Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:06, 9 January 2010

archive historical revision - rather than explicitly creating an archive page (which needlessly copies data), this neatly links to the last revision before removing archived sections. It also serves as a handy marker to the exact point where archival occurred in the history.

Issue with Global Warming page

Hi ATren, I followed your activity behind the screens (I enjoy reading discussion pages on wiki, perhaps more than the articles themselves, and I have been doing it for a long while :), and I'm glad somebody is actually doing something about this WMC fellow. His POV pushing is disgusting.

Many thanks, it is people like you who keep wikipedia worthwhile.

As I lost my old wiki account details (it has been ages since I edited anything here) and was forced to make a new account, I was unable to make any contributions to the Global Warming page.

In particular, as a statistician, I am quite disgruntled at the biased view on the actual forcasting/modeling on the Global Warming page. Here's an link to a scientific publication by actual statisticians/econometricians dealing with the highly unscientific nature of the forecasts employed by the IPCC.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2007/00000018/F0020007/art00009

This is the abstract:

Abstract:

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Working Group One, a panel of experts established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, issued its Fourth Assessment Report. The Report included predictions of dramatic increases in average world temperatures over the next 92 years and serious harm resulting from the predicted temperature increases. Using forecasting principles as our guide we asked: Are these forecasts a good basis for developing public policy? Our answer is "no".

To provide forecasts of climate change that are useful for policy-making, one would need to forecast (1) global temperature, (2) the effects of any temperature changes, and (3) the effects of feasible alternative policies. Proper forecasts of all three are necessary for rational policy making.

The IPCC WG1 Report was regarded as providing the most credible long-term forecasts of global average temperatures by 31 of the 51 scientists and others involved in forecasting climate change who responded to our survey. We found no references in the 1056-page Report to the primary sources of information on forecasting methods despite the fact these are conveniently available in books, articles, and websites. We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC's WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical.

The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts' predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

I have read this as a scientist and their conclusions strongly coincide with my own suspicions on the matter.

Perhaps you, or some other editor who is at least a little bit objective on the issue, can actually make this addition, and nuance the highly biased section in the article itself. I guess that person would also have to be ready for a edit war with either Schultz, Petersen, TS or WMC himself... but for the sake of science in general, and statistics in particular, somebody ought to fight that war.

Anyhow, thanks for your time, and keep up the good work.

Regards Viddythes (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Question which you inspired

• Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Are_Admins_treated_differently_than_other_wikipedians.3F

Thanks Travb (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey ATren, sorry to admit that your talkpage is always on my watchlist, but consider it a good thing, I added you since some incident involving that renegade rouge admin that we all know about, to see if you ever need help. Anyways hope you don't mind if I comment here -- haven't spoken to you for a while. With regard to admins getting treated differently, do I need to mention the countless times JzG has been incredibly incivil to both you and me and other wikipedians, including swearing and other such name-calling -- without even so much as a warning placed against him? Then we have the fact that JzG FOR SEVERAL WEEKS kept a link on his talkpage flaming both you and I, which is against wikipolicy - you cannot have attack pages offwiki (or for that matter on wiki), especially from an admin - and his used all kinds of colourful language about you and me -- directly linked from his userpage, the cheek. Then he was recently involved in removing someone else's off-wiki attack pages (I think you were in on this issue) -- and during the whole time he had this link on his userpage -- the hypocracy. This came directly after he had my evidence page about him removed from my userspace (and I use the word evidence page very strictly -- there was absolutely no attack it was very civil and respectful) and just recently an admin asked him to delete a so-called 'evidence page' in his userspace that he had been harbouring for over a year. I didn't get to see its content, but he admitted the issue was long over. But still? The guy is perhaps wikipedia's ultimate admin hypocrit. Swear, be incivil, punish people for off-wiki attack pages all-the-while keeping his own, removing other peoples harmless and constructive evidence pages, all the while keeping his own.

Do admins get treated differently? That one does. Rfwoolf (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

…for the note. Don't worry, I didn't take anything personally, it was clear there was a lot of history there. I know defending your record can be an exhausting thing, and I respect your need to move on. Appreciate the note, though. -Pete (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dethzone

Give him a break, please. Dethzone obviously doesn't fully understand the rule that people are allowed to remove messages, and the general unspoken rule to not repeatedly repost the message. He may have thought that JzG hadn't read it and posted it again, and all Steel did was "sorry not today" without explaining why. You've given him his first warning. I think it's premature to start discussing blocking.

TOAT and JzG have told him to start contributing, and I think he's making a good-faith effort by creating an article in his sandbox and asking JzG to look over it – which is far more than I can say about most newbie users who just charge straight ahead and dump their stuff into Special:Newpages and get frustrated and angry when administrators go A7 on it. We may have a good contributor on our hands here. He just needs a mentor and some guidence, and this "omg block" might scare him away. With Rudget gone, we need as much as much manpower as possible... hbdragon88 (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Read This Please

iHave Some Problems It Has To Do The Words You And That Other Admin Said About Me(In A Yelling Voice)iAm Going To Be A Book Writer/Director/Film Writer/Producer Theses Are My Dreams And iAm Just Testing It iAm Going To Finish It Soon There Will Be More(On Chapter Three)OK So Let Me Finish Also iDon't Know Whats Wrong With JzG But iAm Not Going Guess But Also The Story Is about A Band Called Dark Force Death metal/Brutal death metal/Metalcore/Extreme metal Band Its Still Not Done Yet So Just To Let You Know iAm Gods Soldier And Follower So A Word To The Wise Don't Make H.I.M. Take His Wrath On You He Will Do Alot To You Painfull Things Two More Things A Guy Questioned His Ability It Was On That Wiki Sandbox Also Don't Question His Abilitys And Sorry About Reposting Messages On JzGs Talk Page iAm Just Like A Robot From Aqua Teen Hunger Force Episode There Where Robots That Moved In Next Door To Carls Place They Were Annoying Very Annoying He Was On The Phone But The Robots Were Saying Carl Hang Up The Phone Come On Carl Hang Up The Phone iThink iMade My Point Now. -- NATHAN EXPLOSION (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your early Dec. note to me -

Hi ATren, I know what you mean about the potential for flame wars, but I think that Wiki also provides an opportunity for working through conflicts, for bringing consensus into what might otherwise be a contentious situation. You might enjoy looking at some of the examples at Wiki success stories.

-- Martha (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Don't Feed the Divas

I moved your essay article to Misplaced Pages:Don't Feed the Divas, since such essays to not belong in the mainspace, but are fine and dandy with the Misplaced Pages prefix. This is simply WP policy, and is not a judgment of the article's content in any way. The original title, of course, now redirects to the new title. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You can do it in user space, but not in main space as you did. Easy fix, though. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's as OK as any similar essay in WP space. Actually, I think it's pretty much spot-on. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Permanent link archive method

Yuck. But, okay. TJRC (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/JzG2

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/JzG2 - I know you've buried the hatchet, but at long last someone's actually taken him to task. But watch closely as nothing is done :) Rfwoolf (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Clesh

Hi, if you can spare any time I would appreciate your input over on Clesh. It's a new article for a sister of FORscene. It is being proposed for deletion - wrongly I believe. Your ID is on the original discussion trail for FORscene and think the Clesh discussion would benefit from any input you can offer. Regards, mk (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC).

