Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:38, 17 January 2010

Oren0 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages at some point.

Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

Merit

Does my AN/I concern have any merit? If it does I'll take it down right now, but I wanted to know if I'm wasting ppl's time. Soxwon (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sure it matters. This RfC is so malformed and so poorly presented that there's no way anything will come of it. RfC is meant to be a comment on a single user, usually pertaining to a single incident. What we have here is a "list of everything this user has ever done wrong", where everybody who has ever had negative interactions with Collect has been summoned to speak against him. Also, it's obvious that the desired outcome is a block/topic ban, but per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users: "An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban". So really, this whole thing seems fairly time-wasting to me. Oren0 (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am partially at fault for the spiral out of control. After they started going to articles w/o talking to anyone there and seemed to only talk to ppl on their side, I suggested and helped carry out a general inquiry from any and all involved users to try and give it a shred of credibility. I also wasn't exactly civil either. Apparently I need to review procedure for RfC. Is is salvagalbe or should we just start from scratch? Soxwon (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Reclaiming copyright

You are mistaken to think that I can't reclaim copyright. Copyright rests with the creator until 50, 75, or 100 years past the date of death. The only exception to this is when a restitution has been provided to the copyright holder for the use. Without that the creator can reclaim the copyright as I have done so here. For you to remove my claim and reinstate the release, which you have no right to do, is a criminal offence as you have no right to decide what the copyright should be on my images. Jsp3970 (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to chip in here; no, you can't reclaim copyright. Copyright normally does rest with the creator, but you'll note the licensing and policies on Misplaced Pages transfer "ownership" of your contributions to the site rather than the writer. Ironholds (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oren0. Its been pointed out to me on the Admin Incident board by user C.Fred that although I retain copyright, and the moral right to attribution for my work, I can not revoke the license that I agreed to when I uploaded the image. Therefore I apologize for reverting the images and will revert them back to their proper place. Sorry for causing any proplems with my actions. Jsp3970 (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, when I went to do it I found user C.Fred had already done it. Oh well. Jsp3970 (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No harm done in the end I suppose. Are you still leaving the encyclopedia? Oren0 (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

He's mad because of this. Frankly speaking, we both got into a dispute over image placement in the VIA FP9ARM article. I sought a neutral third party solution to help resolve the situation via the trains wikiprojectpage, stated my case, invited him and another "anonymous IP editor" that I was having trouble with to weigh in and apparently he went nutso.

Given his actions and the actions of the anon IP editor, I have now ample reason to believe that User:Jsp3970 was attempting to use sockpuppetry to "help" keep his images in prominent places on Misplaced Pages via false pretenses. The WHOIS for the Anon IP indicates an Ontario address, and User:Jsp3970 did have an Ontario userbox on his page before he deleted his page. I did put the two together beforehand, but I erred on the side of caution first just in case.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point the user claims to be "gone for good." I do take that with some amount of salt, given that he had already said that and then came back and undid my reinstatement of "his" images. But assuming he's gone, there's no reason to open up an SPI investigation now. Oren0 (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Mibbit AfD

I've completely rewritten the Mibbit article so you may wish to revisit Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mibbit. The AfD nominator has also since been blocked. Tothwolf (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC

I'm trying to open up an RfC as you suggested, but it won't post. I am not trying to debate the article, but the principle: i.e. to establish that you can't go randomly deleting articles when you feel like it and then say 'Oh but I used a redirect, so everything's fine'. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by "it won't post", as the process for opening up an RfC should be pretty straightforward. Back to your main point, I agree with you that in this case the merge was a bit hasty. But the notion that we "must" go through procedure X to reach outcome Y is not the way Misplaced Pages operates. The purpose of an AfD is to determine consensus, and it's clear that the consensus among every contributor to the topic area except you is that catastrophic climate change as it was did not need to be an article. This is why I suggested an RfC: to find out if users from outside the topic area form a consensus in favor of the article. Further, the page wasn't just turned into a redirect, it was merged. If you believe there is useful content from it to add to effects of global warming and/or runaway climate change, please do so. Oren0 (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I diagree. Let's look at the facts. Firstly, there was no merge - nothing was transferred. Merge was merely a euphemism. Secondly, as you may have noticed, I am not seeing to re-open the debate about the article, I am simply seeking to clarify the procedure. IMO the procedure is entirely clear. When the redirect is to a page with none of the original content and no consideration of the topic, it is clearly a deletion and not a merge. Therefore, the procedure is clear - an AfD is required to gain consensus and properly notify the article creator. In this case, there may be (as you point out) a case for an RfC on the article's existence, and I'd appreciate you setting one up if you think that's the case. Primarily, however, I'm looking for your assistance in setting up an RfC on the policy, which in my view clearly indicates that using a redirect after a deletion does not magically wash away all your sins. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to undelete Bad Philosophy Page

