Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:36, 30 December 2009

Mentorship

The Revision History of Misplaced Pages:Mentorship records your participation the article's development; and for this reason, I am reaching out to you.

Please consider reviewing my edit at Misplaced Pages:Mentorship#Unintended consequences. In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I plan to cite this as a useful context for discussing what I have in mind. --Tenmei (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. In my opinion the style of that addendum looks very well suited to the essay. Tightening the wording might help, and you should also listen to voices expressing alternative opinions and try to acknowledge them, but at first sight it does look like a decent addition. --TS 13:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas

Thought you might like to know that Viriditas has taken it upon himself to repeatedly move my post on AQFK's talkpage, and level personal attacks and threats at me while doing it. Drolz 06:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary. Drolz is wikihounding me on talk pages that have nothing to do with him and on discussions that do not concern him. I've asked him to stop, and he refuses. Viriditas (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well you should both stop. Please focus on article content, which is why you're both here. --TS 10:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

template {{outdent}}

I've reverted your blanking of this template. You may not have noticed (I hadn't) that it survived a TfD about six weeks ago; if you've got anything to add to the discussion you should reopen it rather than taking unilateral action.   pablo_hablo. 00:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

See Be bold. All edits on Misplaced Pages are unilateral, at least until somebody invents a web browser that can be operated by several people at a time. --TS 11:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there shouldn't be more than one person pressing the buttons on each computer at any one time, though there is quite often discussion of the direction that edits might take. (I suppose it's possible to argue that all human actions are 'unilateral' - perhaps it's a word best avoided.)

You could always boldly add span.outdent-template { display: none; } to your css file to prevent this template offending thine eye.   pablo_hablo. 12:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. --TS 12:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

RS/N comment

I found your post at the wikipedia:reliable sources/Noticeboard (lenghty discussions will attract uninformed editors who dont know Misplaced Pages policy) to be the very opposite of Assume good faith and if it had been directed at someone in particular it would have been a blatant personal attack. Anyone has the unalienable right to comment at the Village Pumps, reliable sources and original research noticeboards, even wikipedia:administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, whether Admin, IP, newbie, or oldtimer and all are equal in their opinion.

I have been on Misplaced Pages for over 3 years, have successfully rewritten several policies, established new ideas, and been on the consensus-side of many discussions at RS and OR noticeboards and VP policy and procedure; so I definitely know Misplaced Pages policy, so I know if you had personally said that about me I would take you to the Wikiettiquite noticeboard for uncivil and personal attack; but I know you would not ever direct that comment towards me or any other user in particular; your comment was in general though I believe misdirected and perhaps shouldnt have been said. You may think someone doesnt know Misplaced Pages policy simply because they interpret it differently; that does not negate their right to comment.

I ask you nicely to please refrain from comments like that as can be seen as biting newbies and is the very opposite of the inclusiveness of Misplaced Pages. You are welcome to your opinion about what people state and how they state it and if you agree; but you can not say someone else's opinion is "wrong" or "worthless" or not as good as yours. I know you didnt intend any harm, I'm simply asking you to be more careful in how you characterize others. Thank you and please no hard feelings.Camelbinky (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's complete rubbish (by the way I removed your unsightly use of emphasis and added a paragraph break or two so I could read it, and replaced abbreviations with proper references to the relevant policy or noticeboard).

Bad ideas must be criticised, all opinions are not equal, Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in democracy, and informed opinion is more valuable than ignorant opinion. Moreover there are no rights, let alone inalienable ones, on Misplaced Pages. It's an encyclopedia in construction and we're here to build one.

Your attempt to couch my statement as if it might in some circumsrances have been a personal attack is not helpful.

The ideas you express above are wrong, bad, and counter-productive, and have long been rejected by Misplaced Pages. --TS 11:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Meat-puppet

This is meat-puppetry. Please be careful.--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. Where there appear to be problems with balance, neutrality, factual errors, and verifiability in an article, policy specifically suggests contacting other editors for an opinion. I've carefully examined the link you give for "meat-puppetry", and it's clear that it doesn't apply to this sensible recruitment of more eyes on a potentially sensitive article. --TS 12:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The section suggests that one seek comments (follow the link) from other Wikipedians, not that one go on a specific Wikipedian's talkpage asking that an article you find contentious be placed on their watchlist.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not referring to RFCs. I'm referring to proper use of the talk page for communication on article editing. If we had to rely on RFCs to communicate with one another, you wouldn't have been able to communicate with me as you have been doing. --TS 00:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Communication on article editing is not meatpuppetry in itself, but your particular communication on article editing was meatpuppetry. Just read the relevant tag in the section on meatpuppetry.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making false accusations. Asking a fellow editor to watch a BLP is not meat puppetry. --TS 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If you still think so, you still haven't read the tag. Whether or not you acknowledge this instance, let's try to avoid it in the future.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Rapid archiving in mid-discussion

