Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:26, 18 February 2010

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Welcome!

Hello, 2over0, 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. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

nudge time

Try and put some time aside to get this sorted out :)

A brief request ...

A few of us have started a proposal to try and resolves the never ending stream of rename requests for Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and are working behind the scenes to gather support for it here. TGL had been mentioned by ChrisO as someone who might be useful to have on board with the proposal. Given his recent topic ban would you be willing to make an exception to allow him to simply endorse this proposal (if he is so inclined)? Every show of faith in the proposal will help to bring others on board. Thanks for your consideration. --GoRight (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The whole point of a topic ban is that the standard invitation to edit this page does not apply. Their contributions have been disruptive, and it is best to make a clean break.

Thank you for working on this proposal - anything that calms that article down has my full support. I am not sure, though, why the discussion is at your talkpage. Is this a hash out some ideas before presenting a solid proposal at articletalk discussion? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you making things up - do you feel that your credibility is too high (I can assure you it isn't :-)? The ban is clearly supportable. Indeed, it has wide support. Unilateral is irrelevant - what were you expecting, some kind of caring, sharing bilateral ban that TGL would agree to? The point is that post imposition none of the watching admins have complained, nor have those like you who defend TGL chosen to bring it up for review elsewhere. For the obvious reason William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The preceding comment is in reply to this post removed (presumably) by the author. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So he says . Why as a anon, we may never know. Why total removal rather than the more obvious striking, we may never know William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooooh, I smell a conspiracy! ATren (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

lanthanide to lanthanoid page move

Please see this discussion regarding the old page move of lanthanide to lanthanoid. Jdrewitt (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How to Proceed?

Could you take a quick look at this WP:Coatrack. I've outlined numerous BLP issues here. After getting no responses, I made the edits to remove the objectionable material in a series of edits starting here. (I did it in a series so each rationale could be summarized). The changes were reverted in mass without discussion here. Requested self-revert on users talk page. Non-responsive so I reverted and filled a BLP notice here. My changes we're reverted again here, again with no attempt to justify the sourcing as required by WP:BLP. I've tagged the article {BLP dispute}, and add the blp warning template to the users talk page.

The issue with sourcing in this article should be completely non-controversial. It is using primary sourced data to draw conclusions and strings multiple sources together to synthesize points not made explicitly in any. References to wikilinks, blogs and non-existing web pages abound. Not sure where to go from here. Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never actually edited Michael Behe, but I consider myself involved on all intelligent design related topics for the purposes of WP:INVOLVED; please take this as the comment of an editor, not an administrator. The topic area of pseudoscience is also under article probation, though the terms are slightly different than those for climate change; it should be listed at WP:GS (let me know ifn not so I can track it down and fix that).

There will always be a tension on these BLPs between a credulous WP:SPS recounting their ideas and a long debunking digression. On the gripping hand, I think the best approach is to focus exclusively on independent reliable coverage - if nobody has commented on an idea except a few bloggers, it should not be mentioned in the article at all. With Behe, the NCSE and similar luminaries have gotten involved, so it is easy to source statements along the lines of irreducible complexity is not taken seriously by the biology community.

As for actual advice, you are already active at the talkpage and BLP/N, which should lead to a nice solid consensus. There is also a WikiProject for Intelligent Design where you could post to attract more interested editors, but as that is a heavily monitored article I doubt that that should be necessary. On a political note, I usually find that whatever Aunt Entropy says is fair and well-considered. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BLP recently? In substance and tone I don't see the slightest hint of wiggle room there. Editors can't just reach a consensus to ignore this policy can they? I've detailed the issues I've identified here. Note that these are not POV or even scientific concerns (I am cvertain you and I are in agreement about these things), they are clear violations of WP:BLP, don't you agree? JPatterson (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

1. That is correct: local consensus cannot override policy. If there is a good faith disagreement regarding whether or not a policy is being properly applied, follow the articletalk→noticeboard→RFC branches of the dispute resolution tree. If the disagreement more concerns policy being disregarded, follow the articletalk→usertalk→AN/I branches.
2. I have a strong opinion about intelligent design. If I were to write the article, it would be highly prone to NPOV and OR violations. I prefer to confine my editing to areas I find less stressful. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW- I didn't get any probation-like warnings or templates or anything when I edited the Behe article so if you think there should be, it might be an issue. JPatterson (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