I would like to request that you undelete the Bad Philosophy page so that I can add additional refences to make the content more appropriate for Wikipeida. Please contact me with questions. Linnix (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We are working on adding some information regarding the significance of the podcast. Do you have any additional tips on improving out article's quality? Linnix (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure there's anything to be done because I don't believe the podcast is notable. Looking at your references, the first problem you have is that many of your references are lies. For example,

This format is often about 20 minutes to half an hour long and documents an event such as the students camping out near Jones AT&T Stadium before the November 1, 2008, Texas Tech Football game against the Texas Longhorns.

References 7, 8, and 9 are self-sourced (i.e. not reliable) and 6, 10 and 11 are stories about the game that do not mention the podcast. So what that leaves us with is a deceptive situation where the statement looks sourced but really should be marked with . And that's the problem with the whole article. There is exactly one reference to a semi-reliable source, and that's a mention in an opinion piece in a student newspaper. There just isn't enough to justify meeting Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. Oren0 (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Political Positions of Barak Obama

According to the Deletion Policy, the first step in deleting an article is use the {{prod}} tag. If an editor disagrees he is supposed to remove the tag, not revert the article. If there is disagreement about deleting the article, then it is taken to discussion, which is my next step. But you need to follow the rules for disputing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manawyddan (talk • contribs)

The act of reverting your edit removed the tag, correct? Prod is designed for low-traffic articles, not ones like that. If you believe the article should be deleted, that's what WP:AFD is for. Oren0 (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, , TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 —

Oops, forgot to fix the double headers. Would you be so kind as to fix the rationale for the semi-page protection? The extra link is great but what was done surpassed simple vandalism. Personally, I liked the last person who semi-protected it's comments better. — BQZip01 —  20:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Oren0 (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Misplaced Pages:Ani#69.208.77.168 Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Dalejenkins

He's still got the youtube link on there even after your reversion. How does once vs. 25 times or so make any difference? Baseball Bugs carrots 07:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I was following Xeno's lead on that. 25 links is spam, one is expression. We allow userboxes and links to personal sites on user pages and I really don't see the harm of a single YouTube link in one place. Hopefully Dalejenkins will live with this as a compromise, whereas I feel that if I removed them all he'd be more apt to fight about it. Oren0 (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Roger. That does raise a question: If I run into a youtube that I like, is there any rule against posting it on my page? Once, obviously, not 25 times. Baseball Bugs carrots 08:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos/Archive_1, I have included you in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, I hope we can achieve a lasting solution. — BQZip01 —  06:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

All the ANIs, WQA, CUs, RFC/Us and RFARs are over, I trust. I sincerely thank you for voicing your position on the RFC/U on me. I did not canvass anyone, and in order to avoid any claims that I canvassd, I waited until now (the request to reopen the RFC/U seems dead). Again, many thanks! Collect (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Lindzen's Keynote at ICCC

Anthony Watt has pasted Lindzen's viewgraphs on his blog at Lindzen’s Climate Sensitivty Talk: ICCC June 2, 2009. It's an interesting read that gives the AGW alarmists a well deserved smack up side their heads!

Disclaimer: I mean this metaphorically speaking, of course, lest "the bear" come along and accuse me of promoting violence against scientists or some other asinine accusation!

I just thought you might be interested. Watch the news for a report!