I'll take a look, but I was only slightly involved in the FORscene stuff and I'm not well-versed in these areas, so I may not have much to contribute. ATren (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

UniModal

Hi, I think you might be interested to know that UniModal was deleted... and I set up a deletion review at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_5#UniModal. Feel free to comment or not. Fresheneesz (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not aimed at you

The comment was not aimed at you. Look at SkyTran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see the edit history, look at the history of the editor who wrote it. You could have asked, but I understand why you might jump to the wrong conclusion here. No big deal unless other people choose to make it one, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks/ your userpage

"I've gotten involved in a few protracted disputes - mainly because I have a difficult time walking away when I know there is a wrong being committed - but I've always tried my best to remain civil and respectful." I agree with this idea 100%- though my boyf always tries to get me to keep my head down to avoid stress:) Merkin's mum 01:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice etc

"Nothing good will come from continued interaction with DS. Just let it go and let others handle it."

Thanks for your advice.

"but you really should watch what you write, both here and on WR. I searched through your comments on WR (assuming they're yours - and you don't have to confirm or deny that) and I found nothing extraordinarily bad, but you still shouldn't do it."

As you say, I don't think my comments were that bad. I have merely expressed my opinion on certain actions/edits that have happened on wiki. David is the only person I've mocked for himself- which was mean of me- it was nasty and it won't happen again from me about anyone. Rise above it.

"Remember, there are human beings behind those screen names."

I am well aware of it and that's why I would never advocate outing people etc. But if I think people have acted wrongly towards others here, who are also real people, I will comment on it- maybe briefly and civilly here now too though, so as not to be two-faced about it.

"and don't worry about that essay - you've apologized sincerely, and that's more than enough"

The thing is, he has said he might carry out some sort of threat of outing or something against me if I don't. As I don't want that, and no-one here can stop him doing that off site, I am at the mercy of his demand for this, so what can I do? Merkin's mum 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Tag team sockpuppetry" What people usually mean by that is people have two accounts on wikipedia with which they then back themselves up by for instance, one agreeing with each other or one making similar edits so they can circumvent 3RR or something. I have never used a WW account on here, nor any other. Nor have I been on WR saying "that Merkinsmum, she is absolutely right" :) or something like that. I used a different name there for security reasons due to problems with my Merky account, which I've kept for sentimental value due to it being named after my first cat, who then passed away. I was actually thinking of putting my wiki account name on my profile there, and was moving towards being even more open about it (some admins here already knew it was me). You can see I was moving towards it by some of my edits there, referring to myself and even the other day linking to a user subpage of mine and saying it was mine (this seemed to help the person with their outing- if I'd expected that from either side, it wouldn't have been from WP.) Merkin's mum 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point now. But unfortunately I can't do anything about it and how it might appear :( , as I don't feel I can do any different in terms of the name, and thus out myself any more than has already happened, if that's possible.:) Merkin's mum 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

letting it go

Yeah, I'm letting it go. Avidor does the most frustrating stupid things tho. I just won't respond to him. Fresheneesz (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

sig

I've copied and pasted and this is the result. There's an unnecessary extra 2 brackets. You see it works fine on your page- it's just Neil's page it has issues with.:( Sticky Parkin]] 21:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it happens to others, it's incorrect nesting of the brackets. The fact that Neil's page happens to reveal the issue is irrelevant - it's your sig that is incorrect. I don't know why it won't work when you copy-paste, and I don't know how to examine it myself. But the problem is still your sig, and if it failed on Neil's it's a good bet it will fail on others as well. My talk page is very basic, so that's probably why it works here and at other plain talk pages. ATren (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I copied it:- look-as I already had above:) isn't everything inside a bracket? This is the code neil gave me- I copied it exactly- if you can see anything that's outside a bracket or something in my code then please tell. I've asked at a help desk thingy. Sticky Parkin 22:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked the hep desk boys and I think it's fixed now.:) Think something was wrong with my clipboard for copying, I turned off and on again.:) Sticky Parkin 22:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it was the turning off and on that helped. Now I won't tinker with it for ages lol, html, the horror!:) Sticky Parkin 22:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk page of FAIR

Thanks for contributing to the discussion on the description of FAIR and similar organizations. I think that you added valuable perspective and insight. Trilemma (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've tried to address these issues before, but I got slammed for being partisan and pushing my supposed POV, so it just wasn't worth pursuing for me. I am apolitical and generally hate ideological warfare, so this was certainly not something I wanted to be involved in. But I still had FAIR watched so I thought I'd chime in on your debate. I probably won't be involved much further. Perhaps you and Hal and Gamaliel can hammer something productive out of this. ATren (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Skytran

Yeah, Doorjam seems to be more objective than he seemed originally. The edits aren't that much of a big deal anyway. Fresheneesz (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your generous support

I sincerely appreciate your efforts here today. Now that the timer has expired on my "RFC", I would like to know your thoughts regarding my comments here , , and . --GoRight (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be brutally honest with you here, GR: if you think you're going to be able to take on Raul and his friends and survive, you are kidding yourself. I think you need a crash course in Wikipragmatism:

1. All editors are not created equal - Raul can break the rules all he wants, but you can't. That's just the reality of Misplaced Pages, and if you want to stick around here you'd better get used to it. Misplaced Pages treats its established editors much differently than newbies.
2. All POVs are not created equal - there are a few topics here that are basically owned by one side of the debate. Global warming is one; intelligent design is another. You will find your stay here short and unpleasant if you oppose the majority views on those kinds of topics. (Ironically, I happen to agree with the majority on those debates, but I am repulsed by the tactics of the editors involved. Sadly, in the name of being pro-science, many of these editors act like religious fanatics...)
3. You will not get a fair shake in any formal dispute resolution process - Forget about the Misplaced Pages democratic ideal claiming that "anyone can edit". The plain fact is that Misplaced Pages is much more oligarchy than democracy. There is a ruling elite, and people who disagree too strongly with that elite are eventually banned. So, if you fight back too hard, you will lose matter how "right" you happen to be. Your best bet is to calmly and humbly defend yourself in the RFC and leave Raul alone. Elite editors are never sanctioned unless they do something so egregiously bad that it draws extensive media attention and/or litigation (e.g. User:Essjay). Certainly, your case doesn't come close to that level, so just drop it and move on.

Of course, you will not read a bit of this on any policy page; policies document the "rules", I am telling you the reality. If you choose to follow your current idealistic path and trust the system to do the right thing, you'll be gone in a month; if you choose a more pragmatic path and avoid confrontation with the elite, you might stay long enough to actually have a positive influence here. ATren (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My response on my RFC

Note that I plan to revise my response on my RFC as follow:

• Trim out the irrelevant knee-jerk bits.
• Structure the General Points to be a point by point response to Raul's and WMC's charges with clear factual statements as much as possible.
• I do not anticipate making any changes that would affect your support there, but be advised of the changes so that you can reconsider your position, if needed, as it evolves.

--GoRight (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. ATren (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFC discussion

This expresses my thoughts exactly, !  :) --GoRight (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you're frustrated. Believe me, I've been there, trying to establish my innocence against a flood of powerful users (not on GW - a different conflict entirely). In the beginning, I did many of the same things you are doing to defend myself, thinking that truth would prevail, but I lost that idealism pretty quickly in the face of accusations of harassment and tendentiousness. You could say I've gained my pragmatic attitude the hard way. :-) I now have no illusions about what Misplaced Pages is, and I generally stick to stuff I don't care about. For me, GW falls into that category. ATren (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Singer

Thanks much for that. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. ATren (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WMC

Very elegantly said. --Bardcom (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom

Hi. I removed Bardcom's twaddle from my page, and alas your comment had to go to. Which was:

I have a problem with this. Whatever Bardcom did, WMC did assume bad faith, and that has caused further drama. For what purpose? WMC, why couldn't you make a simple statement of the problem without insulting him?

Here is what WMC wrote that Bardcom objects to (I've bolded the places where WMC doesn't AGF or otherwise uses aggressive language):

I don't believe him. As for the BI stuff: yes there are complications there, but no: his isn't a genuine good-faith attempt to improve wiki; its POV pushing be to try to remove a term he dislikes for political reasons. You can tell this, because while removing BI on the bizarre grounds of OR, he adds something equally uncited. But this giant pile of nonsense is now on the article talk page, so best to continue there, if you can bear it.