New subject: Is this cool? Also, these ( ) were not helpful. JPatterson (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The application and meaning of notifications is one of the differences. If I recall the timeline correctly, the pseudoscience probation was enacted not too long after the homeopathy probation. In the latter, members of each "side" of the debate apparently decided that it would be cute to template each other in an attempt to hasten mutual banning. This ended up being disruptive. The pseudoscience probation requires perceived misbehaviour→template placed by WP:UNINVOLVED administrator with specific examples and advice for improvement→misbehaviour→sanction. You are not on notice or anything, that was just a friendly heads up. A few years on, with the climate change probation the community decided to go with the let everyone know that the editing environment here is not the most pleasant that Misplaced Pages has to offer method. Currently, TS is shouldering the vast majority of that burden. If you or anyone else watching this page are interested in an automated solution, there is some discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log - 2/0 (cont.) 22:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You may also wish to consider clarifying and adding detail to your thread at User talk:ScienceApologist in light of the notice at the top of their page. On the bright side, I was previously only aware of definition 3 at wikt:comport - neato. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC breaking his parole

calls an editor malicious.

Calls the same editor malicious again.

Edits my post (i forgot to sign) in contravention of earlier enforcement action. And of course saying he does not care about his current enforcement.

Please give him a topic ban or should i do a request for enforcement? --mark nutley (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be reading a different parole to the one I'm reading. I see no similarity between "malicious" and "septic" (and the wording is warned, not banned). Adding an "unsigned" to (someone's; I didn't know it was yours)? Seems really rather petty, but on an article talk page you could probably argue it was a technical violation. But editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation is the wording - and I don't think that page *is* subject William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And calls an editor an "old fruit" again. *sigh*--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that, just maybe, spamming the same trivia to every admin you happen to have ever met isn't really a good idea? My answer is over here William M. Connolley (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

? Hadn't seen this thread until already having posted on Prodego's page, who had originally requested to be informed of further incivility on your part. But hey, while I'm around, here are other examples of unconstructive editing on talkpages by WMC from today alone (I didn't go through any Userpage diffs).--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And another: "You snarking above seems all-too-typical of your style." ATren (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggested ATren remove this as not a certain enough violation but this suggests it shows "a clear personal attack"--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow - why don't you-all find something productive to do. This looks like primary school tattle-tale time. The pack is on the scent. Seriously the noticeboard is that-away... Vsmith (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the primary school analogy, but I think you may not realize . ATren (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't expect this admin to do anything. He's a true believer in settled science. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't have anything to do with the science, it has to do with incivility, soapboxing and personal attacks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But he runs interference for the True Believers who own the climate change pages. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's true in some sense, though I think it ultimately hurts science rather than helping it. It's sad that the product of almost a century of work on the nature of scientific theory and progress is so ignored by so many scientists in the field.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Settled science" is anti-science. Settled science is religion. It is the polar opposite of scholarship and critical thinking.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio

