Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:05, 7 December 2009

Welcome!

Hello Dduff442, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi -- thanks. Dduff442 17:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Chinese Embassy and FDSP.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Chinese Embassy and FDSP.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

ww2censor (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Skier Dude (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

re: Dingzin Zhao website

Hi, I don't really mind if Dingzhin Zhao's views are included, but including a link to his university homepage in the middle of the article text simply looks like linkspam, possibly promoting this individual's work in general. You can add something like "according to University of Chicago sociologist Dingzhin Zhao" if you'd like to emphasize that he is affiliated with the U. of Chicago if this is the point. Alternatively, you might want to create a Wiki article on him (if he meets WP:Notability for academics) and Wikilink to it when including his work in other articles. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll mention his position. My concern was that he'd be confused for a Chinese govt mouthpiece. This section is important for balance because China is the victim as far as the rest of the story goes.

I'm only about 70% through my edits so I'm afraid the article is still a little rough.Dduff442 (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

3rr warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The 3RR claim is incorrect in point of fact. The phraseology was altered significantly between edits (sufficiently to satisfy Nil Einne).

On whose authority do you issue this 'warning'?

Your attitude is completely baffling. *Four* times now I've had a sourced remark deleted without prior discussion in any case and you accuse *me* of edit-warring? You made one of those reverts and did not even make a remark in the talk page, let alone attempt to achieve consensus.Dduff442 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if it were sourced (which it may be, now; if the data weren't properly sourced, it would be a BLP violation), it's irrelevant. Furthermore, a "revert" for 3RR includes a partial revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It was sourced to the Washington Post before I ever added the remark.

Regarding relevance, it was relevant to the Post and it's certainly relevant to me. Ebell is funded by ExxonMobil precisely in order to comment in the way he does. It's an interesting interpretation of journalistic and scholarly integrity to unilaterally decide people need to be protected from this fact.

I reverted nothing - no 'partial' revert, nothing. I have had my sourced edits deleted four times, once by you. One of the reverters (William M. Connolley) is actually one of the subjects of the article, but this elicits no objection from you.

From WP:3RR: Undoing another person's edit is known as reverting (or reversion). Reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Therefore reverting is not to be undertaken without good reason.

What have I 'thrown away'? You, sir, have thrown away a verbatim quote from a source already in the article, an article to which you had no prior objection. Justify that.Dduff442 (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Undoing another person's edit is known as reverting - this is what you need to know. It doesn't have to be a return to the exact previous text. Note also that there is no such defence as "I was correct". That the quote is exact, and from a RS, is totally irrelevant. On whose authority do you issue this 'warning'? - no-one needs any authority to issue these warnings William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC beat me to it, but:

Yes, you revert. You keep inserting the same information, which is similar to reverting deletions of it. 3RR is a solid line, but please read Misplaced Pages:Edit warring, because that is what you are doing. That part of the sentence, that you insert over and over (last time here) is NOT in the reference, is irrelevant, and gives undue weight. See this as a final warning, make your case on the talkpage why it should be inserted, people do not have to explain why it is deleted, for more information, see WP:BRD. Regards, --Dirk Beetstra 18:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The exact quote is in the W Post article. Twice I've had this now. R-E-A-D T-H-E A-R-T-I-C-L-E.Dduff442 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

WAIT, I see 5 times inserted the same (or very similar information). You are over 3RR .. please consider your situation (and no, waiting 24 hours before reinserting without discussion will for me still count as edit warring). --Dirk Beetstra 18:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Whereas I dispute that I engaged in edit-warring when faced with repeated deletions of the material, I do not dispute reinserting the material. *I* did initiate discussion after this was requested. *Five* times the remark has been deleted without any discussion or prior warning.

Don't you think it worth mentioning that one of those deleting is William M. Connolley who is himself one of the subjects of the article? I've found this whole encounter bizarre -- adding a quote from an article already cited is edit-warring now?Dduff442 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is edit warring. And I did not find that sentence in the citation, it may be somewhere else. I saw you discussing, and that is why I did not block you. However, while in discussion you should not push the information. Await consensus. Explain.

