Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:38, 19 April 2010

About Me

I am a U.S. citizen, though I have lived in Europe and Asia, and at present (April 08) have visited over 50 different countries. I am also a regular pelagic sailor, though I recently sold my 40' Ketch and am now again on dry land.

I am (was?) an avid spelunker, though its been a few years since I engaged regularly.

James Lovelock

Hi there. I'm afraid I've reverted your edits at James Lovelock. I heard the interview on the radio when it was originally broadcast, and while Lovelock may well doubt specific forecasts of climate change (as would most scientists, since they make prosaic assumptions about future human behaviour), he is not doubting the science of climate change. However, this is what your edits to the article implied. At least, implied to me. Anyway, I just wanted to give you a heads-up. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Vincent R. Gray

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Vincent R. Gray, 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. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

New article

I thought you'd be interested in the stub article Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions Simesa (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What?

What on Earth are you talking about in the edit-comment here("not what source says.") - the commentaryhttp://www.viewmag.com/viewstory.php?storyid=4924 uses the word Astroturf(ing) about FS (and the NRSC) a total of 8 times in 808 words - this is not counting the headline. Let me quote just one passage:

Long a menace in the States, the trend towards Astroturfs is building in Canada. Perhaps the most notable phony groundswell of independent thought is the oil lobby front group Friends of Science

In the other article it is also made clear that DeSmogBlog and others are labelling the Stewardship program and the Friends as Astroturfers - and i do think that it is accurate to describe DeSmogBlog as critics. (and a notable view here because the article cites them) May i please ask you to revert yourself here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I read the story in TheStar; it never directly called FoS an astroturf group. The blog entry of Veale's does (I just read it now). I'm ok with reinserting it, but given it is commentary, I believe we need to label just who is levelling the accusation, rather than a "critics" weasel-word. OK with you? FellGleaming (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please

I'm sure I'm just misreading your intentions, but please look at this from my perspective. 1. I start editing Friends of Science last night. 2. Before I even finish fixing up the article (you put back "suspicious of claims of global warming", a very loaded statement), you start throwing away my changes. 3. You show up out of the blue at Lake Mead and start accusing me of intentional misrepresentation of a source and not being connected to reality. Please tell me I am being overly sensitive, as I really don't know what I could have done to offend you.
I left you a reply at Talk:Lake Mead, hopefully the new version will meet with your approval.
Thepisky (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You haven't offended me at all; I think your new changes to the Mead article are fine. Regarding FoS, I believe your language was not extremely neutral, and uses more words to convey less information. Do you not believe that FoS is verifiably suspicious of AGW claims?

BTW, I have a discussion going on the lede changes at FoS, and would appreciate any input you may have. Thanks. FellGleaming (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. Having just come into contact with you as an editor I have enjoyed our debates. If we both stick to your ideals on sourcing standards then that should make for better articles. I have appreciated your neutralisation of the language in several cases but I certainly think you have gone over the top with some of the sourcing debates. Just because you don't like a source should not be a reason to remove it, however, better sourcing is always a bonus. Polargeo (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words (and also for the criticism; it helps me to improve as well. ) I hope you agree the new version of the article is much improved. Whether or not a claim is true, if a reader clicks through to the source and sees something that appears unreliable, they're not going to accept the text. Fell Gleaming 08:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Partial restoration of text

Hi, I restored the important part of some text you deleted in Nuclear reactor technology. I agree that the last half of it had no place in the article. Please review? Simesa (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I just don't feel that union composition and workforce makeup are aspects of the reactor technology. This information belongs more in an article on nuclear plant operation. Fell Gleaming 12:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you good with ref`s?

If you are and have a minute could you take a look here for me please I`m stumped :-) mark nutley (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

After reading (some of) the Anwar Awlaki talk page, I commend you for keeping such a cool head. I definitely agree there's a substantial amount of POV problems, and I'm going to see how I can possibly contribute. Fell Gleaming02:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good to have help. --causa sui (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Given that it appears you are soliciting others to assist you in something regarding my comment, I thought I should note that I waive the 2 certifier requirement for you to file an RFC regarding my conduct towards you until May 15, 2010, Noon EST. Hipocrite (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think you should really be a bit more mature? You're getting far too emotionally upset over minutia. Fell Gleaming 17:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What is immature about making it easy for you to seek wider community input? Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume that's a good faith question and answer it. You're trying to climb the Reichstag, rather than improve the content. The goal is "cooperation, collaboration, and compromise", remember? If you have issues, why not attempt to discuss them calmly and rationally, rather than these incessant confrontational attempts? Fell Gleaming 18:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have issues. You've three times misrepresented sources in the past three days - you're certainly aware of this. When confronted with this, you've made further innacuracte statements - you're certainly aware of this. I want you to stop. Which part of my statement above do you find incorrect? Hipocrite (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

