doesn't stop, this will end up before arbcom. It's becoming more and more blatant, and it has to end. UnitAnode 02:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Your move
Your move of the appropriately-titled "Whataya Want From Me" to the inappropriately titled "Whataya Want from Me" is wrong-headed, in my view. However, if MOS guidelines do, in fact, overrule what the reliable sources call the song, then there are a ton more moves in order. Any works by e e cummings that employ his idiosyncratic spelling need moved or fixed. Also, k.d. lang (and other such artists) should be moved to the appropriate spelling. If MOS overrules RS, then it should apply accross the board. UnitAnode 15:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I only moved as I saw the consensus lie. You're welcome to establish consensus for other moves, or perform them if they aren't controversial. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with that is the consensus was simply favoring a guideline over established policy. Consensus does not trump policy. UnitAnode 19:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Please consider signing our proposal.
A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- PS - I understand that this may not be your first choice but it would be good for the project if we all came together on a name that everyone can live with and then defend that. Please consider the proposal above in the light of being a good compromise position for all. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still thinking about this. Personally, the only advantage I see to the new title is the removal of the silly "hacking" label. UnitAnode 19:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, then this would at least be a small "win" for you, no? And climategate will remain a redirect so is it really that important to make the actual article be named climategate. I agree there are reasons why it could/should be named that, I have even argued for such in the past, but these renaming polls solve nothing and just keep fanning the flames of discontent. The writing is on the wall that we have to find a better way to work together. If you agree with that then take this small step for the greater good. Take your time and think it over. The proposal will be there if you decide to come on board. Thanks for your consideration. --GoRight (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I personally believe that the embarrassment caused by the hackneyed silliness of the current name needs to mount before anything will get better. That said, I'm probably actually closer in my views on the underlying science to those who are "pro-AGW" than I am to the skeptics. I just have a huge issue with all the impediments that have been thrown up against making necessary changes in the GW articles. I will think on it, but right now I'm 50/50 at best on supporting what I consider to be an equally-hackneyed, though slightly less silly, title. Also, I'm not so much interested in chalking up a "win" (even a minor one), as getting things right. And right now, I'm just still wondering whether the new title is that much more "right" than the current one. UnitAnode 19:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough. We all have our reasons. I wouldn't support the proposed title if I didn't consider to be appropriate, though, so what about it makes you refer to it as hackneyed? I see it as a rather bland, no frills description of the whole affair. --GoRight (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I personally believe that the embarrassment caused by the hackneyed silliness of the current name needs to mount before anything will get better. That said, I'm probably actually closer in my views on the underlying science to those who are "pro-AGW" than I am to the skeptics. I just have a huge issue with all the impediments that have been thrown up against making necessary changes in the GW articles. I will think on it, but right now I'm 50/50 at best on supporting what I consider to be an equally-hackneyed, though slightly less silly, title. Also, I'm not so much interested in chalking up a "win" (even a minor one), as getting things right. And right now, I'm just still wondering whether the new title is that much more "right" than the current one. UnitAnode 19:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, then this would at least be a small "win" for you, no? And climategate will remain a redirect so is it really that important to make the actual article be named climategate. I agree there are reasons why it could/should be named that, I have even argued for such in the past, but these renaming polls solve nothing and just keep fanning the flames of discontent. The writing is on the wall that we have to find a better way to work together. If you agree with that then take this small step for the greater good. Take your time and think it over. The proposal will be there if you decide to come on board. Thanks for your consideration. --GoRight (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still thinking about this. Personally, the only advantage I see to the new title is the removal of the silly "hacking" label. UnitAnode 19:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit summary language
This edit summary uses a pun which IMHO is intended to escalate (as opposed to neutralize). While I'm a firm believer in users managing personal talk pages as they wish, I encourage you to recognize that inflaming a situation usually isn't as effective as diffusing a situation, when possible. Good editing. BusterD (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)