Hi Tony. I have noticed a couple of cases recently where it appears you have archived ongoing talk page discussions, and note other users have made a similar observation above. As you know, consensus among equals is the only tool for resolving content disputes in Misplaced Pages, and WP policy here Misplaced Pages:No consensus says that "discussion and debate on a proposal may continue on talk pages after a "no consensus" situation." Archiving the discussion under these circumstances could create the mis-impressionism that you are attempting to quell ongoing discussion, which is surely not be your intent. Might I inquire as to you thinking?

DGaw (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely trying to quell unproductive discussion. This fact seems to be recognised by those who have commented favorably on my archiving. --TS 01:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Just as others have commented unfavorably. However, I believe both are somewhat beside the point. In cases where there remains a lack of consensus, I don't believe it's up to any editor to act as judge and say what is or isn't productive in an ongoing discussion. I appreciate your commitment and enthusiasm; I would just ask that you not be so quick to pull the trigger in future. DGaw (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm constantly listening to comment and will try to act in the best interests of the encyclopedia and maintain the confidence of my fellow editors. --TS 02:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I wouldn't say "advice" (who am I to give advice?) as much as my two cents worth. Thanks, Tony. No one could ask for anything else. DGaw (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I would like to respectfully add my assent to the suggestion above. please do not archive talk page sections while in mid-discussion.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Be aware that I shall continue to remove off-topic discussion from controversial articles. There are more appropriate venues for such discussion. See dispute resolution for details, and note that there is an ongoing RFC on the question of whether the talk page is being over heavily managed. --TS 21:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. well that section was not off-topic at all. So I don't see the benefit of you taking a stand on your right to archive discussion topics as a general rule, since you are not an uninvolved editor or admin. If you want to discuss individual topics and whether they are pertinent, that is fine. but your strong defense and indication that you expect to continue to archive discussion topics in this manner as an ongoing pattern, erodes the assertion that every single instance is an example of totally non-relevant discussion in need of being rectified. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The RFC is an example of using appropriate processes to resolve disputes. Continually complaining "why was this section removed?" when we're faced with a deluge of off-topic and inappropriate comments that hamper out ability to discuss the article content, is counter-productive. There are appropriate methods and appropriate forums. Everybody gets to put his opinion, but not necessarily in a place set aside for more pertinent discussions. --TS 21:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your question. I raised the issue in order to re-open discussion of the article content itself, which is in fact the direction which that section's discussion then took within a short time. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take my foot off the brake for a few days and see how it goes. --TS 21:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I very much appreciate the chance to be able to discuss this with you. good to be in contact. thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

darn

You are a hard task master but spot on :) Polargeo (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is genuine wikipedians end up reinforcing articles that should not be here and that are set up without any balance. Best to allow the removal of unsourced info without having to waste our time trying to add proper balance Polargeo (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

IPPC

Would you be so kind and stop deleting the comments from RfC: Is scientific accuracy relevant? How can any decision be made if you keep removing stuff like the for and against comments? ] --mark nutley (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed some comments that were inappropriately placed. Please leave some room (which has been clearly marked as such) for comments by uninvolved editors. Eternal recycling of the same old bickering will not help. --TS 23:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I only posted one comment, i had to because you removed the list of those for and against :) Am i not meant to comment in it btw? --mark nutley (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I got it wrong,but as far as I'm aware I removed some bickering between involved editors in a place reserved for the uninvolved. --TS 23:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate scandal

It would be very nice if you can discuss your bold moves WRT this article first. Please. Dimawik (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion on those particular actions is not really necessary. The edits I make are clear and obvious, their reasoning must be self-evident because they come from nearly a month's worth of discussion on the parent article of this POV fork. --02:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Many people do not think this is a POV fork, so it is not so obvious. A lot of people are actually trying to erase even the word "Climategate" from the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident page. AGFing, I infer that these people cannot earnestly argue that the hacking incident and Climategate is one thing. Since the controversy exists, it needs to be argued out; first in the RfD.Dimawik (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your imagination has got the better of you. The word "Climategate" has been in the article for several weeks now and nobody has proposed to remove it since it became fairly commonly used. --TS 03:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but my eyes still serve me well. Scjessey argued to remove the Climategate reference from the lead (and relocate it deeper into the article) today: I'm starting to think we should cut out "Climategate" from the opening sentence completely. Dimawik (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. --TS 04:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Explanation requested