While I applaud the precision of your selection of cognomen, the fact remains that the only person who agreed with you regarding your initial claim was soneone who didn't properly read the diff properly, and thought I misplaced quotation marks. The rest of the community disagreed. As for your third example, as soon as evidence was presented that I was wrong, I immediately and openly acknowledged my error. Why don't you try doing the same? Or if you're unable to do that, just move on and stop this pointless bickering. Fell Gleaming 18:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If you stopped doing it, I wouldn't have new examples every single day. If you stopped doing it for like, two weeks, I'd probably stop following your contributions checking all your references because then I'd see that you had reformed. With regards to your "immediately and openly acknowledged my error," that's another example of a further innacurate statement - you were shown evidence by Polargeo at 10:44, 16 April 2010 ("both came from the unpublished draft paper. Neither are from the actual paper."), requested to show your evidence for your quotes by me at 12:54, and only admitted that your quotes were fabricated at 16:18. I know "immediate," and that's not it. Also, don't be a dick. Hipocrite (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And once again, the insults begin. If there truly was a systemic problem with my edits, you wouldn't be failing to get traction as you are. Fell Gleaming 18:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I alledge I'm not failing to get traction. Every admin who evaluated your pattern of behavior after the first incident (all one of them), has found a substantial problem. I'd like to avoid filing a User Conduct RFC after the request ends, so I'm hopeful that you're taking on board what I'm saying even though you have gone full-defensive mode (again) with the false statements about what you did and did not do. Hopefully there won't be any evidence after this talk page discussion of you misrepresenting sources (as you now apparently admit you have done at least once). Hipocrite (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC). With that, I grant you your section, below. Hipocrite (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

All one of them, eh? You might want to google the term "statistical universe". Cheers :) Fell Gleaming 18:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is how to file an arbcom request about an admin. Since there currently is no admin review board, complaints about admins generally have to go directly to ArbCom, although sometimes they will request that an RfC be done first. If you're requesting ArbCom review of an admin's actions, you need to show that the account in question was actually abusing administrative privileges, not just violating policy as a regular editor. Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

page heading

I suppose I should remind you that "I routinely clean out my talk page, consistent with WP policy. If you wish to keep a copy of something you post here, please copy it to your own page." is not actually correct advice. Nobody need keep such a copy, because all the material anyone has every posted here is available permanently for all the world to see in the edit history. Yes, it's a nuisance needing to go back to it, but it is all there--all anybody need keep tract of is the diff of the edit involved. 23:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I realize that, but I haven't updated my talk page header in years. Fell Gleaming 23:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Result of enforcement request

An enforcement request concerning you at WP:GS/CC/RE has been closed with the following result:

FellGleaming is warned to exercise basic due diligence in reviewing the content of sources before making assertions about them. He is warned to be scrupulous in his representation of sources and his use of purported quotes from them. He is further required to respond directly to the substance of future concerns about his use of sources and quotations and avoid aggressive posturing. These are final warnings and further violations may result in sanctions.

More detail on the probation can be found here, as can instructions on how to appeal the sanction should you wish to do so. MastCell  03:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

David S. Miller

See for a reference. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't delete others talk page comments

Your recent post deleted other users posts. Please use care when posting. I've restored the part you removed. Vsmith (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

BTW, if you would like to delete that entire new thread on my talk page (you comment contains a link), be my guest. Greg L (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation?

Hello. I made a post over at Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki asking if the involved parties (that's you!) would be willing to submit to mediation. Will you please reply? Thanks, --causa sui (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbcomm

Good grief, you must be desperate if you're asking MN. So I'll take pity on you. If this is about that one block on you that you regard as bad - then forget it. You haven't been through due process (have you?) As a bare minimum you'd have had to have brought it up on ANI and got some sympathy there. And even if you had, arbcomm are very unlikely to care about any one block. And people know that, so if you were making those edits in the hope that people would notice and be worried - don't bother William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would I dispute a block from two years ago? This is about a current personal dispute with an administrator. But I do appreciate the advice. Could you detail the ANI process for me, or point me in the right direction? Fell Gleaming 20:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I mixed you up with AQFK, who was going around getting quite miffed with his recent block. Or maybe it was someone else entirely. Err, so what is the issue you wish to raise? That matters a bit; WP:ANI is for actual incidents that require intervention; WP:AN would be more for issues of general concern. The best thing would be to have a look at what is there. However, I didn't participate greatly at either, even when I had my bit. Or the alternative would be some species of RFC on a user; again, it would depend quite heavily on what the problem is William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if you're willing to chat, I'm sincerely curious why someone like you is willing to hitch their wagon so adamantly to such a falling star. The problem isn't the "basic science" any longer; it's what the public believes they've been told about that science. Even assuming the IPCC sensitivity estimates are accurate (a point I'll defer for now), in a decade, have you seriously thought about what the court of public opinion is going to do with anyone associated with this?

Though my degree in the sciences, my true love is comparative history. And I can tell you this with certainty, when the hypothesized calamities fail to appear, the public is going to demand their metric ton of flesh, no matter how many graphs Time and Newsweek runs.