When I see a line from a news article that is phrased so perfectly and succinctly that I can't figure out how to say it any better, I'll often attribute the information and include it with only a small modification. According to the essay you showed me, it's something I shouldn't do. So, I appreciate you pointing that out to me. One issue associated with that edit is an issue that I've found common with several of the regulars on the AGW articles, and that's that they'll often revert without making any attempt to correct or improve the edits that they disapprove of. The edits in that article, and some edits I did over at Lawrence Solomon, in which a couple of account names you are probably familiar with reverted my edits then later admitted that they could only dispute part of what I had added, is illustrative of what I'm talking about. I don't know if it's a Misplaced Pages requirement that editors operate in a collaborative and helpful manner, but after experiencing congenial collaboration and cooperation in the MILHIST project, it's disappointing to see that behavior dismissed so out-of-hand on other subjects, most glaringly in many science-related articles. Cla68 (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be hesitant to generalize the atmosphere on climate-change articles - which are the topic of active political controversy - to "science-related articles" in general. Most, if not the vast majority, are marked by congenial collaboration. If you're curious, your expertise in article-building would probably be most welcome across any number of scientific topics. And if MILHIST has any examples of shepherding effective, congenial collaboration on subjects of active political controversy (2008 South Ossetia War? 2006 Lebanon War?) I'd be happy to look at them for applicable lessons. MastCell  05:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are controversial topics within MILHIST, but you don't hear much about them. Why? Because there aren't as many problems with the way that the editors with those articles behave. Check Allied war crimes during World War II or Strategic bombing during World War II. Here's an example I was involved with. Another editor didn't like my edits and put an NPOV tag on it. We voiced our concerns on the talk page, and went on our way. There was no edit war over the NPOV tag as has occurred repeatedly on various Global Warming articles. That's how it works for the most part in MILHIST articles. There are a few exceptions, like Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but even that article has a much more congenial discussion page than most of the global warming article talk pages. The behavior I see in the GW articles, such as editors mass reverting and then being unable to justify the mass revert (see the talk page), yet refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing, or continuously directing unfriendly remarks at other editors, I've never encountered before. The only time I've heard of such behavior was on the evidence page for this case. The thing is, most of the MILHIST editors are, IMO, college students and amateur historians (the latter includes me). Many of the GW editors claim to be or really are scholars and scientists, yet their behavior in Misplaced Pages is absolutely reprehensible and shameful. Why? Cla68 (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how applicable those examples are - after all, how many blogs and op-ed pages bloviate about the Allied strategic bombing campaign? How many millions of dollars per year do multinational corporations spend to agitate people on one side or other of that debate? How many hundreds of agenda-driven sockpuppets have infested those pages? How many editors of those pages have been singled out for poorly fact-checked demonization in the newspapers? I guess what I'm saying is that the atmosphere on climate-change articles is a bit more intense. The closest thing I've been involved with is the WP:MED effort on topics like autism, where editors deal with a constant tension between active, well-organized political agendas and scientific consensus. MastCell  07:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you'll pardon my semi-informed thought on the matter, I think the situation is basically one where the anti-science activists and the pro-science activists pursue their interests. Then there are people like MastCell and perhaps like 2over0, who I think simply prefer the devil they know over the devil they don't know. Then there are editors like Cla68 (where I'd also include myself) who think a more professional environment would be better, and would work better as well. I wonder myself if a change in balance wouldn't result in something much worse than the status quo, as I think people have wondered for a long time. Ultimately I put my faith in the marketplace of ideas, and the thought that things will work out if they should work out. Any of us could be wrong, of course. Mackan79 (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