Hi Tony. Can you explain how this edit supports WP:SOAP? Pending explanation, I have rolled back your deletion. Thanks, Tomer 05:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The author is arguing the merits of the science, and not the editing of the article (he has a bee in his bonnet about mainstream science and wants us to give a fair wack to some fringe theories). This is classic soap boxing. --TS 12:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I will leave it alone, but I think your methods are contrary to the spirit of the Project as well as of science. As for "mainstream science", at various times that has included geocentric universe, a flat earth, spontaneous generation, etc., ad nauseum, and silencing opposing voices does not bode well for its future. Regards, Tomer 17:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Global_warming/FAQ Q15 to the rescue... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, I'm pretty sure I'm in tune with the spirit and letter of the project. Did you know we're here to build an encyclopedia? We're not here to right wrongs and overturn scientific consensus. --TS 17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I've been here a while. As for scientific consensus, the only consensus in science is that science is not determined by consensus. Tomer 18:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you propose that we slog the science out on the merits on Misplaced Pages, with theories that are currently out of favor being represented equally alongside those that command mainstream support? Well I believe we've had a few arbitration cases over that particular idea, and of course we have a Neutral point of view policy that is particularly well attuned to avoiding such equal-timism. ---TS 18:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Does WP:SOAP apply to article talk pages, Tony? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. Talk pages are for discussion the article, not advocating a revolution in science, etc. --TS 18:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh. Only if you wrote the policy. We have talk pages so that all the nonsense can be left behind. If you think he is soapboxing, please leave a message on the talk page pointing that out. Talk pages are for discussions to arrive at a consensus. Removing content without warning would only provoke the editor. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I did, to a large degree, write many of our policies, as you would know as you've been around for yonks, too. And as the Arbitration committee has put it: " The purpose of a Misplaced Pages talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles Principle 13, see also Remedy 2 in the same case). If you think Misplaced Pages talk pages are in any way suitable places for a user to advocate his point of view, you are completely, utterly wrong. --TS 22:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your understanding of WP:NPOV is completely the opposite of what the policy is actually designed to accomplish. Cheers, Tomer 18:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I don't agree that your flagging of that section was particularly necessary, but I think the Project is better served by the ability to refer to previous discussion, undeleted, than to revisit it ad nauseum, and I am particularly averse to the idea that discussion is best conducted by silencing opposing voices, or, IMHO, denigrating them the way the template in/?advertently does, but I am content to leave it as it stands. Regards, Tomer 09:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your closing of the report on Scjessey's 3RR violation

Hello, I left a note regarding your closing to the 3RR report on Scjessey (talk · contribs) Thanks.-Caspian blue 16:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Responded there. --TS 16:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

==To clarify==

The problem with the report here is that it wasn't timely. Jheiv made the report at 0815 but the article was protected at 1220, and by that time ScJessey had ceased edit warring while others continued. Since no edit warring could continue on a protected article, no blocks are merited by the blocking policy.

The fact that I've edited the article in the recent past is immaterial. No administrator action within blocking policy will result from the report at this late stage.

If it should happen that edit warring is continuing elsewhere, do file another report, or contact an administrator directly. --TS 16:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, but I think I already answered to the raised point. The page is "Administrators' noticeboard" in regard to handling reported 3RR or edit warring, so you're not a qualified person to do the job. Moreover, even if you're an admin, your heavy involvement does not make your neutral to the report. So I had to revert your closing. I'm not interested in blocking Scjessey, but hoped that "facts" should get straight. --Caspian blue 16:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I responded on the noticeboard. Misplaced Pages isn't a bureaucracy. --TS 16:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI and WP:NPOV --Caspian blue 17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are content policies. --TS 18:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I can't begin to explain my frustration about the report. Would you at least agree that the edit was, in fact, involved in an edit war and despite being fairly warned decided to continue the edit war? I could care less about the ban to be honest, but at least affirmation that the work was not done in vain.jhe_iv (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall seeing an uninvolved admin (User:J.delanoy) commenting on the reverts . I defer to his independent opinion. --TS 22:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

While William M. Connolley who may be arguably "involved", but his comment to Scjessey is correct in the situation.Scj: I'd express contrition for breaking 3RR if I were you--Caspian blue 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with William, too. --TS 22:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not convinced of consensus at the IPCC?

