| Revision as of 15:26, 22 October 2010 editTasty monster (talk | contribs)1,023 edits ATren and WMC in rare agreement--that it's all my fault. To paraphrase Adam Savage, "My work here is done"← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:53, 23 October 2010 edit undoLumidek (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,445 edits →Your blackmailing has no business on Misplaced Pages: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| :::::I should have poked more, but RL... I doubt he's actually read the arbcom decision. ] (]) 11:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | :::::I should have poked more, but RL... I doubt he's actually read the arbcom decision. ] (]) 11:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::::: Another recently returned editor referred to a report on a science blog that reports on global warming from a skeptical point of view, that the arbitration was about breaking a "clique" that controlled article content. Unfortunately this makes some of these returning editors likely to attribute any lack of success to continued cliquism. Since some of them are quite determined to push a climate skeptical point of view, this is set up for a self-fulfilling prophecy. --] 11:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | :::::: Another recently returned editor referred to a report on a science blog that reports on global warming from a skeptical point of view, that the arbitration was about breaking a "clique" that controlled article content. Unfortunately this makes some of these returning editors likely to attribute any lack of success to continued cliquism. Since some of them are quite determined to push a climate skeptical point of view, this is set up for a self-fulfilling prophecy. --] 11:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Your blackmailing has no business on Misplaced Pages == | |||
| I just want to discourage you from spamming my talk page, especially if your goal will be to blackmail me. You know very well that I wasn't anywhere close to violating any rule of Misplaced Pages and your blackmailing is just unacceptable. If you're used to other users who get scared of your nasty behavior, I am not one of them. --] (]) 14:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:53, 23 October 2010
User talk:Tony Sidaway/Notices
Views of Prominent Climate Sceptics
Any idea if anything needs to be done about this? Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- This appears to be a content fork of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I think a merge would be best. Tasty monster (=TS ) 10:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'll leave that for someone else, I was just wondering really if it might be a rename of a deleted article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I honestly wouldn't know that. Perhaps there are editors who have spent longer on this topic than my 12 months or so, who might know. --TS 10:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Your memory seems better than mine, lol. I'd completely forgotten that, I don't often touch this area. We'll see what happens next. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh I just poked around and there it all was. He's assuming he can do stuff that didn't succeed before, and if that doesn't work he seems to be saying that it will be reported elsewhere. His reference to the "supposed change in attitude towards 'climate skeptic' views" seems to come from misreporting of the recent arbitration in some traditional media and blog sources. --TS 11:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I should have poked more, but RL... I doubt he's actually read the arbcom decision. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Another recently returned editor referred to a report on a science blog that reports on global warming from a skeptical point of view, that the arbitration was about breaking a "clique" that controlled article content. Unfortunately this makes some of these returning editors likely to attribute any lack of success to continued cliquism. Since some of them are quite determined to push a climate skeptical point of view, this is set up for a self-fulfilling prophecy. --TS 11:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I should have poked more, but RL... I doubt he's actually read the arbcom decision. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh I just poked around and there it all was. He's assuming he can do stuff that didn't succeed before, and if that doesn't work he seems to be saying that it will be reported elsewhere. His reference to the "supposed change in attitude towards 'climate skeptic' views" seems to come from misreporting of the recent arbitration in some traditional media and blog sources. --TS 11:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Your memory seems better than mine, lol. I'd completely forgotten that, I don't often touch this area. We'll see what happens next. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Your blackmailing has no business on Misplaced Pages
I just want to discourage you from spamming my talk page, especially if your goal will be to blackmail me. You know very well that I wasn't anywhere close to violating any rule of Misplaced Pages and your blackmailing is just unacceptable. If you're used to other users who get scared of your nasty behavior, I am not one of them. --Lumidek (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)