For ArbCom, now - 2/0 (cont.) 04:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet, not half as reprehensible as people who threaten to out other editors simply because they don't give in to your demands in content disputes. And mind you, shortly after you issued your threat, another of your fellow forum participants followed through with your suggestion and actually carryout out your threat. So forgive me if I find your hand-wringing utterly unconvincing. Whether it's a campaign ginned up on the Discovery Institute blogs, or the climate denialist blogs, the anti-science crowd shows up, ready for a fight. And their tone is tolerated, like the repeated personal attacks on WMC, repeating Solomon's laughable claims over and over. Or the false accusation of of "ID cabal" coming out of WR and repeated ad nauseum over here. It's one thing to deal with those who are simply scientifically illiterate. As a science educator, I consider it part of my job to clarify misconceptions. But the persistent harassment, year after year, coming from well-organised off-wiki sources. That's more than a little annoying. And when one of the people who helped drove some of these campaigns comes here and wonders, gosh darn it, why aren't people nicer? Guettarda (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a serious charge, and you need to back it up or withdraw it. Anyway, how do you know who the people are that are coming to edit the articles that you also have an interest in? What does it matter anyway who they are? The editors who come to those articles who you disagree with probably also believe that it is their job to clear up misconceptions, add more information, or try to balance the article out because they think one side isn't being represented. Do you automatically feel that you're right and they're wrong? That's what it looks like from what you're saying. Am I right in concluding that you don't feel that efforts at sincere collaboration, cooperation, and compromise should be attempted with editors you disagree with? Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a serious charge, quite the opposite, but all the same. If Guettarda thinks that his unsupported views of long past events, which have already been evaluated by ArbCom, are somehow a defense of continuing incivility and baseless accusations of dishonesty in the topic area, I think he's mistaken. Perhaps if he continues this should be tested, since Guettarda does indeed seem to be closed off to dialogue of any kind. Mackan79 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the "pro-science editors are being harassed" meme resurfaces, even though it is the pro-science editors who are causing most of the trouble. ATren (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I think Guettarda should be admonished for his tone in this discussion. This is pure vitriol from start to finish. The discussion starts with an initial source, stating, "The thieves’ eureka moment came when they found messages from Jones, the unit’s director, and others apparently encouraging climate scientists to refuse freedom of information (FoI) requests from known climate sceptics, and even to destroy data rather than surrender them to anyone they feared might misuse them." Cla68 initially summarized this as "Critics have charged that the emails showed that Jones appeared to direct his team to refuse to provide data for Freedom of information (FOI) requests." Guettarda reverted with the following: "'Apparently encouraging ' is clearly not the same as 'direct'. In addition, 'direct his team' implies that he was using his position as unit leader to direct his staff to do wrong. Not supported by the source. Quite a smear to add to a BLP." In simpler terms, the source says Jones "apparently encourag" not that he "apparently directed." Ok, so Cla68 adjusted it to "appeared to encourage." Now Guettarda says the problem is the reference to "critics," which he calls "horrible form," and a "misrepresentation of the source" since the author discusses "thieves" rather than "critics." Move the goal posts, fine, although this is incorrect; the article directly says the emails "apparently" show this, so if anything Cla68 has only understated the author's claim. Finally Cla68 brings another source, which states, "In an email, Prof Jones requested that a colleague delete correspondence regarding a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007." Cla68 posts this on the talk page and says, "Ok, I'll make it say exactly what it says here." He changes the text to something nearly identical, with a direct attribution in the text. Now Guettarda responds that Cla68 has gone "from bad to worse," has now comitted a "copyvio," and comments that, "as bad as the last bit, this has me shocked."

Nearly every one of Guettarda's comments in this discussion is needlessly uncivil, while several such as this are direct personal attacks. There is no evidence of any miconduct whatsoever on Cla68's part. There is no excuse for it; this is abusive behavior that has gone on too long. Mackan79 (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've requested ArbCom clarification on the outing accusations. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the original point, I think that several of the AGW "regulars" have issues with civility, cooperation, and collaboration. I guess the question is what do do about it. Perhaps 2/0 might have some ideas? Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvements

New section as requested – a possible way of improving the editing environment would be to encourage newcomers to the topic to follow policies requiring due weight to the scientific majority view, and policies promoting a collegial editing environment, as disussed here. The importance of civility, cooperation, and collaboration is all to easily undermined by civil POV pushing, and while I appreciate the efforts to impose sanctions, there have been evident difficulties with the Requests for enforcement page becoming another venue for such arguments. . . dave souza, talk 14:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea of adding more specifics to the probation page and/or notification template could be a good one. I am not sure if I will have a chance to make a decent proposal this weekend, but do please let me know if you start or find such a discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there really a policy requiring "due weight to the scientific majority view?" The proverbial Flat Earth example comes to mind when I hear that. If a dissenting views are supported by reliable sources, then I don't think there's a problem with them being represented in full. It's not Misplaced Pages's job to decide who is right, we just report what the sources say. Cla68 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave (and, to be fair, many of his like-minded editors) seem to wish WP:SPOV was the policy instead of WP:NPOV. Failing that, they have basically made it the de facto policy at GW-related pages. This request to have it codified at the enforcement board doesn't surprise me at all. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying that an encyclopedia must reflect the mainstream scientific view is not the same as saying, as does SPOV, that science is assumed correct. I reached out to dave because though we have often been on opposite sides, he's shown himself to be flexible and fair. I think the probation experiment has failed. I would like to explore ways to improve the editing environment because I think the current environment is detrimental to the quality of the articles, some of which is due to the factors you mentioned. The basic idea is to replace a sanction regime with a community consensus on the type of editing environment they we desire. I would be most interested in any thoughts you or others have on that subject. Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