--GoRight (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen this yet, but I do check WUWT pretty regularly so I would have seen it. Of course, any attempt to include this in any article would result in an outcry of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, since as we know Lindzen is a much less credible source than our friends at RealClimate. Oren0 (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course. THAT goes without saying. He he. Should be obvious to everyone. I'm actually starting to chill out about the whole thing. It doesn't really matter, the temperature is going to do whatever it is going to do. I think it's going to go down for some time. For how long no one knows. But it will be interesting to watch the resulting gyrations the AGW alarmists will have to go through when it does. --GoRight (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oren0

Please answer here at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Golan_Heights --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

You added the "reportedly dead" stuff to the article which I think is good. However I don't think you should have changed the banner or added the "died" bit in the infobox as they seem to suggest it isn't actually "reportedly". Alan16 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Enough media outlets have reported this that I'm comfortable adding the template. The LA Times, NBC, and others wouldn't report such a major death unless they were sure. Oren0 (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC, Sky, CNN, AP - you sure the majority is with you? Having it in the infobox seems to go against the "reportedly" in the article is my main point. Alan16 (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it

If you as a third view, could answer my questions about Israeli settlements here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Golan_Heights

Can we call them settlements? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that I was a third party on one issue doesn't mean that I'm the only one who can make decisions about another. If you would like to make changes on other pages, I suggest bringing them up on the talk pages of those and see who responds. I do not own the Golan Heights page as a result of the RfC, though I am keeping watch on it. Oren0 (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it alright if I ask for a third opinion about calling it "occupied" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary comments

I am bringing this to your attention for review, since you managed the recent RfC at Golan Heights. I reverted a recent edit by User:Supreme Deliciousness based on the following edit summary he left: "The israeli lobby "forgot" to mention the whole story, so I added it". I felt that the summary was an attack on editors who do not share the same viewpoint as him and was not added in good faith. I have also left a notice on his talk page as to why I reverted his edit. --Nsaum75 (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not passed 3rr

I have only reverted it 2 times today. And please take a look at the Golan page, they changed stuff recently without consensus, shouldn't we have talked before they changed it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This one was not a revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Golan_Heights&diff=next&oldid=298823710 I added new quotes from the bible. Take back the 3rr, I have not reverted 3 times today.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

those three was withing 24 hours, but I never crossed more then three reverts within 24 hours, so I never broke the rules. Did you notice that the Golan article was changed today by Fipplet and Hertz? They changed material that had just been agreed upon, like that it was part of Syria before 1944, they changed it without first reaching an agreement on the talk page, and then they told me to talk at the talkpage when they themselves changed it without talking first. Why arent you doing anything about this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ok but can you please revert what has not been agreed upon, that Fipplet added today? and also update what you wrote about me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles it says I passed 3rr. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think in general this is a situation where I can remain more neutral and help keep the page sane if I don't get as involved in the individual disagreements, especially minor ones like these. I applaud the restraint you are showing by not revert warring, but you guys should use the talk page and work out your issues. The purpose of the ARBPIA thing is to show that you have been notified of the sanctions, nothing more. Oren0 (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself, you say take it to the talkpage, yet what was changed today without a talkpage agreement you are letting it stay. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Golan Heights

Hi Oren0. On the Golan Heights article talk page you wrote that "no one can dispute that Israel controls the land but some do dispute that it is occupied." Who are the "some" who dispute that it is occupied? Do you have any sources that say that the Israeli government disagrees with the term, or are you referring to Israeli settlers, or someone else? Thanks! ← George 23:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Use_of_.22disputed_territories.22.2C_.22occupied_territories.22_and_related_terminology_in_the_context_of_the_Arab-Israeli_dispute

Hi, I'm going to add you as a party to this requested case for arbitration. I hope that it doesn't feel too invidious being named as a party in a case when you had only got involved through closing the rfc, but I think your perception on whether my suggstion that Arbcom get involved early is appropriate. I was doing my best to avoid naming individuals, but in listing threads where the naming dispute is going on, I've listed a thread with your userid in the thread name and you have been referred to obliquely on comments about the effectiveness or otherwise and handling of the rfc.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Golan Heights

Per a motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

The arbitration committee advises that one or more neutral admins

chair a new and structured Request for Comment on the disputed naming

guidelines on the Golan Heights within a two month time-frame.

It is recommend that those interested use Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration as a staging post.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety 17:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Change necessary to your monobook.css

In your monobook.css page, you need to add !important to the .localcomments line, as seen here; this ensures that your custom code will override any of the default settings made by the script. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The early draft of LIndzen I've written

hi Oren0.