Now, why couldn't you have simply said:

There are political complications with the BI stuff, and Bardcom was replacing BI mentions with equally uncited material. I blocked him because he was edit warring and ignoring consensus. When his block expires, he is welcome to discuss the issue on the talk pages, where the debate continues.

This essentially says the same thing with no aggressiveness or insults. It focuses on Bardcom's actions, not his unprovable intent. It uses no inflammatory wording ("pile of nonsense"). It gives the reasoning for the block and the conditions under which Bardcom may edit unimpeded. It's makes all the same statements as the original, but has the added benefit of being drama free. So why the insults and attacks? What is the point?

(Note: I make these comments with absolutely no judgement on the merits of Bardcom's original block - this has to do with how it was handled. In particular, Bardcom should not in any way take this as an endorsement of anything he did) ATren (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat patronising, but to answer your essential point: Bardcom is engaged in a one-man campaign to remove the words British Isles from wiki. He is editing in bad faith, and a glance at his edits will show you this. Pretending otherwise is pointless. As the talk on his talk page makes clear, Bardcom is not to be trusted: he keeps inexplicably missing text that he has actually responded to; he quotes the first sentence of the revert policy but somehow fails to read the second... all very odd, or rather, not odd at all William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in Bardcom's offenses. This is about your handling of it. I showed you how you could have easily avoided needless drama and still conveyed the point that Bardcom was worthy of a block. But it seems you always choose the inflammatory, high drama path, and it reflects poorly on you, on Misplaced Pages, and on the very beliefs you hold so strongly.

What you don't seem to understand is that your attacks play right into the hands of your opponents. People like Solomon can use your own attacking words to prove their point: they can say "See, they claim to be scientists, but they attack anyone who disagrees with them" and then present half a dozen direct quotes where you called someone an idiot or hack. You make it easy for them to attack you.

Do you like being publicly mocked on CBS news? Forget about who wrote it, or the fact that it's from a conservative website - that piece appeared on a major national news outlet and it was factually correct. You did add the embarassing stuff to Singer's BLP, and then edit warred to keep it prominent in the article, even calling it "embarassing" yourself. You did say "Peiser's crap". You are frequently incivil. In effect, you handed that column to Solomon with your behavior, and speaking as someone who agrees much more with your views than Solomon's, I think that stinks.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, I wish you could be more Russert and less O'Reilly, and I think a lot of other editors share my view. ATren (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The CBS piece is amusingly inaccurate. I don't claim to be a scientist. You've got most of your facts wrong. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you were a scientist. The rest of it is dead on, but I guess we're in the Misplaced Pages no spin zone. I'd hoped for more from you. :-( ATren (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A frosty one!

Anymore, it seems everyone is either a troll, an admin, or wants to be an admin... here's to those who enjoy being a Wikipedian just for the sake of being a Wikipedian... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My friend ATren, I offer you this frosty pint of homebrew, for fighting the good fight, and supporting the Wikipedian middle class... Prost! Adolphus79 (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Basically I agree with them, too. I think it's probably very hard for some people to see just how interesting it is (never mind valuable) to have different opinions about something described on the same page. The thread took some interesting turns today. I'm surprised it's at WP:ANI because it's all about PR and policy, not behavior (isn't that supposed to be the focus of AN/I?). Maybe people are a little bored -- it's a nice change from personality conflicts and grudge matches. I've just been given a link on my talk page to an old essay about humility. I'll have to take a look at that. I'll also take a look at the thread you mentioned. Noroton (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we could write them all and the people who don't read that kind of thing won't read that kind of thing. Then again, some do. I think I might begin saving my thoughts on these things and maybe come up with something at some point. I liked your comment at the Felonious/Dragon thread, by the way. I'd have chimed in with a "what he said" but it was already over. -- Noroton (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Realclimate

Can you please review the recent changes at Realclimate and see if you have any opinion that you would like to record? Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't been editing for a while. But in any case, given my interactions with WMC here (which have been mostly good but with a few conflicts) I'd like to avoid getting involved in something so close to him. ATren (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

:) Believe me, I completely understand. It's old news now anyway. Welcome back! are you going to be around for a while? --GoRight (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. It's been a busy summer and Misplaced Pages is just a casual hobby for me. ATren (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment for GoRight RfC

I have finished revising my comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/GoRight#Ouside View by Abd. I promised that I would notify those who endorsed my comment so they would have an opportunity to revise their comments. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not dead yet

They tried, but.... I'm not dead yet. Thanks for your support. A troll has been wandering about claiming that I'll now feel validated, predicting that I'll eventually pass RfA and kick Jehochman's butt out of here. Yeah, that's what he said, as I recall, which of course, is far from the truth. That troll has the idea that an admin could do that easier than I could already. But I'm not out to exclude anybody, except the most viciously disruptive who simply won't give up true personal attacks, I'm not only an inclusionist with articles but with editors as well. I don't want to desysop so-and-so or get that editor blocked, I just want abusive use of admin tools and edit warring to stop, whether it is individual or tag-team. We cannot find NPOV without civil, inclusive process. The Elonka RfC is about this, actually. Guidelines and policies require interpretation, and the only mechanism for interpretation we have, legitimately, is editorial consensus; and an exclusive consensus will always be unstable and unreliable. If we have a prejudgment about what POVs are legitimate and what ones are not, we have distorted the process, making it impossible for us to see clearly.

And there is massive confusion about this, I estimate that about one-third of the admin community has it backwards, but thinks it represents the consensus. The defect in Misplaced Pages process means that shallow, knee-jerk responses of some very active admins and editors can prevail in the short run, that's how and why I was blocked, that's how many bad decisions get made, and it is gradually destroying the community if we don't reverse it. It's become a little trickier for me, but I did manage to be unblocked without any conditions. Not through my efforts. I actually wanted to hold out for an unblock that recognized the error of the block, that it was unnecessary, but, when my unblock request was denied, the admins who had apparently been waiting for that finally showed up and said, "Enough!" and I was unblocked without my participation at all. --Abd (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I was happy to help, Abd. I agree with all of the above pretty much verbatim. I see the problems on Misplaced Pages with POV pushing vested contributors, and I'm not alone - others feel the same way. But there is no quick fix to this ongoing problem. I keep returning to my analogy: you don't march into the front door of the police station with a criminal complaint against a cop - that's not going to accomplish anything. You need to deal with these issues delicately. I think Cla68 is the best at this: he produces featured articles like a machine so he's one of the "elite", but he also stands firmly against what he perceives as abuses. I also think Newyorkbrad is pretty good at remaining civil even while holding the line against abuse.

But in your case, you charge into discussions with long rambling posts (and, by the way, nobody reads them after about a paragraph or two) which seem to be making vague accusations against power editors. Your fearless, direct style appears to be aggression to those don't read it closely, especially when directed at the elite (whom are expected to be treated like royalty here). So the "harassment against a valued contributor" card gets quickly played and you find yourself on the defensive against a group of very powerful editors. This will get you nothing except an eventual ban.

So, perhaps you can be a little patient and not try to fix it all at once? Rather than charging into discussions with long accusatory posts, perhaps you can sit back and just gather evidence to support your case. Then when you feel confident that your position is strong, you can present a precise statement of your position with plenty of supporting evidence. This way you let your evidence do the talking.