The link you dropped on my tp was directed to the wrong target which led me to believe it was my comment re AGF that you were taking me to task for. See my tp for more. JPatterson (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

diffs

Your criticism lacked focus. Provide appropriate diffs. Nightmote (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that this user recently replaced his talk page with this (which I accidentally reverted) and made edits which suggest he may have decided to leave Misplaced Pages. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 02:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Abusive and improper enforcements by 2/0 (a.k.a. 2over0)

Hi 2^0. In order to assist me in gathering diffs of your abusive enforcement actions and your disruptive activity in the AGW articles, could you please provide me with a list of enforcement actions you've taken and the relevant editor names? Have you done a single block or ban on any of the disruptive propagandists who are trying to cleanse the encyclopedia of scientific information such as content and links related to episodes of global warming that occured before the 20th century? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is in reply to the request I just left on your talkpage, please see my recent contributions, including the 14 other editors of whom similar requests were made. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw your contributions before I posted this. It doesn't change the fact that your involvement has been grotesquely biased and damaging. It's played a large part in contributing to the frustrating and toxic environment at those articles. As I've noted previously, I have no problem with your weighing in on the discussions. But we don't need admins bullying those they disagree with and taking the side of partisans whose views they share. Could you answer the question? Which editors have you blocked, banned, and carried out other enforcement measures against? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've reverted the nonsense you left on my talkpage with an appropriate edit summary. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

2/0. I consider your recent activity on my talk page to be disruptive and borderline harrassment. Please refrain from making any further edits on my talk page. If, in the future, you have a geniune concern with one of my edits, which you strongly believe to justifies an actual warning, I request for you to bring it up with any other administrator and let him/her handle it. This is not meant to be "combative", I just want you to stop and we can leave it at that. Thanks. Sirwells (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• You might also consider including a note in future correspondence letting editors know who the recipients are and explaining yourself. Given your problematic behavior it's not surprising that editors aren't happy to get notices from you. I had thought you had finally removed yourself from playing a disruptive role in the drama, so it's disappointing to see you're getting involved again in an administrative capacity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You might also consider including a note in future correspondence letting editors know who the recipients are and explaining yourself. - Thank you, I think that that is a very good idea. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• It is a poor idea to let partisan editors bully away admins whose enforcement decisions they dislike. It speaks volumes that you're willing to berate 2/0 here and elsewhere, but unwilling to actually pursue any prescribed form of dispute resolution. You guys fell afoul of this standard a long time ago. I'll let you in on a little secret. The reason your complaints don't get the desired response has nothing to do with "administrative bias". It has to do with the fact that you comport yourselves like vindictive 8-year-olds compelled to get the last word (which is usually "he hit me first!"). That makes it hard to take your complaints seriously even when they contain objective merit. MastCell  06:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• You might be surprised to know that I actually agree with the "anti-AGW" editors on only perhaps two things: 1) the suite of GW-related articles lacks balance; and 2) the "enforcement" page is a one-sided joke. Otherwise, I'm very much more on the "side" of the "pro-AGW" editors with regards to the underlying facts of whether or not global warming is happening, and man's involvement with causing it. While the whole Climategate thing raises serious questions as to methods, I don't agree that it invalidates the research that has been done. I've been painted as some kind of ant-AGW POV guy, not by my content edits, but by the fact that I've argued for more balance in the articles, and at the enforcement page, and have done so quite vigorously. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As for me, (if anyone cares), I am a solid skeptic. That does not mean I think global warming is total rubbish. It means I am skeptical of the science behind it, that I believe politics has very likely caused the issue to become exaggerated. And I think the drastic measures that the main players are proposing are unnecessary. I also believe skepticism is a healthy attitude to have with any science. Other than that, I'm with Anode's comments above and I suspect that my skeptism has caused 2/0 to be heavy-handed with my edits. (whether he realizes it or not.) Sirwells (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to associate myself with UnitAnode's remarks (although I think the uncertainty re sensitivity needs to be reduced before we burden the world-economy with mitigation). From my standpoint, the biggest problem in these controversial topic areas is not POV pushing, it's crappy unencyclopedic writing. Unfortunately, any effort to improve the quality of an article is met with bad-faith accusations of being "one of those". Somehow we need to reduce the drama and start building some trust. I see more and more calls for an "off with their heads" approach. I think another tack would be more beneficial - more but shorter duration blocks. A 24 or 48 hr block will send the message while causing much less consternation. No one's going to get their undies too bunched up over having to sit out for a day or two. It would also give admins a chance to send a message to new editors while giving them the opportunity to prove they get it. Just my two centavos. JPatterson (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You all get one and only one clue, and this is it: WP:RFC/U. --TS 17:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Overly broad. Not everyone who has commented in this section agrees with CoM's initial characterization (e.g. me). 2/0 is between a rock and a hard place. He's made some decisions I would not have but hindsight is 20/20. I wouldn't want his job, that's for certain. JPatterson (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I like 2over0. But I'm disappointed in the role he's played in contributing to the frustrations and ill will in the AGW related articles. It seems clear that he wants to play enforcer against editors whose views he considers fringe. But what's fringey is some of our article content that is so ridiculously slanted. "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident"? Really? I mean seriously? Come on! That's a joke of a title. And we have an article on Global warming that doesn't provide any background on what global warming is or why it occurs, what the long term record shows, at what rates it's occured in the past, or why this episode is considered different. How can you have an article on the subject of global warming without addressing those issues? It's an out of context argument, not an encyclopedic article. At the very least it should be disambiguated.