I saw your comments at Lindzen's talk page about WP:PRIMARY. After reading it I felt that probably the draft I've written of Lindzen's early career is based largely original analysis based on primary sources. On the other hand, secondary sources (e.g. other scientific papers) that reference Lindzen's early papers could probably be used as well. Do you think I could get this material in without violation WP:OR? Many thanks for your experienced input on the Lindzen bio page. Alex Harvey 09:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Harvey (sorry to Oren0 for answering :), there is no problems with using peer-reviewed studies, or primary sources, in and by itself, as long as you make certain that they have a decent citation count (for the PR papers)(ie. have been used). The trouble comes if you state things like "ground-breaking research", "significant contribution" or the like (which i don't know if you've done), since this would have to require secondary sources to state. If you are simply writing that Lindzen "up during the 80's" made research on this and that - then there would be no major problems that i see... The best would of course be to find some secondary sources and go by these - here Lindzen's award nominations should/could be a help (since they usually do a small bio to address the reasons for it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kim, yes I haven't tried to give any weight to minor papers, or at least if I have, I'd probably remove myself. It's a shame we don't have any Wiki editors who could help me with Lindzen's wave-CISK (Conditional Instability of the Second Kind) because it's doing my head in. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, hadn't seen this. You may want to ask Boris --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean that you hadn't seen that Boris and Raymond were one in the same? That's news to me as well. I wondered where that guy went. Oren0 (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No. I hadn't seen Alex' comment where he requested expert help. That Boris is RA's new account was pretty well known. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess it wasn't a secret, but I never knew. Now I realize what you're referring to. Oren0 (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts

I don't think two hours can be considered stale. Stale reports apply more to IPs because of the concern that the IP may have been reassigned. It's perfectly reasonable to block a vandalism-only account if it vandalism after warnings, even if the edits were over an hour ago. Since it's shown that it will ignore warnings and contributes nothing positive... Enigma 07:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The "vandalism-only" accounts had not done enough IMO to justify indef blocks, and therefore the purpose of any block would have been to stop immediate damage to the project. 2 hours cold means no immediate impact, therefore I wasn't going to issue any block. I believe that indef first blocks due to vandalism should be used only in rare cases. Oren0 (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You opinion in a similar matter is requested.

Since you cleared up a matter of my edits being WP:SYN, see , which I have now accepted I wonder if you could render your opinion on what appears to be a similar situation, . --GoRight (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon

Interesting. Is the new style that you just revert and will not use/and directly ignore the talk page? The "biography" that you are referring to, is not a biography, but a sideline/blurb in the National Post. Which is quite likely written by the subject himself. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested - Edit war

See Love Jihad. It will be helpful if you could add some incidents reported in Israel in the Love_Jihad#Similar_Incidents section. I have read it here. Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:PROD process

I'm a little bit confused by your edit summary when you removed the PROD from Climategate: "Remove prod. I'm not terribly confident that this will survive WP:AFD but it shouldn't be deleted out of process. I don't think WP:NEO applies, as the term and story have been covered in press.". As far as I know, WP:PROD is very much within standard Misplaced Pages process. You are of course welcome to remove the PROD if you have a good-faith belief that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages policy and should not be deleted, but some editors may take it amiss if you suggest that their use of PROD is somehow 'out of process'. As an aside, I'm having difficulty finding a reliable source which actually uses the term 'Climategate' (as distinct from bloggers who may use the term, and whose blogs sometimes appear as part of newspapers' websites). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I believe the article should be kept yet. Anyone who objects to a PROD may remove it. As WP:PROD says, "If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion". What I mean by "out of process" is that a PROD deletion of a new article is effectively hidden from view of users. I'm not saying that I think the article should not be deleted, I'm saying that I believe that the discussion and research that comes with an AfD will bring out the data needed to make that decision. Put simply, I don't see this page as "uncontestably deletable". Oren0 (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if you believe there are BLP issues here those can be fixed independently of deletion. I don't see how the any article on the subject would inherently violate BLP, and therefore I don't see why BLP is an argument for edeletion. Oren0 (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