And for the love of God, please, please, please learn to trim down your comments. You really get nowhere with endlessly long comments filled with run-on sentences and constant tangents. Nobody reads all that. You need to learn to make your point in as few words as possible. Perhaps you can start using the Preview button more - if after hitting preview you see text more than 3 inches long, trim it down. (I know, I know, WP:KETTLE, but bear with me here, I'm almost done ;-)). If you continue to post long rambling posts, you will continue to be misinterpreted. ATren (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC

Because my participation as a Misplaced Pages editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Anything controversial" section - thanks

Thanks for your section on not trusting Misplaced Pages for anything controversial. I've made the mistake of editing politically-charged articles to avoid POV and undue weight, only to be labeled as a mindless supporter of the subject of the articles in question. There's little to be gained from fighting the war of attrition of edit wars. White 720 (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some articles tend to be owned by a group of editors who protect their own POV in the name of NPOV. The basic flaw is that people naturally believe their own views are neutral, and often cannot recognize their own biases. They also tend to caricaturize anyone who opposes them as their enemy, and reject even good faith improvements. It's definitely a problem which tends to drive away good editors and prevent evolution towards NPOV. But it is what it is. I'm pretty pragmatic about it - I use Misplaced Pages mainly as a starting point for research whenever the topic is controversial. I've actually tried wading into some controversies, and in a few cases I was able to actually fix some problems - but most of the time I find it's just not worth the hassle.

Thanks for the feedback. :-) ATren (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility essay

This is a courtesy note to let you know that I've added your essay on civility to a category. As someone who has written on civility on Misplaced Pages, you might also be interested in the latest discussion at WT:CIV. There are a number of threads from the last few days - see the bottom of the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have no problem with listing it. I'd like to try to get involved in the debate, but I'm particularly busy in real life lately so I may not have the time. ATren (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as a Reliable Source in re David Berlinski

ATren, we're having a bit of a dispute about the appropriateness of blogs as a Reliable Source in a BLP article. Since you contributed to this discussion previously and are well versed in the WP-policies related to this issue I was wondering if you'd take a look and perhaps make a comment. Thanks.

BTW, I enjoyed your essay on Civility on WP. - DannyMuse (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I waded into that debate a while back, but life got busy and I decided I didn't want to waste too much time there. Yes, certainly, there are problems with the article, but it would take a herculean effort to fix it because any article remotely related to intelligent design is closely monitored by a group of very experienced and insistent editors who feel a strong need to keep them the way they are. I certainly don't like the tendency to demonize anyone who takes anything but the dogmatic position on evolution, but then, I don't care enough to fight it either.

The problem here is that there are few outright violations. They're all judgement calls, and when you have a number of experienced editors lined up on one side of the debate demonizing the opposition (most of whom are inexperienced newbies), even blatant problems don't get fixed. In the case of Berlinski, the article reads like it's trying to debunk Belinski and ID - even though Berlinski himself has said he doesn't even support ID. That article would be right at home on an anti-ID blog. But any attempts to make it more neutral are met with hostility and charges of "whitewashing". This same thing played out at the Rosalind Picard article a while back.

Note, I do not in any way support intelligent design as a science - that's a political movement as far as I'm concerned. So I often agree in principle with the very editors who keep these articles aligned with their POV. What I object to is the bullying and hostility towards any editor who tries in good faith to make these articles less POV. Anyone who makes the smallest change that opposes their POV is ridiculed as a wingnut creationist, until they lose their temper and are inevitably banned. Nearly a century after the Scopes Monkey Trial, the same self-righteous bullying which characterized that event is played out regular basis here on Misplaced Pages by editors who act no less dogmatic than those creationists did back in the 1920s. That's sad.

OK, rant off. :-) Thanks for your kind words about my essay. Recently some very good editors are working on the civility problem, and I think things may get better in the coming months. At that point some progress may be made in improving articles like Berlinski's. I'm an optimist at heart. :-) ATren (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't disagree with a single thing you said. I only hope you have a clear view from the sidelines. Cheers. - DannyMuse (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

request for dispute resolution

Hey, I wanted to request that you talk to User:AnonMoos about his editing ettiquete and biasedly censoring his talk page. The reason i'm involved with this is that he deleted my good-faith edit, and then yelled at me about it. After responding more or less calmly, he yelled at me again. Hes threatened to delete my work (revised based on his complaints) again if it doesn't suit him. He even called me a vandal. This seems like a very volitile editor, and I'd be very grateful for your help.

on chastity http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chastity&diff=253366059&oldid=253292402

my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AFresheneesz&diff=253703886&oldid=251844207

his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAnonMoos&diff=253645829&oldid=253590556

Thanks, Fresheneesz (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

np. I'm pretty busy myself - otherwise i woulda posted the RfC already. I'll see you around. Fresheneesz (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Restoration

I agree with your restoration. You're bolder than I am (see ). Just FYI, and thanks. Notice that each of the editors who crossed out their oppose votes afterward had cited WR or Postlethwaite, and there are even more that cite one or the other and haven't changed their vote, so these are special circumstances. I'm going to leave a note in support of your move on the project talk page. -- Noroton (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I would have no problem with moving the entire thread, but removing just the responses (including Ryan's own clarification) left the wrong impression. ATren (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The WP:AN thread on me.

Now that you found it I can talk to you about it without having to worry about accusations of WP:CANVASS. I appreciate your support. I noticed your comment here. I agree. That's why I haven't actually been making a big fuss about it other than to highlight that this is another example of Raul ignoring policies and norms.

In fact I made use of this point when I wrote "He is completely exaggerating and misrepresenting the truth of the situation in an attempt to bias you against me. He does this when he says that my sanction was a result of the RFC when it was not. He does this in the example above. If you want more examples simply look at the descriptions he has in his WP:Attack page then follow the links and read the context. In the overwhelming majority of cases there the outcome will be just like this example." Ironically, Raul has been maintaining a list of things that he is exaggerating so I can use them too.

I do wish he would stop hounding me though. It gets to be a pain after a while. It's like you said a while back about his use of the label "Civil POV Pusher." It is a catch 22 term which can be applied to anyone who follows the rules (or imperfectly tries to at least) but has a POV that goes against the status quo. I guess that is just the nature of having such an opinion.

Anyway, thanks again. --GoRight (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. And if I might echo Abd's advice: stop defending yourself while others are doing it. There was a time when trusting the community was a bad idea, because the community tended to railroad those who disagree, but that's less of a problem these days. So, again echoing Abd, trust the community.

And, I must also stress: you must not do anything that even gives the impression of abusive editing. Like the sarcastic comment on AN that I warned you about - that kind of response will only turn off people like me who otherwise believe you are acting in good faith. Remember, you are the outsider here; you have to behave better than the vested contributors who oppose you. You know well that I have always believed you are the lesser offender in this ongoing battle with Raul (even though I probably agree more with Raul's POV than your own) but don't make it difficult for me to defend you, or I won't. ;-) ATren (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"... but don't make it difficult for me to defend you, or I won't." - Yes, I am aware of this. With this round of drama I have been feeling that I let my defenders down when I allowed myself to act like my antogonists. I apologize for that. It is just hard sometimes.

As for my POV, I doubt anyone here has a reasonable understanding of exactly what my POV truly is. I am not as skeptical as I probably look based on my edits. I just perceive that the articles are biased because I have looked at both sides of the issue and I want to fix that, so I end up arguing the skeptic's side almost 100% of the time. This is because of how the WP:OWNers of these pages treat any hint of dissenting views, as you well know. --GoRight (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly relate to this. I've been called a whitewasher for correcting obvious biases. ATren (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Given Raul's claim here, I find wikipedia user WMC's edit summary here to be quite amusing. He sounds absolutely outraged by my "inflammatory attempt at disruption on that page", especially in light of the source and my current sanction.  :) (Sorry, I just have to let this sarcasm out someplace!) --GoRight (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Standing Offer/Request

Given our past interactions on various topics I thought I would make the following offer.

