Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoRight (talk | contribs) at 21:12, 2 January 2009 (→Please tone down on your POV...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Historical Back Pointers

Rather than create archive pages which use up additional space I have decided to instead keep a list of back pointers to permanent links within the history of this talk page at various points in time.

• Back Pointer 1
• Back Pointer 2

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC

Because my participation as a Misplaced Pages editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

State of Fear

Hi there again. When you have some time, can you drop by the Talk page of the Michael Crichton's State of Fear article. May be you can give us a hand. Read the more recent discussions (last two weeks). See you around.--Mariordo (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Since M knows you better then I do I just second that request on his good word on your input --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

New article

Hi, this is just to let you know that today I created the new article An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming. I though you might be interested in collaborating to improve it (the criticism section is still missing) or just to follow it up.-Mariordo (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this and the notice above. I am quite busy in my day job right now so don't have a lot of time for Misplaced Pages in the foreseeable future, but when I have some time I will take a look at both. --GoRight (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please tone down on your POV...

I've reverted you here. Per WP:SOAP. I suggest that you keep your personal point of view, as well as your name-calling (AGW scientologists) to some other forum. This is not a good way to start up again, after a pause. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored my comments and I'll thank you to leave them alone. You are hereby informed that you are not welcome to exercise any editorial control over my commentary, thank you very much. --GoRight (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really a good start to break wikipedias rules and guidelines, on your first edit in a long time, is it? Have you forgotten that personal attacks such as calling others "AGW scientologists" isn't allowed? But be my guest, if you are trying to invite trouble. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

To whom does "AGW scientologists" refer? What wikipedia user is being attacked here? --GoRight (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed the personal attack again. If you re-add it or continue with the inflammatory remarks and personal attacks you will be blocked. Vsmith (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What personal attack? Precisely to whom does "AGW scientologists" refer? It is a general term referring to no one in particular. --GoRight (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a broad attack against any climate scientist and/or wiki editor seen by you as supportive of AGW. That kind of intentionaly inflammatory remark has no place in civil discussion on a Misplaced Pages talk page. It's the kind of remark a radio talk show host would use to get attention and raise ratings. This ain't no talk show, so stop the inflammatory rhetoric. Vsmith (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I will reiterate here (as I have done below) that I am not directing that term at any of my fellow wikipedians. A broad swipe at prominent AGW scientists? Sure, but that is not a WP:NPA violation. If it were so, many of my AGW supporting colleagues would have been blocked for personal attacks on the AGW skeptics long ago. --GoRight (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have restored your improperly deleted comment. It is a factually correct statement which is neither an attack, nor directed at a wikipedia user who would be protected under WP:NPA. You too are hereby informed that you are not welcome to exercise any editorial control over my commentary. I will thank you to leave my comment alone. --GoRight (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would you use the phrase if you don't know to whom it refers? A "scientologist" is a someone who follows Scientology, the controversial religion started by L. Ron Hubbard. I have no idea what Scientology or particular scientologists think about global warming. In other words, I don't know who "AGW scientologists" are, but it certainly sounds like an insult, and it does not appear to be relevant to any polite discussion of global warming. I can see how it could be considered an attack on the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Vsmith and Kim D. Petersen also apparently consider your criticism of an individual scientist to be a non-constructive attack on that individual (that probably violates our policies on what we can say about living people). I'd need to look into both of these issues in detail to figure out if they actually violated policy about personal attacks and sourcing all statements about living people, but they weren't constructive. It would be much more constructive for you to specifically mention facts and sources supporting a specific change you want on the article.

In other words, while I'm not sure if your comments should be blocking offensives, they aren't constructive (and making purely nonconstructive posts is, eventually, a blocking offense). In some cases, a discussion of different scientists' funding sources, policy opinions, and career trajectories could be relevant, but this type of discussion would need to be based on sources and would need to address a specific source used in the article that could be unreliable because of a conflict of interest. - Enuja (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of who the scientologists are. My usage here merely expresses that I hold the opinions of the AGW promoting scientists in the same regard that I hold scientology as a religion. In that respect you have all caught my meaning. I am not, however, directing that comment at any specific identifiable individuals and, consistent with WP:NPA, I am most decidedly NOT directing it at any of my fellow wikipedians.

As for being constructive or not, I am merely supporting the views of the other contributers who initiated the respective threads on the talk page. Contributing to the discussion and bringing alternative perspectives into that discussion is constructive in and of itself. --GoRight (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying "scientists who publish on global warming are like scientologists" is not constructive. If you have a specific criticism of a specific scientist, that could be constructive. I honestly can't imagine how a criticism of the concept of peer reviewed literature could be constructive, unless it were on the appropriate policy page. Maybe that's just my lack of imagination, however: I encourage you to come up with constructive ways to add alternative perspectives into active discussions. Calling scientists scientologists, however, is just name-calling, and is not constructive. - Enuja (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point I will just say, thank you for your input. --GoRight (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

By the time I submitted my reply to this edit of yours, William M. Connolely had deleted it. If you want a your comment to stand (and you think that the section is recent enough and active enough to merit a reply), I'd suggest you say that the current article organization promotes the perspective supporting the anthropogenic causes of and significance of recent warming. To claim that this has been done purposely to support AGW is an attack on all of the editors who support the current organization. Also, the whole scientology part is still name-calling, and therefore inappropriate. The response I had typed and tried to submit only addressed the part of your post that I considered constructive, and went like this...

While GoRight is entitled to their opinion, Paleoclimatology and Geologic temperature record are both linked at the top of this page. The broader perspective is not being hidden from Misplaced Pages readers. Instead, editors are trying to follow the article size guidelines and have subdivided related subjects into a large number of articles. The Climate change article is also relevant, and the subject infobox that is at the bottom of this and other related articles is also a helpful guide to finding related articles. - Enuja (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A fair and resonable response. I shall stand corrected on this point. Thanks for your input. --GoRight (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)