A conflict of interest does not forbid you to edit. You have to be careful, but it is clutching at straws to take out opponents if there is apparently not enough to justify the edit by itself. Again, it is not in the document that is used as a reference on the sentence, if it is somewhere, then cite that, or even copy the reference from somewhere else in the document. I would still feel it irrelevant there, though. You are trying to diminish the effect of that sentence, not really WP:NPOV. --Dirk Beetstra 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Verbatim copy from :

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies.

The piece is cited four times in the article but the words funded in part by energy companies are a bridge too far?

Three times now I've had this. Meanwhile, those making the self-evidently false accusation are part of the 'consensus'. For the record, I regarded consensus as having been achieved after Nil Einne's objections were dealt with. Whatever I may be 'trying to diminish' (and your engaged in pure mind-reading there), the six words above are fact.

After objecting (incorrectly) on grounds of fact, you are now moving towards a new objection on grounds of relevance. I'll give you that quote again: ''"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. How is it that the first part of the sentence relevant and worthy of inclusion but the last six words are not?Dduff442 (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dduff442_reported_by_User:William M._Connolley_.28Result:_.29 William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Z9

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dduff442 reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 24 h)

When this block expires tomorrow, please do more to work towards a consensus at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. If other editors can be persuaded by your reasoning there, they will defend the material themselves. If they cannot, then please try to reach some form of compromise rather than repeatedly reinserting the same or effectively the same material. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

One editor (IP address at top of discussion) agreed with my addition. Nil Einne stated he was 'fine' with it after modifications. Then it gets reverted with allegations of dishonesty which were obviously unfounded. When that was refuted (as User:Chelydramat tacitly acknowledged), the point of attack shifted again.

There was no consensus in favour of deleting the material. The total was 3 for, 2 against (including me), 1 against with reservations. How is it fair or reasonable to delete relevant, sourced material in this context?

I intend to appeal your ban even if its not heard until after its expiry. You did not consider or address the technical objections to the WP:3RR allegation. Nor was the behaviour of editors in deleting sourced material without discussion even referred to.

William M Connolloy has since disappeared the entire talk-page discussion, and has fired off a few 'ha ha' comments. Is this constructive?

It may be that this will maybe just annoy people; the narrow point about (more than) three re-insertions is readily acknowledged. There are broader principles of honesty and integrity at work in addition to the, IMO perfectly sound, objections I raised against the edit-war claim, however.

These *two* layers needed to be considered in any decision. The technical grounds are solid, but the principled opposition to censorship is paramount in my mind. Five times a relevant and direct quote from a pre-existing cite was cut out of the article without warning. This raised a red flag in my mind. I deleted nothing, censored nobody and have a clean conscience.Dduff442 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You suffer from a bad case of WP:TRUTH. It hits most of us at one time or another. Try to fight it...not our fellow editors.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus had been achieved on including the material after Nil Einne's objections were dealt with, then it gets excised without warning. What am I to do then? When I am accused of dishonesty and faced with direct censorship?

Technically, everything I did was within a reasonable interpretation of the rules including the re-insertion of the material more than three times. The accusation of dishonesty had no foundation (as was acknowledged) and William M Connolloy's reverts were made in the teeth of a straightforward CoI which he himself acknowledges. These facts were not considered, nor was the behaviour of the other editors.

