User talk:Arzel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1|Archive 2

NOTE: Chances are I won't be using the talkback function. Don't take it personally, I just don't like it.


New discussion below this line[edit]

Edit to Illegal immigration[edit]

I restored text to the Illegal immigration article that you had deleted, adding sources to address your concerns that the text was unsourced. Please tweak if you see a way to improve it. Thank you --Leegrc (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Tag team warring[edit]

Arzel - not all administrators are like me, but when I deal with edit warring I consider the participation of everyone involved in counting up the reverts. That might land you in blockable territory if the admin who deals with the ANEW report is like me. You shouldn't revert, or revert yourself, until after the report is resolved.--05:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

So if I were to revert anything that anyone did that someone else has already reverted (even partially) within the past 7 days it would count against me as a violation of 1RR? That just doesn't make any sense. I understand partially what you are saying, but you put forth an almost impossible standard for someone to uphold. Regardless, you have put me in an odd position right now. Since I have just read this message and there has been no further editing to try and return material that we both agree does not reflect the source do you still expect me to revert? Also, how can you call this tag team warring? I wasn't acting in concert with you. I respect your opinion, but this seems awfully pedantic. Arzel (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@TParis: This has to be one of the most inappropriate warnings that I've seen in my 8+ years contributing to this project. I'm not Arzel's biggest fan, but even I recognize this as overreaching and a completely outside of policy. For one thing, you're WP:INVOLVED at RealClearPolitics. Give yourself a warning because if anyone is edit warring, it's you. Unless you have strong evidence that Arzel is colluding with Jahgro anyone, you should retract your unfounded accusation of tag team edit warring. The policy does not prohibit anyone from making a single revert. In fact, it clearly says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". This has been explained to you before and its been debated at WT:EW. Remember when Toddst1 (talk · contribs) tried to pull the same bullshit? Please align your understanding of this policy with community consensus.- MrX 13:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
What are you uppity about? It was a friendly courtesy, piss off. Did you read the article history at all? Arzel was reverting 'on my side', as some would put it. Jesus Christ, MrX, get your facts straight. @Arzel, don't worry about it, this whole issue is days old. I had already made an ANEW report on Jargho when I posted this and I was trying to save you from getting caught up in the action.--v/r - TP 16:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
What I'm uppity about is an admin inventing rules without the consent of the community, and an admin accusing an editor of tag team edit warring without strong evidence.- MrX 17:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The evidence is on the history page. Between Arzel and I, we were up to 3 reverts. I didn't want him to go to 4 reverts and some admin reads the ANEW report and blocks him. I didn't warn him as an administrator, I warned him as an fellow editor who was editing the same article and reverting the same person. I wasn't aware that there was a policy that admins were not allowed to be friendly. As far as aligning, feel free to align yours and bugger off.--v/r - TP 17:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Andrea Tantaros#Malia Obama and Plan B[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Andrea Tantaros#Malia Obama and Plan B. Thanks. -- Winkelvi 00:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Fallacy[edit]

The worst part is that many of the points that NGT makes about the misuse/misunderstanding of numbers and facts I have always found reasuring. Too bad this has made it difficult to believe if any of them are actually true...