RealClimate on WP:AN

Since you are the one that originally made the claim that RealClimate is a "William Connolley-related" page could you please stop by at your earliest convenience and weigh in on the discussion there? --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I just wanted to give you a tip. Per WP:DISRUPT, "Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress toward improving an article, or disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia." If you notice an editor who is reverting edits all across the a topic space, they can be reported for disruptive editing at the WP:AN even if they haven't violated WP:3RR. I'd read WP:DISRUPT carefully. HTH! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I guess. Unlike some, it is not my goal to silence those whom I disagree with by having them blocked. Frankly, depending on your definition of "progress", I can think of many editors who fit that definition. I have no doubt some would say that I do as well. This is why, for example, I might hesitate to refer an individual to the 3RR noticeboard even if they could easily be blocked. Oren0 (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

I'm not sure I can distinguish between 'responding to consensus' and 'acting on my own behalf' when it comes to adding a tag. If I had to choose, I would say I was acting on my own behalf: after reading the article I got the impression the article was a bit biased and glancing over the talk page, there appeared to be significant contention over the neutrality of parts of the page. I was aware the page is protected, but since it was protected due to edit warring over neutrality concerns, it seemed like it would be best to have a tag informing the readers about the dispute. Do you disagree that there is a neutrality dispute on that article? Prodego 04:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It does give me an unfair advantage in the status of the page. However, I think that procedurally, not having the tag would be be Wrong™, and having it would be Right™. This is of course a terrible argument, but the tag indicates that there is a dispute over the neutrality of the page. Edit warring over whether there is a dispute over the neutrality of the page inherently means that there is a dispute over the neutrality of the page. Its somewhat circular. If I wanted to make a stronger argument, I would probably justify it by pointing out that the tag is not to be removed until the dispute is resolved, which is clearly hasn't been. In honesty the article is terribly written for something so high profile, and having it protected means that the compromise process probably isn't going to go anywhere fast. I'll have to look in to whether I can find someone to rework it. Prodego 05:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, what I'd like to propose here is that we take a bit more control, establish some stricter edit warring restrictions, unprotect the page, slap up an edit notice, and enforce them with blocks so that people can get back to writing the article. Do you think that would have a positive effect? Prodego 05:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NIPCC Redirect

Can I ask why this points to IPCC, rather than the more pertinent Science & Environmental Policy Project or Fred Singer? ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I may be going mad - I'm sure it did a moment ago... ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (vs NIPCC) ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

NIPCC currently points to a subsection of Fred Singer, as of a 12/29 change by User:Tony Sidaway. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change points to International Conference on Climate Change. They should probably both point to the same place, but I'm fairly indifferent as to which. I don't see anything redirecting to IPCC though. Oren0 (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done - FYI, I asked here because of this diff ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

You seem to have misread the "consensus" on the talk page. Please undo this edit. There is no consensus to privilege one POV and delete the other. It also violates a little thing called WP:NPOV. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please participate in the discussion here. I'm rather curious to see how it is you came to the conclusion that Time isn't a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I replied as requested. 8-5 is enough of a consensus for me, especially as I find the arguments to keep it in the lead totally unpursuasive. Time is a perfectly reliable source, but it is the only reliable source provided thus far (I looked) that uses this term. One source versus hundreds doesn't fly. Even worse "Swifthack" had twice as much discussion in the lead than "Climategate" did. If the term gains traction, it may belong in the article, but it doesn't now. Oren0 (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Remove duplicated Trenberth reaction

This edit you made to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident was deceptive. You claimed that it duplicated the Trenberth reaction, but in fact it included content attributed to Richard Somerville, which I have restored through a merge. Your removal of this material was also controversial as there has been consensus for its inclusion and it has been discussed in the archives. Please be more careful in the future. Viriditas (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I didn't mean to remove the Somerville ref, only the duplicated Trenberth quote. Oren0 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The tag was completely legit. Oren0 (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Regional varieties of English

The article is written in English English. It's bad form to convert it to American English. Guettarda (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, as I have attempted to maintain English English (note how I spelled "organisations"). If "extract" is a British-ism, that's news to me. If this is so, is "excerpt" not a term that would be used in British English? If you're referring to the rest of that change, I don't believe that a change from the past tense to present perfect tense is a change that has a nationality. I'm asking honestly here. Oren0 (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course "excerpt" is the American equivalent of "extract". Guettarda (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't know. Believe it :). I'll change it back. Oren0 (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, 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 14:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)