Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nightmote (talk | contribs) at 18:52, 12 January 2010 (personal?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Devil's Advocate

Thanks for your comment. Not a big deal but you managed to delete like half of my talkpage in the process. I agree that the article needs a complete overhaul by some uninvolved people. Drolz 19:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Sorry 'bout that - no idea how it happened. Nightmote (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah no problem really. Drolz 22:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't ignore consensus

Your removal of the Weart statement was rightly reverted, per consensus discussion on the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be so much easier if you would propose your additions on the talk page, rather than just adding them without discussion. Consensus before contention. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was mistaken when TS seemed to agree that Weart was important, then that Weart wasn't important? I maintained from the beginning that Weart added nothing, and that the section should be eliminated altogether. Since my removal was reverted, I felt compelled to add additional "expert additional commentary" in an effort to balance the see-saw. I am more than willing to seek consensus, but I am unhappy with the bloated mess that the article has become, loaded with irrelevent opinion, AGW defense, and the overwhelming rush-to-judgement on what is a developing story. Nightmote (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware Misplaced Pages -NEVER- names its articles -gate?

Your vote under the discussion page for Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident is currently being counted as NO, based on your comment I believe this might be due to a misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages's policy regarding the use of '-gate' in the names of articles. The only controversy article that will ever have the suffix '-gate' on Misplaced Pages is the 'Watergate' scandal. If you refer to that list of '-gates' you will see that none of the main articles are named -gate, not even the old well-established ones now commonly referred to as -gate. Current tally of the voting:

11 users FOR Climatic Research Unit data release controversy and 4 users AGAINST, 5 if you count Nightmote. For: Scjessey, Itsmejudith, Jheiv, Adam.T.Historian, Garrettw87, Wikidemon, Sphilbrick, Jc-S0CO, Troed, DGaw, A_Quest_For_Knowledge Against: Nightmote(under the belief it will ever be allowed to be called Climategate), Gandydancer, ChrisO, William_M._Connolley, Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris

Nightmote is still unaware that Misplaced Pages never names articles -gate, if you'd like to make it 12 v/s 4 then we can talk to Nightmote about this, but being from a democratic society I do consider 11:5 an overwhelming consensus. Our presidents and senators are often elected with near 1:1 results, heh. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, Boris, your strong oppose still only counts as one vote. And I see no reason why we shouldn't now proceed to finally rename this article Climatic Research Unit data release controversy in order to respect the Misplaced Pages NPOV. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If it was your intention to be counted with ChrisO, William_M._Connolley, etc then that is your prerogative and so be it. But I thought I would try to explain Misplaced Pages's position on naming any scandal other than Watergate with the '-gate' suffix, as I just today learned of this. The truth is the e-mail hacking incident name is very bias, and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit data release controversy will be able to cover the full scope of the controversy regarding the release of data from the Climatic Research Unit, which includes the beginnings of the controversy, where they repeatedly refused Freedom of Information Act Requests which would've allowed peer-reviewers access to the data, this is a very big part of the scandal that is currently being omitted because of the incredibly biased name 'e-mail hacking incident', which does not reflect Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. Thank you for your consideration of the facts regarding the vote for majority consensus and Misplaced Pages's policies regarding the -gate suffix.

Sincerely, Adam.T.Historian (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Kind of you to drop by old chap, and thanks for the consideration. The "-gate" suffix comes under the aegis of words to avoid as opposed to words that are banned. I respect the sentiments of those seeking to name this something other than Climategate, and I have just posted what I hope is a truly neutral proposed title on the talk page in a gesture of good faith and reconciliation. I suspect - strongly - that what is happening is we don't agree what the article is *about*. I think it's about the scientists' unprofessional behaviour. Scjessey, ChrisO, and others believe that it's about a cyber attack on a respected institution. Four blind men and an elephant, savvy? One touches a leg and says "tree" one touches the trunk and says "snake" and so forth. Honestly-held beliefs and good faith efforts, but a lack of direction. The argument about the title is a proxy battle, I'm afraid. We need to find common ground on the subject before we can reach consensus on the title. Nightmote (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I do understand that. But I was hopeful that if we can make the Climatic Research Unit data release controversy name stick, it would then be well within the scope of the article to include CRU wrongdoing, in that they refused to release data, bucked the peer-review process that is the pillar of all good science, and ultimately the data was released anyway. It's far better than the current title, which is blatant whitewashing and seeks to undermine the full scope of the controversy. It wasn't what I wanted, but it is by far an improvement.. I'll try to take a look at the talk page soon, New Year's Eve is often busy around my house... and Happy New Year to you, by the way :-) Adam.T.Historian (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons I have (re-)proposed CRU Documents Controversy. The title doesn't preclude any discussion of theft versus hack. My (not so) secret (not very) hidden agenda is to try and split the article into more manageable sections; places where we can limit discussion to one aspect of the event, and limit extraneous (and contentious) material. I think that we can more easily reach consensus if we talk about fewer things. In particular, I want to see whether it's possible to limit the references to the validity of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I think that the controversy, here, can be limited to the theft and the fallout without touching the third rail of AGW. Any AGW arguments belong on the AGW page, methinks. Nightmote (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Redacted

I preferred your non redacted rant :), and i am sorry for making a comment with my post, it was bad form as you had requested no comments. --mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(grin) In addition to being an environmental engineer, I'm a policy enforcer at an ice hockey rink. I tend to over-react from time to time. It is a weakness I am working hard to counter. Nightmote (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

If you keep reverting my closing of the discussion containing personal attacks against me, I will report you at WP:ANI. There is no justification for it, and it is no better than if you made the personal attacks yourself. Stop it. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you may not have noticed this advice – "All editors are reminded to adhere strictly to the topic of improving the associated article when posting to an article's talkpage." Unarchiving such offtopic remarks clearly fails to comply with WP:GS/CC/RE. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I replied on your talk page in a civil manner, and then came to my talk page to find this. You're out of line, Scjessey. I reverted in good faith because I believe that feelings are running high on that article, and shutting down discussion - even angry discussion - closes safety valves and prevents editors from hearing things that they may not want to hear. In addition, I honestly feel that you need to face the situation openly and either refute the accusations or live with them. The accusations and language were pretty harsh, and one of you is out of line and deserves sanction. As for seeking administrative against *me*, rock on. I'm not your enemy. I object to the amount of editorial pressure you have put on the article, but I have not made any recent meaningful edits to it, feeling that to do so would be unproductive and likely to inflame the situation. I tried reason, I sought consensus, I was reduced to outraged condemnation, and I have pretty much thrown in the towel on trying to make that article read as "objective" (from my point of view, of course). That article belongs to you, and ChrisO, Guettarda, and William Connelly. It's all yours. Is that what you want to hear? Of course not. But I'm telling you that it's heading that way, and you're just too close to see that.