If you ever have something you want me to offer an opinion on or that you feel I might personally be interested in anywhere on wikipedia, its talk pages, or within any of the official forums such as noticeboards, RfCs, RfAs, and the like, please contact me directly on my talk page and feel free to reference this standing request. I trust your judgment in deciding which topics might be of interest to me, and please keep me informed of any topics in general as well as items specifically involving you personally. --GoRight (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Email...

You dropped me an email a few days ago, regarding a note I left on another user's talk page. I am going to assume you are serious, and say thank you. You will notice that since I left that note, he has not responded directly to it. I have no idea what that means, but maybe something finally "clicked". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was serious. Yes I suspect it had the desired effect. It's amazing how effective polite firmness can be. That's why people like Newyorkbrad and CoolHandLuke are on arbcom. Maybe that's in your future too? :-) ATren (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Gawd I hope not... ;) I still like Misplaced Pages. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

hi

Man what you said on your user page is so true. I can't explain how true.
I try to tell people this all the time but nobody believes me. If someone knows proper Misplaced Pages etiquette, and they are an admin, they can be the ruler of many pages and fiction or theories become fact, or notable things become unknown, or worse.
Good job on your page,
thanks.
Mdandrea (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

POVism of wikipedia

Hey, When we get done at media matters I would love to team up with you on some other problem articles. If you want you could take a look at Talk:Bill O'Reilly#Move_to_ambiguate. I am trying to move the page, let me know your $0.02. -Zeus- 04:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll pass. I really don't want to get involved in political articles - I just chimed in on the MM talk because I happened to see a familiar debate flare up again. I've now gotten my fill of political editing for probably the next 6-10 months. ;-) ATren (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

re your Username

Happy deccenniel succession!--Mr Grant 05:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder if I'll still be debunking propaganda at 50? :-) ATren (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Misplaced Pages:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

. Have you been following the ArbCom case on WMC and Abd at all? Total can of worms there. --GoRight (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I glanced at it, but it's too big to get involved. I have the proposed decision page on my watch list because I'm curious how it turns out. It's more of the same, as far as I can tell: one side is hurling attacks and accusations, while the other side is meticulously documenting; and the meticulous documenter is supposedly the bad guy because he's too wordy. Like "civil POV pushing", it's an attempt to create actionable transgressions out of civil disagreement. I'm curious to see what this arbcom will say about it -- it's probably the best group of arbitrators I've seen so maybe the result will be better than we've seen in the past.

The cold fusion thing is another case of overzealousness on one side. I mean, there is obviously a mystery as to what is going on in CF, and to label it "fusion" before knowing what it was, that was a very bad choice. But it has NOT been debunked, so it's NOT pseudoscience. Personally, I want to see a rational explanation for exactly what IS going on in those beakers before I make a final judgement, and I think skepticism should be the prevailing POV on the CF article. But it seems nothing short of "CF is crap" will satisfy the anti-CF crowd, and that's as wrong as an overly promotional CF article. ATren (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. I fear I might be setting myself up as collateral damage, though.  :( --GoRight (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

WMC and me

For the record, WMC removed my talk page response to his provocation on Talk:Lawrence Solomon. I added it back in, while two of WMC's friends removed it again. As a compromise, I removed WMC's original attacking comment, because I believe it is inappropriate for one editor to attack another editor and then remove responses to that attack. WMC then added his comment back in, which I again removed, before self-reverting to avoid an accusation of 3RR.

Removing others' talk page comments is not supposed to happen. Removing someone else's response to your own attacking comment is even more inappropriate.

I also believe it is inappropriate to (a) call other editors concerns a "waste of time", (b) badger an editor for some petty misunderstanding, as WMC has done with Alex Harvey, and (c) edit war to keep your own comment while deleting another editor's response. All of this occurred on that talk page. Most editors on this project would get a stern warning or block for such behavior, yet WMC is apparently exempt, and involved editors like Stephen Schultz imply that I am stalking him. I am prepared to defend every single edit I've made today, if anyone else questions me. ATren (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, this happens all the time. Someone really should do something about it. Perhaps we should start keeping track? See the following more recent sequence: , , , . I guess that SS has been assigned the position of sweeper for team ! --GoRight (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevance

Please don't use the talk pages for irrelevance. If you have civility problems with individual users, you have a variety of options available, beginning with discussing the matter on the users talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You removed this, but now it looks like you want to talk about it again. If you do, please do so William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not interested discussing it after you removed my last comment. By the way, in the future, when you are moving a discussion, it is proper wiki etiquette to indicate that it's been moved in the text. ATren (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved what? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This section, from your talk page, where I had just replied (and you removed) less than an hour ago. ATren (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It was not the same text, but the discussion was ongoing on your talk page until you moved it here. But in any case, I've tried to resolve it with you (multiple times), and in each case you've deleted my comments. So what's the point? You know about my concerns, and in response you not only ignored them, you blanked them even as you were slamming arbcom for blanking (deliciously ironic :-)). ATren (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is my last comment on the matter, for your reference should you choose to reply. ATren (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

So, lets look at this little exchange. You write a patronising little piece about moving text, which I'm fully aware of. I point out that you're wrong: I didn't move the text. Do you apologise? No. You weasel around it. Over to you William M. Connolley (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, but I'm done. You've been notified. That's all I need. ATren (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

More stuff

Move to WMC's talk, where the context is. ATren (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your page

I liked your essay on your page, made alot of sense and seems to be what I have experienced since coming here. What editor said "Civil editors are less intelligent than uncivil editors"? BluefieldWV (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The editor who said that is much less active now than he was when I wrote that, and he's kept out of trouble for a while, so I'll extend him the courtesy of not naming him now. :-) ATren (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

user:Orangemarlin? He certainly shared the credo. --Michael C. Price 01:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy on Misplaced Pages, and Richard Gere and the Geribl

Hi ATren... typed up this response to your User-page post about Controversy on Misplaced Pages, until I realised it wasn't your TalkPage. Ah well, here's the post anyway if you find any of it meaningful:

Hey ATren. I realise the above post is old, and it was true before, but it has rung true for me again recently: I don't know if in your life you've ever heard about the rumour of Richard Gere and the Gerbil? The original legend is that some famous actor goes to a hospital one night because something is stuck up his anus, a gerbil, the legend being that as the gerbil starts to suffocate it starts to try to claw its way out which a (gay?) man would find stimulating. The legend has for some reason stuck most frequently with Richard Gere as the famous actor. And -- like other Hollywood rumours -- everyone seems to know of a friend of a friend who had an aunt whose next door neighbour was a nurse at the hospital who can account for the rumour. Okay, bottom line, the rumour's bogus, it's bullshit, it never happened. Nonetheless, Richard Gere and the Gerbil have found themselves heavily in popular culture - it has been mentioned directly in 2 movies: Scream, and Urban Legends. It's been mentioned directly in the Vicar of Dibley TV series. It's also mentioned directly in approximately 83 published books. It was recently mentioned on the February cover of the South African edition of Cosmopolitan Magazine. In fact Richard Gere has acknowleged the rumour, and Sylvestor Stalone has taken credit for it. As far as I'm concerned this rumour should definitely be mentioned in an article somewhere on Misplaced Pages, and in fact I've come to Misplaced Pages twice so far over the years to find out about this rumour - only to find it's been completely censored for BLP (Biography of Living Persons) and other reasons. In reality there is no good BLP reason that should stop us mentioning this rumour as a rumour - given the ample references to it.

Here we have something that should oh-so-obviously be mentioned, not as a fact, but as a popular culture phenomenon or rumour, but the deletionist-mentality users won't let it through, and are sticking to their guns that this is a BLP violation.

