Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Raymond arritt (talk | contribs) at 22:01, 14 July 2007 (Old And In The Way). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

An important note on email: While I prefer that correspondence be carried on here, you are welcome to send me email using the "Email this user" link on the left. I'll try to respond to all constructive messages. Be aware that I reserve the right to repost Misplaced Pages-related email here at my sole discretion. If you don't agree with that policy, I can respect that. In such a case the answer is simple -- don't send me email.

Sorry I wasn't here to take your call. You can leave a message after the tone.

Tone

Your notes

I did see your talk posts to me. It's just with a busted laptop and various brush fires on-going, I can't properly get involved with something else like Steven Milloy at the moment. Thank you for the thank you re the Global Warming comments. I also agree that if the policy becomes too silly it will ultimately be ignored; we need to avoid that at least. The idea that I'm going to treat newspapers equivalent to abstracts in writing taxa sections on mammals (which I've been doing a fair bit of lately) is just so absurd on the face of it, that it's difficult to respond to. Marskell 15:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've commented on SlimVirgin's pageWP:V but won't go any further because I can't risk irritating admins too much. My approach will be the same as in other walks of life; when confronted with a truly idiotic policy, I'll ignore it. Raymond Arritt 15:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Current policy proposal

Hi there, the current policy proposal Here should hopefully deal with your concerns. The sentence "Academic and peer-reviewed sources are highly valued and should usually be given most weight in areas such as history, medicine and science." in particular is an accurate reflection of how articles are actually cited at the moment and how we, as editors, assess the reliability of sources. However, as I'm sure you appreciate, more flexibility is needed in other areas and non-academic sources have their place in science articles as well, but as the new draft says - "The appropriateness of non-academic sources always depends on context and they should not be used as the sole support for extraordinary claims." Tim Vickers 15:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim, thanks for your response. I agree with the new draft but have refrained from commenting because I don't have any illusions that meaningful changes to WP:V will be allowed, regardless of any consensus in their favor. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised, but I'm not betting on it. One point is that it the draft must be grammatically and stylistically flawless or that page's custodian will torch us on semantics. I'd like to give it a bit of polish once the substance is agreed upon. Raymond Arritt 15:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue of BLP and Michael Mann

We discussed this on the BLP Noticeboard and no one agreed with you. The Dutch science magazine I quoted is a reliable source and there is no reason Mann's misconduct cannot be discussed on Misplaced Pages. RonCram 16:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Milloy article

Hello. Given ongoing developments (or lack of development) at Talk:Steven Milloy, I'm strongly considering opening a request for comment on the conduct of User:NCdave. I find his approach, at this point, to be tendentious in the extreme, and I think that outside input might help move things beyond the impasse at which we seem to be stuck. As I realized when exploring this option, this would not be NCdave's first RfC; that would be found here, having to do with NCdave's tendentious editing on Terri Schiavo. In any case, I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject. MastCell 04:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In my experience RfC produces a lot of venting but rarely has a useful result. It isn't a complete waste of time, as it brings the problematic behavior to the attention of others, but I am not convinced that the effort will be worth it in this case. Review of his Terri Schiavo RfC shows that he was engaging in exactly the same behavior that he has shown in the Milloy article (see e.g., here). If an RfC and two years more experience have produced zero change in his editing behavior, I doubt another RfC will matter. The sad fact is that Misplaced Pages has no useful mechanism for dealing with tenacious POV-pushers who simply try to wear everyone else down. Raymond Arritt 04:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. However, I'm not sure how else to move forward here. I'm seeing a clearly tendentious editor, with a history of identical behavior on other articles, who's essentially on a single-purpose crusade on Steven Milloy at the moment. After extensive efforts, I'm despairing that any progress can be made via discussion on the article talk page. I think a community sanction proposal or ArbCom case might be an eventuality, but an RfC would at least establish that in the opinion of outside editors, his behavior is unacceptable. If that proves unsuccessful in improving his approach (as I'm afraid is likely), then at least I would feel better about pursuing more advanced steps in dispute resolution. If we don't address his behavior here, then it will recur. He'll get tired of Milloy, as he eventually tired of his relentless POV-pushing at Terri Schiavo, but at some point he'll pop up on another article with the same behavior. I think we should address it, through whatever less-than-effective means are at our disposal. MastCell 04:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Pleased to meet you, I'm sure.

Did you even consider the possibility of approaching me privately and asking me to discuss? and then perhaps trying to mediate? Or did you simply dismiss any possibility that I might believe that I have a legitimate concern?

I'd like to think that I'd have shown you the respect of approaching you first, before I went off to escalate the situation.

No hard feelings, just an observation. Perhaps we'll meet in mainspace and get to know each other some day. Peace.Lsi john 13:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but what on earth is this about?? Raymond Arritt 13:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your post (back on june 25) calling me a pest. You're welcome to ignore it (this post). I just wanted to say hello and toss out an idea that you might consider for the next time you are in a similar situation. Peace.Lsi john 13:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I just saw it (your post), so my post to you is a bit delayed. No worries. Peace.Lsi john 13:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sheerness‎ FAC

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Sheerness‎ article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced

I made a post to Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)