As far as these litmus tests evaluating who believes what, I think they are nonsense. Intelligent people choose among the evidence, arguments and ideas, and want to see them reflected as accurately and appropriately as possible. Is all the global warming advocacy good? Is all the opposition on a firm foundation? Of course not. That's why we need to represent the science, the issues, the background, and the controversies. That's what the core Neutral Point of View policy is all about, not choosing winners and losers in political disputes. I would call it a scientific dispute, but the science is getting short shrift as far as coverage here and there just isn't much of it in the articles. It's mostly spin and point scoring, which is a pity and damaging the purpose and mission of an encyclopedia. It also undermines the cause of educating people and addressing environmental degradation. That requires accurate coverage of the best information and ideas so we can all figure out how best to help preserve a healthy and habitable planet. Cheerios! ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback Nsaa

{{talkback|nsaa|Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement}}

Replied, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Some advice please

Hi, i moved a wip into main space However if i delete it from my sandbox the mainspace page also gets removed? How can i clear my sandbox and not delete the article? mark nutley (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Sandbox page is now just a redirect, and all of the history is at Criticism of the IPCC. I can delete the redirect if you would like, or you can put {{db-author}} at the top, or you can just overwrite the current text (the link above takes you to your userspace instead of the article). None of these will affect the article, and the attribution for licensing remains intact. Thank you for considering these issues, but this is one of the instances where the software actually works pretty well now to make things easy on us editors. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you do it for me? I have no idea were to put the db author thing :) thanks mark nutley (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, happy to help. The template just goes anywhere on the page to be deleted - it puts the page in a speedy deletion category monitored by admins, and tagged pages usually get deleted in no more than a day or three. I also deleted the talkpage - just let me know if you want to save any of the references stored there, or even just take a look.

If you want to create another page at User:Marknutley/Sandbox, the software will tell you that you are recreating a deleted page, but you should not worry about that. By the way - what means "wip"? Work In Progress? - 2/0 (cont.) 17:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I`ll give it a try on my next article attempt :) yes wip is work in progress :) mark nutley (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mister Flash

You recently blocked the above for edit waring over the use of BI. More or less immediately on his return he has started again against a clear talk page consensus on a minor article Five Peaks Challenge. There has been a 1RR enforcement in place on the use of the BI term which also applies. He appears to be a largely single purpose account. Any chance you could have a look? --Snowded 22:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the 1RR restriction applies only to the British Isles article itself, but I have requested community input at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Mister Flash regarding edits related to the British Isles. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that it applied to any edit waring over the term on any article but good to get community feedback/agreement to a way forward. Thanks for doing that. --Snowded 20:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added my comments to the incidents noticeboard. Thanks, Mister Flash (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

American Dream

i have a question about somone removing my addition to american dream,i recently added a referance to a book by john steinbeck about it being one of the key themes of his book and showing the futility of it, somone keeps removing it at first with no reason, then saying that i have no source, where i have several, and now saying that it is vandalism. Now i believe that putting a referance to this book can be useful to many people who are researching american dream and possible literature that could be of use. Is this either vandalism on my part, or the user that is constantly deleting my post. Thanks in advance. (86.180.90.107 (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

This is your paragraph. What references do you see here?