My essay - if I had to have one - is that Misplaced Pages manifests a culture of deletionist-mentality. Instead of stretching for reasons to include something, they stretch for reasons to exclude something. There are people who make it their duty to put articles up for deletion, who brag about how many articles they have successfully deleted. In the AfD votes, typically all the editors that vote are patrollers - people who are *looking* for reasons and excuses to delete the article, instead of the opposite. The same thing will happen with fringe-patrollers, and the same thing will happen with BLP patrollers - they're hungry sharks looking for any excuse to pull the trigger on something. If only it were the opposite: If only people would brag about how many articles they 'saved' from deletion.

Overall one could argue that no system is perfect, and that something will always be compromised, and certainly one could argue that we should err on the side of caution: if some legitimate articles get deleted but millions of illegitimate ones also do then it's a success. We can remind ourselves that things could be worse, and that despite its shortcomings Misplaced Pages is still an outright success. But we should also take stock and acknowledge its problems, if only the audience was listening.

Well that's the end of my rant, hope you're keeping yourself productive, unlike me :) Rfwoolf (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rfwoolf, I'm just noticing this post now. My view on biographies is that we should always err on the side of caution. I did not always feel this way, but these days I try to take a very strict view of protecting bios simply because of the damage they can cause to people.

In this particular case, yes I've heard of the Gere thing (who hasn't?) but I don't feel it's necessary to include it. It is not confirmed to be true (in fact, it may be confirmed false - ?) so why include it? Even in the context of "This is a well-known rumor that has been referenced widely in popular culture", I don't necessarily think it belongs here, because repeating it here would appear to give it more "weight" than if it is referenced as a joke in a comedy act or movie, and giving weight to such an embarrassing charge is inappropriate. So my view is that such items are to be kept out of Misplaced Pages. And note, I generally consider myself to be an inclusionist on non-BLP issues. ATren (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BAIT

Please stop these condescending little speeches to try to annoy WMC. I doubt it bothers him but it is bad for you, bad for your reputation and bad for the general atmosphere at Misplaced Pages. I daresay he has irritated you at some point and your nose is out of joint but isn't it time to move on? --BozMo talk 07:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not baiting, he is baiting. I've not called him stupid, I've not removed talk page comments, I've not called his relevant arguments a waste of time, I've not harassed someone for not calling me "Doctor", I've not edit-warred. He's done all this in the last few months, to 3 different editors at least. If it keeps up, it's probably going to RFC/U soon, but I don't want that. I respect what WMC does here and I want him to stop. He needs to stop treating everyone who disagrees with him on GW content like an enemy, and perhaps you (as someone whom he probably respects more than me) could help by discouraging these kinds of thing. Note, I also criticized BluefieldWV recently for the same thing, directed at WMC. The level of discourse on the GW pages needs to improve, and it has to come from all sides. ATren (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. This looks unlikely. Aside from objecting to terms of address which are obviously offensive ("Mr" or "Billy" for example) I have never seen WMC request being called Dr and it sounds out of character. However I think the tone of your comments to him where I have seen them are inflammatory and very unlikely to improve the level of discourse anywhere. --BozMo talk 12:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

BozMo, the level of discourse is already terrible. I have not made it worse. For your reference, here are the diffs of WMC repeatedly criticizing Alex Harvey for not calling other editors "Dr.":

• Sarcastic remark from WMC which started it
• WMC criticizes Alex for referring to a non-editor as "Dr.": "Perhaps you might extend the same courtesy to people here, or do you only do it to people you wish to quote favourably?"
• Alex reaches out to WMC to WMC: "can we both try? I have no idea how well I'll go with that either but I still think, can we try?"
• WMC rebuffs him and again implies bad faith on AH's part because of the Ph.D thing: "Why don't you take that attitude on wiki? It really does look like you are extending that courtesy to people who you wish to quote favourably but not otherwise."
• Alex explains how he frequently refers to people by their titles, and mentions that he didn't know the other editors were Ph.Ds: "If so, I just didn't know. Look, I'll happily strike whatever you want me to strike from the discussion."
• WMC ignores AH's explanation, and once again implies that AH is insulting other editors by not calling them "Dr.": "You are suggesting that you will respect people for the quality of their CVs, as long as they don't edit wikipedia? ... What you do mean, I think, is that while you're prepared to subscribe to the concept when it pleases you, you will drop it as soon as it becomes inconvenient"
• AH again defends his actions, expresses some frustration at the atmosphere, but then again requests that they work together on the problems: "I think we could work together in a way that would lead to an improvement of the encyclopaedia -- and a lot less angst for all of us."
• WMC again accuses AH of being disrespectful of on-wiki editors: You seem to feel that remaining respectful to S requires you to be disrespectful on wiki to those who seek to correct his bio. In that same link, he rebuffs AH's plea to cooperate: "No, I don't think this will work."
• AH gives up trying to defend himself.

Alex took every effort to explain (at least three separate times), but at the end WMC was still accusing him of "disrespecting" editors. That's about as baiting an exchange as I've seen, and it was WMC who was doing the baiting, not me or any other of the perceived "GW skeptics" (and, believe me, I for one am NOT). And, FWIW, this is not the only incident involving incivility from WMC over the last two months. There was at least one other incident with Alex Harvey, the current conflict with UnitAnode, and an earlier conflict with another admin in which WMC was briefly blocked. The above "Ph.D" exchange is excusable as an isolated incident, but the point is it's not isolated. ATren (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not see that any of these diffs which I have gone through support the claim that WMC has harrassed someone for not calling him or any other editors Dr. but I don't follow him around and he may have upset people. Most of the discussion seems to be about "Alex" wanting to refer to a BLP by their title in talk which is a little odd but I agree harmless. There are an awful lot of PhDs who edit WP including me of course and we don't normally refer to each other by title. HOWEVER I wonder whether instead of talking about WMC's behaviour we might talk a little about yours?. What I see from you (and I haven't tracked your edits just come across them on articles so the sample may not be representative) is that you turn up and make fairly personaly comments about conduct which seem to be to be patronising and almost certainly to either have no effect or a negative one. Hence I am suggesting you might desist. If WMC needs to modify his behaviour (which is an open question as far as I am concerned) and if someone is capable of modifying the behaviour of WMC I think it is most likely, as you imply, to be someone he respects. I think you interventions are more likely just to cause irritation. That make sense?--BozMo talk 19:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does make sense, and it's good advice. You are right that further attempts to interact with WMC directly are probably not going to be helpful, so I will instead withdraw and focus on collecting diffs for a possible RFC/U. I believe I have plenty of evidence already, and was actually going to post it a few weeks ago, but WMC seemed to tone it down so I didn't go through with it. The recent behavior is evidence of an ongoing pattern. The next time it happens I will post the formal complaint. Hopefully it will not come to that (I really mean that, because I respect 90% of what WMC does here). ATren (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Ph.D thing, Alex referred to a BLP subject as "Dr" once then tried repeatedly to defend his actions, as WMC ignored his explanations and continued to accuse him of "disrespect". During this time, he was also edit warring on a BLP concern raised by AH, removing AH's comments, and calling his concerns a "waste of time". Around this time, WMC was also part of an edit war to restore a completely unfounded accusation that AH was a Scibaby sockpuppet. This is WP:BAIT at best, especially coming from a long term established editor and directed at a relative newbie. But I will present a more complete picture in the RFC/U. You will see no more direct communication between me and WMC until then. ATren (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that is a better approach than the previous one :). --BozMo talk 07:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way I would add which I stand by as my own position on the whole GW thing. I am quite concerned about an issue of disrespect for people which touches on the Alex issue. However I am also extremely reluctant to get into GW BLPs which is a tar baby. There was a similar issue in Misplaced Pages with the Bios of some types of US surgeons (the ones who do private procedures which much of the population of Europe would regard as mutilation, especially cosmetic anti-ageing plastics etc) but there I think we have all given up and have let them self-certify outrageous puff pieces and perhaps that is the only way which policy allows us to do BLPs of people who "talk a big book" --BozMo talk 08:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think my view coincides with yours. I don't really have much of an interest in the science of GW because I basically agree with the consensus concerns. But like you, I don't like the way skeptic bios are handled, with all the questionably sourced claims and guilt by association. There is a lot of resistance to good faith attempts to clean those bios up, so when we have someone (e.g. Alex Harvey) without an apparent agenda willing to go in and do the dirty work, I don't want editors on the other side to chase him off. Not that this is an accusation of bad faith on those editors - they are obviously passionate about this issue and object to what they view as white-washing. They just need to recognize that not all of us are Scibaby, and some of us less involved editors see issues that perhaps they've missed. ATren (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

http://weinerwatch.blogspot.com/

Is http://weinerwatch.blogspot.com/ you?