A Schmidt or a Ruedy doesn't have much choice at this point. But you -- you have options. Fell Gleaming 21:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally happy to chat. I left Climate Science on a professional level not because I in any way thought it was a "falling star"; if anything the opposite: as various people have said: we have all the science we need, from a certain viewpoint. As to what the public have been told: depending on what exactly you mean by that, I think the scientists hands are clean, unlike the media's. In a decade, we'll have a decade's worth of warning. I fully expect, at some point, the media to turn on the scientists and say "but why didn't you warn us *properly* so we believed you?" but such is life William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely you're not suggesting you truly believe that the actuality of future events is going to match -- much less exceed -- public perception of how they believe those events have been sold to them? Fell Gleaming 23:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The scientist's hands are clean but the media has certainly overhyped several claims on the immediate consequences of warming, but that is sensationalism for you. Now the media is overhyping any errors they find because that is the latest sensational story. However, these errors whilst not good have actually been very minimal in the scope of the overall picture. So someone puts in the wrong number on himalayan galciers in the IPCC report, this error was spotted by scientists who actually agree with most of the IPCC report, not the hordes of skeptics who are desperately trying to say "they got it wrong". An error or two in a report does not invalidate the major conclusions of a report. We would stop doing any form of science at all if that was the case. Polargeo (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As PG has said. If you want to talk about the science then that is great. But if you want to talk about "public perception of how they believe those events have been sold to them" then this is meeja stuff, and I doubt we disagree very much. Science got global cooling right, and the media got it wrong. It looks like that will repeat with global warming but this should be no great surprise - the meeja get many (perhaps most) things wrong when those matters involve subtlety William M. Connolley (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(ps: you're going to have to give up edits like this if you want to chat William M. Connolley (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC))

"Inappropriate statistical methods"

"The Oxburgh report found (and reported) evidence of...inappropriate statistical methods used by the CRU." (FellGleaming, 22:21, May 18, 2010)

"Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by accident rather than design, in the CRU papers that we examined we did not come across any inappropriate usage although the methods they used may not have been the best for the purpose." (Report of Lord Oxburgh's Scientific Assessment panel)

(emphasis mine)

I think you have misread the report. The Panel appears to say the opposite of what you say it said. --TS 01:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Formal warning.

Your latest comments on Talk:Fred Singer are out of line. "I think the Singer talk page is an entirely appropriate venue to discuss a pattern of tendentious edits to that article" is wrong. Will you please sit down and read WP:TALK and WP:NPA? Specifically i would point out #4 in Misplaced Pages:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F.

If you have griefs about an editor - then the correct venue is to gather evidence (in private) and to start a user-RfC, an enforcement request etc. It is not acceptable to cast aspersions on other editors in article talk-pages. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the policy states a personal attack is, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." It further states: "Serious accusations require serious evidence." The evidence was given. There is a years-long pattern of tendentious edits to that page, made for the specific purpose of attempting to punish Singer for his views. Nothing could be further from the spirit and letter of Misplaced Pages policy. Fell Gleaming 14:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You are not going to let up are you? No, You didn't give evidence. You asserted something based upon assumption.

But no matter what - accusations/evidence and other things of that manner have no place in article talk-space. If you do not trust what i'm saying - go ask some administrator that you trust. Because if you continue down this alley - then it is going to turn out badly.

You should also try to at least make a semblence of adhering to WP:AGF. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to promote this into a venue where I collect and present even more evidence of a long-standing tendentious pattern of intentional distortion of BLP entries of all individuals who have criticized global warming, then it very well may turn out badly ... but not in the way you think. Regards. Fell Gleaming 14:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

I now warn you that twice removing sourced information added by two different editors on J. Scott Armstrong without any talkpage discussion whatsoever when a talkpage discussion had already been initiated is clear edit warring. If you remove this information one more time without consensus you are liable to be blocked per WP:3RR. Polargeo (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, but if you look back on the talk page, I started the "blogs as sources" thread on April 15, four days ago. Fell Gleaming 14:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I have missed something I will look back at it, however, you stand at 2 reverts on this and so the warning stands. Polargeo (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Per I do actually have better things to do with my time than double check sources for you. This is getting annoying. Please make sure you read and understand all sources that are used before adding or removing, I understand you have already been warned on this issue. Polargeo (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As discussed on the talk page, this material is not backed up by that source. This is misrepresentation of sources. Fell Gleaming 15:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is. Read the whole source. I am beginning to suspect you have your special glasses on when you read sources. Polargeo (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

---delete--- silliness redacted. Fell Gleaming 15:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. Hipocrite has noted this fact. Instead of replying you have removed his comment. This would be silliness if it did not have a bearing on your recent caution. Your claim of silliness is a classic talkpage coverup when all other avenues have failed. Polargeo (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please self-revert

The CRU hack page is under a 1RR restriction. This edit is a revert, since it removes material that has been edit-warred over in the past. This edit marks your second revert in less than 12 hours. Guettarda (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you have misread the diff. I removed nothing in that first edit; I simply moved the Norfolk investigation line downwards as part of a restructuring. Fell Gleaming 15:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't misread the diff. The material was removed from the opening paragraph. Where it was moved is beside the point. Guettarda (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a unique interpretation! By that logic, even inserting a space into the lede is "removing material", since it pushed everything else downward one character. I removed nor reverted anything; and the statement is still in the lede, for that matter. Fell Gleaming 15:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)