On the plane of universal principles of natural justice I was in the right and if these don't apply on Misplaced Pages then they can ban me. I have debated honestly, directly and with integrity which cannot be said of my adversaries.Dduff442 (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest cooling off on other articles. Then consider the COI dispute, you seem to have a good case going, would not want to see it rashly disrupted by "edit war pushers". It also might be good to measure the supposed war and peace with time intervals, to be objective here. This is the process I am applying. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me offer some advice, I hope this helps. I would like to see you stay here. If you are in the right, then let it go for now, move on to something else for some time. Misplaced Pages content exists for WP:FIVE. Wiki is not a fair justice system. The feeble attempts at justice in Wiki serve the content and not your basic human rights or non-content related disputes between editors. Objects of arguments should always be content and principles. I like your appeal to authority, however by editing here you have submitted consent to a mob of editors at any time. First mover advantage governs the justice. If you don't have it, you are in a tough spot. You might have to have the source validated in a notice board or RFC first.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring etc

I do not have time to go through the edit warring case although it looks like you are heading for a block. Maybe by me if I get time to give it proper consideration I don't like shooting from the hip. Anyway I don't think you are going to get much sympathy from the way you are editing. Please read WP:DNTTR ref the COI template. --BozMo talk 20:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

My confusion

Okay I admit I'm confused. Are you trying to say WMC is trying to 'hide' this information because he doesn't want people to know one of his rivals (WMC may object to the term and say that's giving too much weight to the CEI but let's not quibble over such details) is funded by the energy companies? And this is bad to WMC because? If anything it would seem WMC would want a entire paragraph dedicated to how bad the CEI is so people know to ignore them and other sceptics and instead only get information from Real Climate and other sources written by him and his collegues? It's just that while WMC has been accused of having a COI and wanting to keep details out of the article that reflect badly on the CRU and its researchers and their collegues (including him I guess) you're the first person I've seen complaining about WMC's COI and how he shouldn't be reverting contentious negative information about climate change sceptics because of it. You may argue he's 'overcorrecting' but I think you'll find few people on the talk page who agree with that. Of course having a COI can cloud your judgement and make you make mistakes either way, but I think it's a stretch to say there's any evidence of that happening here. And remember WP:COI makes it clear that while editors with a COI are discouraged from editing articles, they're explicitly not forbidden.

BTW, I'm guessing you're not aware but both User:William M. Connolley and User:Arthur Rubin are administrators. Ultimately this doesn't mean that much, but when you're telling an administrator "Call in the admins if you like -- bring it on. I'm not new, don't need guidance and know who'll win if this goes to the admins" there's a fair chance you will be wrong as you were in this case, particularly when 4 or so users have said you are and no one said you aren't. BTW I'm not saying any of this so try to make fun of you while you're down or something. I did get a bit annoyed earlier on and probably didn't help matters but have since calmed down and agree with WMC that you seem to be a user who is trying to be constructive but unfortunately has wolefully misunderstood or is unaware of policy and accepted practice but reluctant to accept that it is the case. While this block serves as an unfortunate reminder of that, I'm hoping that this more off the cuff remark with little reference to policy but more reference to common sense will help as well.

As it is your talk page, you are entitled as always to remove it if you don't like it and can reply here even while blocked (well unless you're disruptive on your talk page and get blocked from editing that). Nil Einne (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually WMC isn't an admin at present but other than that this looks spot on. I would just add for the sake of record that reverting to re add deleted material does count as reverting and does count as edit warring. --BozMo talk 21:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I should add the WMC and I don't agree on much of the WP:TRUTH of this article — so, when we agree on something, it might be wise to take note. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that you reply indirectly instead of addressing my objections to your WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE arguments against my edit. Also, William M Connolloy has now disappeared the whole talk page discussion under a hat.

Fundamental principles of justice, fairness and integrity apply in this case. As the author of the Washington Post piece knows, it is quite wrong to quote an interested party without explicitly stating those interests. There are two layers to my defense: the technical and the principled. IMO, the technical points stand all scrutiny but it is the point of principle that interests me.

I was twice accused of dishonesty, provably wrongly, which you didn't find worth commenting on. One of the edits resulted from this. When it was demonstrated that the material was in fact verbatim from the source, User:Chelydramat simply shifted his point of attack without even acknowledging his attack was unfounded. This was once again not worth commenting on.

You stated "the only reason for including the information is the implication that energy companies determine the reports from the think tank". This is not correct. The statement I added was one of undisputed fact. Your rider is opinion and represents your inference, not the factual statement from the Post.