The talk page makes it clear than twice as many people want inclusion rather than deletion. Also, far more editors are driving by to restore the deleted text, but they tend to do only one revert and then move along. It is clear than the majority opinion is to keep the section. Also, I won't watch this page, so if you want to reply then please do so on my page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Twice as many? Are you counting me too? I'd be more convinced if you had succeeded in getting consensus at AR4. Why don't you try that? --TS 00:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you(Tony Sidaway) and some user that appears to not exist, reverting my questions and concerns on a talk page?

First of all let me state that if this entry in your talk page violates your BLP I will definitely laugh.

I want to know how, if you are not allowed to mention a living person who edits wiki pages, are we expected to ever voice disapproval of their behavior? I used to have respect for Misplaced Pages, now I know better. Last warning all you want, for I now know this place isn't worth my time and I will be doing everything in my power to ensure my school never uses Misplaced Pages again, not even for casual research. I asked for clarification and received none, I asked to be pointed in the right direction if my grievance had been placed in the wrong area. This is nothing more than glorified legalese bullying, and looking at the contribs section it's quite an art with you guys isn't it? Adam Thompson 75.137.146.31 (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The user account in question does exist, it just lacks a user page. Please read the discussion I linked to on your talk page. If you come here to make personal attacks against other editors, you are not welcome. If you stay to edit, welcome. It's up to you. --TS 00:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you point me to the 'concerned user and protector of 7th grader access to impartial data' section? Because I really don't consider myself an editor, I have never written or edited an article on Misplaced Pages, but I have in the past been among those at my school to condone its use for casual research. I am surprised to see the guidelines for editing articles also appear to apply to the discussion pages behind those articles, and that's really why it comes off as legalese bullying. I see that you did make an effort to point me to a now-closed discussion about the aforementioned editor's bias, and I thank you for that. The discussion stated since the editor is an expert in the field there was no conflict of interest, there's clearly not really a consensus on the issue and William Gray is on the other end of the spectrum from the aforementioned editor, so clearly there is a conflict of interest isn't there? I'm not expecting you to take the time to get into the details of this with me as I know this isn't the place, but this IS the reason I'm outraged. I am not a fan of ad hominem and that was not my intention, however I do not have the time nor inclination to learn the legalese of the Misplaced Pages guidelines just to voice my concerns as someone who has a paid obligation to offer my students impartial data. So I suppose the only two steps for me to take is to try and find out how users voice concerns with editors on Misplaced Pages, and go about reversing our school's policies on the use of Misplaced Pages. I do thank you again for at least talking to me, pasting prefabricated reasons why users shouldn't have a voice on the discussion page of an article was only serving to make the situation more outrageous. Adam Thompson 75.137.146.31 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Solomon posted his column we've had a few people who were taken in by it. William M. Connolley happens to be an expert in the field, as does Gray. Obviously we wouldn't want to chase either of them off but we do have internal systems, which are surprisingly open, for ensuring that editors' personal biases aren't allowed to control an article--that's something Solomon got very wrong. If you do decide to stick around and contribute, you may learn a bit more about how we work. --TS 01:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually Connolley is far, far more of an expert on climate than Gray. Even Gray's fellow skeptic Lindzen says "his knowledge of theory is frustratingly poor." I like Bill but he should stick to hurricanes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All scientists are supposed to be skeptics. Calling the skeptics 'deniers' instead I hear is more effective as it draws mental connections to holocaust deniers. But I guess on the other hand, calling them deniers is a bit more obviously bias and could be construed as a cheap shot. I didn't expect feedback about Climategate specifically, but if the CRU crowd in general are such experts, why did they buck the peer review process every step of the way, even threaten to delete data before turning it over to a UK FOIA request, and why wasn't their data published in a peer-reviewed journal to begin with, like all credible scientists do? The rule is supposed to be peer-reviewed, peer-reproduced results. Adam Thompson 75.137.146.31 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: I didn't believe the Solomon column verbatim, it just showed me that the situation still hadn't been resolved, I'm used to columns being sensationalist.

This is an encyclopedia, so like a good encyclopedist I'll await the results of the independent inquiry into the affair. I've read a lot of accusations on blogs, but then I read on some blogs that Obama is a Muslim, so it's not a very good way to find out the facts. --TS 02:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

serious allegations at Talk:William M. Gray

• Those are painfully serious allegations at Talk:William M. Gray. These do need to be looked in to. • Ling.Nut 01:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  They have been. --TS 01:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks. Am reading. • Ling.Nut 01:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)