Yes. ATren (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

qq

Am listening. Where is the bit you refer to in BLP here: ? Also does BLP say anywhere that all material in an article whose title is the name of a living person is de facto biographical material and covered? This point seems central (but I think the sentence needs binning anyway because it isn't significant enough). --BozMo talk 21:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self-published_sources:

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources."

There is a specific exemption for "blogs" associated with news organizations and subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. BLP does not allow for any sort of "expert exemption".

This point is further emphasized in Misplaced Pages:SPS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29:

"Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." (emphasis mine)

The above sentence appears in the same section where the "expert exemption" to the blog rule is defined, as if it is intended to override the general rule; and the BLP-specific portion is also specified in unambiguous language. In other words, while policy dictates that editorial judgement may be exercised for blogs in non-BLP situations, it explicitly forbids it for BLPs.

One more thing: we've been down this road before with this specific groups of editors, on these very same pages, and past input from uninvolved editors on BLP/N has confirmed my position. In fact, I am fairly certain that such debates have occurred on Singer's BLP, with these same editors, so they really should know this policy by now.

Thanks for listening. :-) ATren (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your second question, I believe (though I cannot find a direct statement in policy) that these rules apply unambiguously to the BLP article itself, and they also extend to mentions of persons in non-BLP articles. So, in other words, no SPSs on BLP articles ever, and very limited application in non-BLPs which mention the person.

This usually works well, because if a particular criticism is so non-notable that there are no reliable sources which mention AND there is also not an article on the target of the criticism (i.e., the 2008 NIPCC document), then it's likely that neither the criticism NOR the target have sufficient weight for inclusion.

In this particular case, there is a reliable source documenting the criticisms, and that is still there (nobody's attempted to remove it, and if they did, I'd revert it back). So there's not even a need to keep the blog source in there, and it's puzzling why long-term editors (who know better) would war to keep that dubiously-sourced (per BLP policy) claim. To me, it just seems like piling on. ATren (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before I also don't like the narky and disrespectful tone and approach to some of our Global Warming skeptic bios. Some of this is good faith of course (they really believe these people are jokers) but that does not make it appropriate. Working around from policy though is tough: the policies are not as black and white in my mind as in yours.. there is a sort of contradiction between "these rules apply unambiguously" and "no direct statement" and for less notable people quite a lot of non-bio material creeps into the article on their name because it is notable but too small to merit its own article. Work is pretty busy at present. I might have to commit some time to this in the new year (I probably have a better chance of being listened to: you will hate me for saying it but sometimes your own style can be reminiscent of a certain Arbcom candidate we have discussed before). --BozMo talk 09:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Two quick points in reply: (1) much of Misplaced Pages may be shades of gray, but BLP is black-and-white, (2) I always appreciate constructive feedback, thank you. More later. ATren (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the support

--GoRight (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Realclimate

Someone started a request for mediation on realclimate to include criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-12-01/Realclimate I found out that this debate has been ongoing for 2 years. Different criticism, same people blocking the criticism using the same arguements. (Meltwaternord (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC))

That was not my intention. They are two separate opinions. One praises realclimate but warns about maintaining objectivity. That article was simply written before Patrick Micheals made his opinion that objectivity was lost. You can change the sentence to make sure your point is made. Simply blanking it is not constructive.(LVAustrian (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I know it was not your intention, but that's the way it sounded to me, particularly the transition "By 2009". And I didn't "blank", I simply reverted to your previous edit, which had no praise nor criticism. As you know, I agree with you on the basic point, but I just believe your edit went too far the other way. Let's put it aside for today and revisit tomorrow when (hopefully) things might cool down and we can maybe come to a compromise wording that satisfies both sides. ATren (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt they will cool down. My thought was to put the criticism in context with the praise. KDP seems to think the criticism is somehow irrelevant to the article. The praise, however, notes that there is a possibility that objectivity could be lost. Dr. Michaels just happens to think that is the case. It was my attempt to compromise. Perhaps you can come up with a better way.(LVAustrian (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

I know it's frustrating, but keep a cool head. Your edit just struck me the wrong way in the way that it implied a time span. But the nature quote might still be applicable in some other wording. I will try to come up with better wording tomorrow. ATren (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbcomm

That you oppose me at arbcomm is no great surpirse. But your reason is entirely spurious. You're edit warring over the questions and you're just not getting the answers you wnat at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Very_late_questions.3F. Your behaviour, to me, looks like deliberate disruption William M. Connolley (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. They weren't my questions, so I care less about the questions themselves than your attitude towards them, which I feel is inappropriate behavior for an arbitrator. I am simply pointing that out. I will not revert again. ATren (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your long line of excuses is wearing thin. GR has now said (admittedly in the most disobliging way he could possibly contrive) that he does not object to the removal of the questions. Your statement on the arbcomm page therefore requires revision. Ideally you would see sense remove it entirely, but I have no great hopes William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC, you've spent a lot of time avoiding these questions, and then explaining why you've avoided them; couldn't that time have been spent better just answering them? You have been quite critical of the current committee members who did not respond (and quickly!) to your queries, yet here you have no problem dismissing an editor's good faith questions. Why is that? ATren (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He took quite awhile to admit that he was a former contributor to Realclimate.org (Even created the article while he worked with them) not that I was going to do anything about it (I already knew who he was and that he did contribute to them in the past). I don't know why he took so long to say that he did(LVAustrian (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Just noticed your Also, the questioner (GoRight), as of this writing, has not shared his opinion on your removal of his questions, so your statement that he doesn't think it's disruptive is false. Please retract it. In the light of subsequent events, do you still desire a retraction? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I've struck it since GoRight has now commented on that thread. ATren (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification requested

Hi. I was unclear about something you said about Conservapedia, so I just wanted to get your opinion. Do you think Conservapedia is a valid, neutral source for any topic? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. If you think that I thought that, then you missed the point of my comment. I'd be happy to clarify if you detail your concern. ATren (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Skeptic bios

I'm happy to look through the "skeptic bios" that you refer to . --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. Fred Singer is a good place to start. There was an edit war over a RealClimate-sourced criticism of Singer last week. The page was locked with the claim kept in, despite the apparently unambiguous restriction of blog-sources in BLPs (even expert blogs). See the arguments on the talk page. There may be more problems there, I haven't read it fully through in a while. I'll look into other cases and let you know. BTW, my concern for skeptic bios does not in any way imply sympathy for their beliefs. ATren (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Has this matter gone the BLP/N? (I haven't looked yet.) --GoRight (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it did, last week sometime. ATren (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I remember that edit. It was originally generically sourced to RealClimate the blog. The best I was able to achieve on my own was to at least attribute it specifically Mann and Schmidt. Let me guess, there was no consensus.  :( --GoRight (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW

Incidentally I am sure that you realise I do regard you entirely seriously (unlike some who probably count themselves with you) although I don't follow the thread you left me terribly well. --BozMo talk 19:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, it's a bit confusing. Basically I left the first message on WMC's page in response to what I believed was conduct unbecoming of someone of his stature. He copied to my talk and answered with a somewhat short and condescending response. I elaborated, and he responded again dismissively as if he'd evaluated my comment and completely rejected it, even feigning disappointment at my calling him a scientist ("You've got most of your facts wrong. Ah well"). A bit disappointed myself, I concluded with a snarky remark and left it.