The language used was absolutely neutral. Mention of the source of CEI funding is not only relevant, it is entirely consistent with the practice of the rest of the article. The very next paragraph adds a parenthetical 'who concurs in the consensus finding of human-influenced global warming' to Von Storch. Why is Von Storch's background relevant but not that of the CEI?

WP:BLP is a red-herring. I added not one word about Ebell to the article -- I inserted a quote regarding his employer taken from the article where he was interviewed. The WP:BLP argument is without any content. Legally, it is impossible to libel someone by simply quoting a newspaper.

WP:UNDUE is similarly irrelevant: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Please quote me the relevant passage supporting your point of view because I can't find a word. Not only is the contention the CEI is funded by energy concerns not a 'minority viewpoint', it is actually undisputed and verifiable from the CEI's own published legal records. As regards prominence, the Post article -- not my chosen source of information -- found space for those five little words. The decision to exclude them from the article violated the principle of 'proportion to the prominence' of material.

If you are going to make arguments, please stand by them or retract them. WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP are completely irrelevant and I challenge you to find one word in support of your POV in these pages.Dduff442 (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. My one error is nothing to your argumentum ad nauseam. Stating ANYTHING beyond Ebell's affiliation with the Competitive Enterprise Institute adds no further information to that article. This is a rather transparent attempt to discredit Ebell on your part. You would've been just as disruptive if you have deleted that whole section about Ebell. BTW, I'm kind of flattered that my user name is the only one you correctly formatted. Enjoy your ban.Chelydramat (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is tangential. I included the second half of a sentence the first part of which is already quoted in the article and this is distortion? How is possible to be NPOV with an pre-approved source, let alone with half of a sentence the rest of which is held to be ok. You don't fear you might be Cherry_picking, much? Reverting a sourced quote in these circumstances is vandalism.

I am glad you have sufficient integrity to finally acknowledge the statement was in the source and that I acted honestly. Please inform User:Beetstra that this is the case. Your post is otherwise devoid of any content.Dduff442 (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ban Appeal

Dduff442 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is only possible by the grossest distortions of natural justice to conclude that one half of a sentence may be reasonably quoted but the other half is somehow tendentious and must be excluded. Neither the source nor the information was disputed. The reverts were pure vandalism in this context and re-inserting the material was a valid response. How could I understand that the last six words of a sentence already quoted in the article would prove contentious? I had reason to believe consensus had been achieved after Nil Einne's objections had been dealt with. I've been accused of dishonesty, called a 'noob' etc. etc., without ever stooping to that level. When the allegation was disproven, the objectors simply shifted their focus on to new quibbles without apology or acknowledgement. Admin Beetstra warned me against further reverts nonetheless, and I adhered to the rules he stated. He went on to claim the quote (below) was not in the source. When this was refuted, he shifted his objections to WP:NPOV (in a verbatim quote from a source already in the article!), saying I wanted to weaken Ebell's statement. **It was an abuse of authority to intervene as an admin if he objected to the content and was therefore interested in the debate**, and this holds true regardless of the validity of any warning I received. Integrity demands openness in debate, not the illegitimate dressing up of objections to **content** as **administrative** matters. It would have been reasonable to present all objections together; it was not to object on admin grounds and then discover objections to the content later. The disputed statement reads :"'It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research,' said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies." It is alleged to be reasonable to quote the start of the sentence and to actively exclude the end. I deleted no content and reverted no content. What I did was to reinsert the last 6 words of the Post quote above in the face of blatant vandalism. I always debated directly and honestly. Please note both the technical objections to the ban made after William Connolloy's original request, that I was banned 2 hours *after* ceasing to edit, after leaving Connolloy's revert in place for that period, and after declaring my intention to lodge an RfC on the issue.

Decline reason:

You were clearly acting against policy after clear notification of the issues. This temporary block is rather short in duration, and could have been for longer. I advise you to step away from the keys and cool down before you start editing again, as the next time the block is likely to be for a much longer period. NJA (t/c) 08:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.