"The American Dream is also a main theme in the book by John Steinbeck, "Of Mice and Men". The two friends George and Lennie dream of their own piece of land with a ranch, so they can "live offa the fatta the lan'" and just enjoy a better life. But the symbolism shows this is futile due to the fact that it will never happen, and that they end up shooting lenny in the back of the head, like candys' dog. This shows that not everyone can achive the american dream, thus proving by contradiction it is not possible."

Not only does this paragraph contain no references to scholarly thought regarding its application to the American Dream, it contains grammar, spelling and punctuation problems. I see no reason to keep it in the article as it does nothing to help our readers understand the concept. Of course, there are scholarly opinions about how Of Mice and Men applies to the American Dream—the article would benefit from using some of these or these. No original research, please. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

would the use of a referance to many essays that have been written about this subject prove to you that it has a legitimate reason to be added there? Also by the term reference, i ment to one of the key themes of the book, not to a source if you miss understood what i said i am sorry. Also to the fact of no research i would like you to have a look at this clearly stating from a reliable source, the gardian newspaper, that the book has the theme of the faliure of the american dream

Er, it has been about eleven years since I read Of Mice and Men, and I have never edited that article. I have requested a third opinion on this matter. In the meantime, please discuss this at Talk:American Dream. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback nsaa notforum

{{talkback|nsaa|wp:notforum}} Nsaa (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate ban

I'm outta the dog now, right? JPatterson (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Kidney-powered dog light? But yes, your articleban has lapsed and you are free to edit any page. Good luck :). - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Har. Quick-mind, slow-fingers syndrome. Thanks for the 'toon, it's going up on my wall. Motor easy, I'll try and steer clear of the landmines. JPatterson (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

suggested sanctions re: Mister Flash

Hi 2over0, there has been discussion at the ani thread you opened and I (after reviewing evidence and case histories) have suggested some sanctions. Just thought you'd like to know--Cailil 10:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for delving into that history - it is not pretty. I commented on the proposed sanctions, but not on all the noise in that thread. Do you have any ideas on how to prevent discussions from diverging into pointless bickering from the usual suspects without stifling productive discussion? - 2/0 (cont.) 10:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Am i edit warring?

I do not think i am, could you let me know if i am breaching my parole and if so i`ll self revert. thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please self-revert. More extensive reply at User talk:Marknutley#Editwarring. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, however were did you get this from? and your only contribution was a quarter hour after your revert

Thats like 3 days of talk? mark nutley (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant during the period leading up to your revert, linked earlier in the same sentence. Rereading, I can see the ambiguity, I hope my clarification clears things up. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter L Corsell page has been deleted unnecessarily

Hello 2over0, I am Eve Higgs, the employee in charge of our (GridPoint) Website, www.gridpoint.com. I created a page for our CEO and his various activities to benefit the future of clean energy. I was instructed to utilize his bio *as seen on our Website,* but with a few edits. There is no copyright infringement; your notice states that the copyright infringement is for our Management page. But that's the point: it's OUR management page, and I was instructed to use the bio as it appears on the site. Please advise on what other proof you need in order to replace the page ASAP. Thank you. One other question: is it not policy to email the author before deleting a page? Please reply to my email address below. Thank you, Ehiggs (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Email redacted. I am looking into this, thank you. In general, every page on Misplaced Pages needs to be licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). That website asserts copyright 2009 by GridPoint, Inc; if the text can be released under a compatible license, then I would be happy to restore the page. Mr. Corsell appears to have been written about by independent parties, probably in enough detail to satisfy the notability requirement. An alternative solution would be to write a new article based on those sources instead of the Management page.