But basically the thrust of my argument was the paragraph starting with "I have no interest in Bardcom's offenses. This is about your handling of it." If your not interested, it doesn't matter, I won't hold it against you. :-) I just wanted you to know that there was a time when I tried to work with WMC.

Thank you for clarifying your view about me. The feeling is mutual. I wish there were more editors with your reasonable approach, even if we disagree on much. ATren (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

He comes over as a bit dismissive of me at times too. The problem with written remarks is that it is all in the assumed expression. I always take his comments as being rather robotic rather than personal or aggressive but that must be about cultural presumption; I know a lot of people who are like that and I was brought up with positive expressed emotion being taboo (English school thing I think). I keep meaning to meet up with him in the flesh (I work in Cambridge too) but I have never got around to it. Nonetheless on WP the guy is beset with trolls many of whom are not good faith editors and over 400 of whom are Scibaby socks. Also I do genuinely admire his honesty. --BozMo talk 19:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

even feigning disappointment at my calling him a scientist - you take factual corrections rather badly. If you make a mistake, you should admit error, and thank the person who corrects you. To conclude with snarky remark and leave it demeans you. You might also, just possibly, pause to wonder how many more of the things that you think you know are wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to heed your own advice here. ATren (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think trying to re-direct this back onto me is an honest response. I don't like being mis-described, since I like accuracy. Why do you think you reacted so badly to being corrected? ] William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really care about that thread, which was from over a year ago. I only raised it to BozMo to illustrate to him that our disagreement is not new, nor is it triggered by anything directed at me. In any case, you have your view, I have mine, and neither of us seems intent on altering them. So let's leave it at that. If you would like me to purge this thread, let me know and I will happily do so. ATren (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Suggestion

It's nice to see that the impression I've been getting from all this wasn't just me being crazy. Drolz 06:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You owe me a beer

Recall then see . Pilsner Urquell will do. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a bet I'll happily pay. Do you find your way up to Western New York, Buffalo area? You're in Iowa, right? I don't get there much. I'd rather pay such a bet in person, but if you send me your address I'll have your chosen brew delivered. :-) ATren (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please start an RfC on me - or discuss things on their relative merit.

I'm sorry but this is simply not acceptable - you are attacking the editor not the case. I will repeat this again:

Every case where WP:WEIGHT is considered is unique - no two persons have the same media-coverage, or the same balance between pro and contra views.

This is the reason why your arguments fall to the ground. You (apparently) think that each person must be described with the same amount of pro vs. contra views. But that is a misapplication of WP:NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, KDP, but I don't read that post as a PA at all. The point he is making is that arguments are being subjectively applied in an inconsistent manner across articles. The application of policy is intended to be uniform and not subject to the individual wims of any particular editor. --GoRight (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough GoRight - i do believe that i apply policy uniformly and not as subject to individual whims - but the talk page of Pachauri is certainly not the discussion forum for this. If there are objections to my interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy and my application of these, then they belong in an RfC - do you not agree? Or has Pachauri's talk page suddenly become the place to discuss my editing conduct? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, I'm sorry you feel offended, but there is nothing wrong with what I did. I've asserted that there is a double standard across articles, and provided evidence of such. If you feel attacked by this, feel free to explain why those cases are different. That's why I individually signed each one. ATren (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.

"Strangely enough GoRight - i do believe that i apply policy uniformly and not as subject to individual whims" - Actually I fully believe that this is true (i.e. that you believe this). No offense intended which is why I didn't single you out in my comment. However ATren and I disagree that a uniformity of application has been achieved based on the examples he has cited regardless of who made the arguments on the other articles. --GoRight (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If there is a double standard applied, then you should take it up on the appropriate boards, or as said in an RfC if you think that it is me in particular that you have a problem with. My commentary is very simple: Each case has its own merits, and no two articles/issues/persons have the same balance in coverage.

For instance: There is nothing surprising in the Exxon charges for instance, since there is a lot literature spread over a long time-period that makes these observations about certain sceptics. These are not short news-bursts (such as the one on Pachauri), and thus are not comparable, as i've said on the Pachauri article several times: If there is coverage beyond the short news-burst - then there may be something to include. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, explain to me how a single article by the Union of Concerned Scientists is OK for alleging COI with Exxon, but two respected newspapers are not OK for alleging similar COI concerns in another article? How about Mother Jones and ExxonSecrets? By the way, this question is not directed only at you, because others added Mother Jones and UCS sources. My point is that the standard of inclusion appears to be very different for similar claims when applied to AGW proponents vs AGW skeptics, regardless of who added them. ATren (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the UCS the only ones making this charge? No they aren't.... In fact in David Legates case for instance the link, has been published several times in peer-reviewed journals, in at least one book , in a court-case. And this is not a single news-burst such as what we are talking about on Pachauri. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a "single news burst", it is a "non-existent news burst". I checked 2 of those sources, and Legates is mentioned only in passing. And, a legal filing? Really? A few mentions in obscure journals and a German language book, and a scan of a legal document, and that exceeds coverage in multiple respected independent media sources? And not only that, each of those media stories were all about Pachauri's COI, not mere mentions of Pachauri in the context of larger claims, as seems to be the case with Legates.

So, from my perspective, it comes down to this: a few passing references in apparent primary sources is grounds for inclusion, while multiple extended treatments in secondary sources -- specifically, major newspapers -- isn't sufficient. I can see an argument for including both, or excluding both, or even including the latter without the former. But clearly not the former without the latter. This last case would be a double standard, and I've seen no evidence from you to refute that.

In any case, Legates was one case, out of about 4-5. Do you have comments on the others? ATren (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, I checked the sources that ATren linked to, and he is making a valid point. So, instead of accusing him of a personal attack, please explain why you feel a double standard isn't being applied here. Of course, I believe that you truly feel that a double standard isn't being applied. So, please step back, put on an ojective hat, and try to look at it as someone who has no opinion at all on the subject and wishes to read something that is not taking a side. Cla68 (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

pachauri updates

I hear a rumour that the telegraph has another story on him for sundays paper, should we wait to see if it is true and if so what will be written? Also rumour that his lawyers have backed off. I don`t know if these rumours are true of course but perhaps wait till we see before you do the afd thingy? I`ve put your page on my watchlist btw mark nutley (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

should we wait to see if it is true - what an odd comment. Are you suggesting it would be conceivable to do otherwise? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Rajendra K. Pachauri

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

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --TS 16:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1. http://socialresearch.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,8,10;journal,12,31;linkingpublicationresults,1:119739,1. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
2. "David+Legates"+%2BExxon&ots=dGHqeokCVB&sig=SeCV5PST4Wsc3Kv01D4_I1kPzDA#v=onepage&q=&f=false http://www.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9yqfy2TSX4EC&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq="David+Legates"+%2BExxon&ots=dGHqeokCVB&sig=SeCV5PST4Wsc3Kv01D4_I1kPzDA#v=onepage&q=&f=false. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
3. "David+Legates"+%2BExxon&ei=X-tHS8qiNp7AzgTirdSHDg&hl=da&cd=1 http://books.google.com/books?id=FzkMEDKflKwC&dq="David+Legates"+%2BExxon&ei=X-tHS8qiNp7AzgTirdSHDg&hl=da&cd=1. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
4. http://www.foe.org/climate/climatelawsuit/documents/Surreply_to_D_Reply_final.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)