The Deletion policy does not require contacting the author, though this is usually done as a courtesy in cases as this one where all or most of the text is attributable to a single author. If we can get the issue of licensing squared away, Peter L. Corsell, like all encyclopedia pages here, will be freely editable by anyone with an internet connection, and will likely gradually diverge from the version on your website. There is more information at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials; please note especially that the site license includes the ability for third parties to use material here for commercial purposes provided authorship credit is provided. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

PA?

I draw your attention to . Is this considered acceptable? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not acceptable - Vsmith has warned them now. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just added clarification there with a new toy I picked up from your recent 3rr action. Didn't know Template:Inappropriate comment existed before, learn something new every day :) thanks. Vsmith (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice that you can copy and paste from underneath it? That is a sufficiently cool little piece of code that I wonder if it raises accessibility issues. I have not decided yet if I actually like use of the template or not. It is far more obtrusive than anything else we use, but it avoids the editing another's comments problem. Ah well, if people do not like their comments being covered, they can stop making personal attacks or demonstrate that the placer is being disruptive. In neither case is it likely to be an isolated issue. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you both; cute toy you have there William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not requesting or expecting action on this, but: User_talk:Hipocrite#Remove_section.3F. Perhaps you could collapse the section in question seeing as how it isn't going to be removed. I'm not sure how.-Heyitspeter (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Collapsed. Scottaka UnitAnode 23:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. Thank you.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

3RR close

I wondered how to phrase that result, but your block of the submitter captured the issue well. Now I guess you will be raked over the coals by the blockee (complete with legal jargon) and threatened with Arbcom, but c'est la vie. I think he actually does make a contribution here, but sometimes the specific behavior can be very annoying. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I really hate cases involving the valuable content / uncivil or anti-collaborative interactions quadrant of editor. There is real damage to the project during such blocks, but if we get it right the damage is less than just letting them continue through warning after warning. Ah, well. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:THF

Hi 2over0, I noticed you blocked User:THF for a significant period, but I can't quite make out why he was blocked. He appears to have been in a conflict with a couple of other editors, but I'm not really seeing any blockable offenses; certainly nothing worse than what his opponents did/wrote. One of them appears to have actually violated 3RR, but not been blocked. I think it would be best to unblock THF at this point, but I wanted to raise the issue with you first. Cheers! Jayjg 01:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. His opponents have engaged in edit warring, uncivil language, and assuming bad faith, yet the only action taken against them was that one of them (a long-time user) was warned for violating 3RR.--Drrll (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Like Drrll, I am an involved party, but I thought I should register my objection to unblocking. The conflicts haven't been pretty, and there's plenty of blame to go around, but in the end the conflicts begin with THF's inability to play well with others. Whatever mistakes any other parties may have made do not excuse THF's constant torrent of accusations, often in the midst of what should be the most simple and clear cut discussions. For those who think he should be unblocked, I have two questions. 1) Why do you feel THF's behavior is appropriate for a Misplaced Pages editor? 2) What would you do or have us do to to prevent conflict with such a hostile editor? Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, if you think that the encyclopedia would be better served by unblocking THF I would not stand in the way. They are definitely a positive force for content, but based on reviewing their last few days of contributions there are significant issues with civil interaction and collaboration. Ratel violated 3RR, but claimed the BLP exemption. On reviewing the edits I do not think they qualify, but assuming good faith, I warned them in this regard. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

2/0, can you please provide links to the gross incivility you cited in the edit comment? ATren (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

PA ??

Would you mind taking a look at these , ... they seem to focused on editors and less on sources or content. Thanks, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at your last few contribs shows that you are engaging in the exact behavior for which you think William should be sanctioned (). Given that context, I'm curious how you would you address this situation, if you were an uninvolved admin. MastCell  06:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ask folks to stay focused on sources and content to be objective. Then remove the bad apple, obstructing with original research. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Then remove the bad apple - I thought you were wanting to focus on content, not editors? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, apple pruning is required when content progression suffers, and in particular when editors show little self awareness for reformation or restoration to civil principles. I'll say here I've notice a little change for the better (except diffs above), however looking for consistency. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Username?

User:HideTheDecline looks to me to fall under "user name created to push a POV". The edits support this William M. Connolley (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)ok