Did you intend to represent Heartlasnd/Disovery's position on Wikipedia, or is this just a coincidence? How has Tyson's misquote of Bush changed anything about climate science or evolution?: Viriditas (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You really need to stop thinking everything is a conspiracy. I was not aware of the Heartland/Discovery thing that you are relentlessly ranting about. My reference was to Tyson's use of stories to convey a misuse of statistics. Most people have a poor understanding of risk and probabilities. If you are going to use science and reason to help people understand it helps if you don't make up stories which are not true. It tends to diminish the message you are trying to convey. As for evolution, I believe in evolution, and it can be proven empirically as well. As for climate change, I don't believe that CO2 has the impact that has been stated. I have done a lot of simulation modeling, and the climate simulation models have been unable to empirically predict the change in temperature. Ergo, they are incorrect. Those that scream that the science is settled sound just like the religious zealots you rant about. Science is rarely settled and I find it extremely ironic that the same people that complain about religion treat the science of climate change as a religion. Arzel (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Climate science was settled 20 years ago, so you are a little late to the party. It wasn't until very recently that scientists figured out that the reason it took 20 years to settle the science was because fossil fuel front groups like Heartland were pretending to be "climate skeptics" and were paying advocates to deliberately disrupt the climate science community. I'm sorry that you feel this is a conspiracy, but it's heavily documented in JSTOR and in the best history of science books, so you really need to start doing the necessary research. There's no conspiracy, there's a deliberate, targeting of Tyson by climate science deniers and creationists working together to achieve the same goal. Viriditas (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I do the research that matters. I look at the predicted hypothesis and see if the empirical evidence backs up the hypothesis. I don't deal in craziness. Prove your model to be true, don't give me conspiracy theories. Arzel (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
You don't deal in craziness? You're dealing solely with craziness! All of the claims that Tyson has "fabricated" quotes are coming from partisan, politically-motivated warriors fighting for either Heartland (promoting the interests of the energy sector and fighting climate change science) or for Discovery (promoting creationism and fighting secularism). There is nothing sane about this in the slightest. And finally, you can't do research that "matters". Research can turn up stuff that matters, but you can't define the parameters of what you haven't found yet. Since you aren't informed about how Heartland and Discovery have a history of manipulating public opinion by attacking scientists like Tyson, how can you possibly expect to understand what's at stake? You're just making an argument from ignorance. Viriditas (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Apparently you can't read, I believe in evolution. As for Tyson, it is a fact that he repeatedly fabricated some quotes to simultaneously make GWB look stupid and himself look smart. Since GWB has said stupid things one has to wonder why he needed to make up a quote to prove his point. That you have some ideological bent against the source which discovered this is really besides the point. If you or NdGT is going to put him/himself out to be the standard bearer for factual arguments then you/he better make sure he doesn't have a history of making up facts. It is his own fault, no one else.
Apparently you don't know how research works. You postulate a hypothesis, and then try to prove that hypothesis wrong. That is the fundamental of scientific research. The primary hypothesis of climate change is that CO2 causes a direct and measureable effect on global temperatures. Empirical evidence shows that this hypothesis is wrong. I realize that climate scientists most vested in this have come up with dozens of explanations for why the models are not working, but the fact is they don't work. Ergo, the science is not settled. You can scream and throw temper tantrums all you want and it still won't change this fact: Over the past 16 years or so, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from about 365 to 400ppm (about a 9% increase). There has been no statistically significant change in temperatures over that time yet this is a significant increase in CO2. The global temperatures have fallen outside the 95% predictive ranges of the supposedly settled science models. QED Arzel (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Why isn't your opinion about climate change reflected in the current scientific literature? Are you relying on Heartland Institute literature for your opinions? You might want to think about changing your opinion. Tyson didn't "fabricate" anything; he misquoted Bush and it's completely meaningless to his biography. The only reason faux publications and unreliable sources like The Federalist are screaming about this is because they are deliberately constructing a fallacy: if Tyson is wrong about a quote, then he's wrong about climate change science and creationism. That's absolutely ridiculous and it has no place here on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Given your comments here, the political slurs and the subsequent creation of pages redirecting to the Tea Party here it is quite clear that you are only here to disrupt. This conversation is over, your continued false framing of my position is not helpful, but here is a nice summary...which I am sure you will like. Replies to this tread will be deleted. Arzel (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Arzel, the link you provide to a "nice summary" of your position goes to an interview of a non-climate scientist and known Heartland operative by the name of Benny Peiser.[1]. If that's a nice summary of your position, then I'm afraid that you have no position. Critical thinking is an important skill, Arzel. I suggest you learn it before making a fool of yourself. Peiser is not a climate scientist, has never claimed to be a climate scientist, and he's never had any work published in a serious journal on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
More personal attacks? You cannot address the statement so you attack the messenger and me. Arzel (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess what I don't understand is that you are obviously a smart guy. So why then do you subscribe to this nonsense? Let me put it another way. If you have a problem with your kidneys, do you get a professional opinion from your attorney? Why do you listen to a guy whose sole purpose is to shill for oil companies? Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Your straw man argument is unconvincing. The difference between a Nephrologist and an attorney is not in the same ballpark as the difference between Peiser and climate scientists. Regardless, I don't need to use Peiser or any other scientist. I am an expert in simulation modeling. When the climatologists (the vast majority clearly have no expertise in simulation modeling) are unable to create a simulation model which accurately reflects the current state and universally have been unable to predict the future state; I can use my own expert knowledge along with empirical evidence to determine that the hypothesis of the effect of CO2 on global temperatures is vastly overstated in their simulation models. When it comes to scientific questions, I use the scientific method. Arzel (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Arzel. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Weight issues with religious views sourced only to a Youtube video.The discussion is about the topic Neil deGrasse Tyson. Thank you. --Obsidi (talk ) 05:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Compromise[edit]

Arzel, can you support the "alternative text" that begins "In the summer and fall of 2014, conservative websites and social media attacked Tyson's character and scientific understanding . . ." I'm not in love with it, either, but it may be the best chance to achieve a consensus compromise for inclusion. Please consider. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, but the context is missing from that wording. It completely ignores the reason why this was an issue. It wasn't so much the misquote, but that he used it to make GWB look stupid and himself look smart in comparison. A story told horribly is sometimes worse than a story not told at all. I will have to think about it some more. Arzel (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween greetings![edit]

Request for comment on using secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing maintream assessment of global warming"[edit]

In the most recent AFD of a particular article, you made a comment that referenced "original research" or "WP:OR". I am sending this same message to every non-IP editor who metioned either character string in that AFD. Please consider participating in a poll discussion about adding secondary RSs to the listing criteria at that talk page. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A warning[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Truett_Cathy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Consensus was meet on this in 2012. Your NPOV editing is in clear violation and is tantamount to vandalism. Please stop your disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resaltador (talkcontribs) 16:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Greg Orman[edit]

As an editor that recently edit Greg Orman, could you please weigh in at Talk:Greg_Orman#UNDUE. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hatting without consensus[edit]

Please stop trying to shutdown discussions because you don't like the topic. I really hope you aren't falling back into the disruption you were previously sanctioned for in the past. I would hate to have to waste my time pursuing additional sanctions against you. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussion relating to the topic of the article, not for promoting your conspiracy theories about who is liberal or conservative. And are you sure that is a road you wish to travel? You should think about it and examine your history of personal attacks. Arzel (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The entire notion of "liberal bias" is a fringe conspiracy theory promoted by organizations like CPAC. Multiple scholarly studies have shown that the notion of a prevalent "media bias" in the US media is a myth, and in fact the media leans right, not left. Attkisson's claims about "liberal bias" at CBS are part of this mythmaking. The fact is, management decided not to run her stories because she was pushing an agenda and promoting bias. Far from any "liberal bias" at CBS, it turns out that Attkisson was the one who was biased. Thankfully, Rupert Murdoch has her back, as News Corp is publishing her new book in less than 24 hours. Thus, the manufactured controversy is complete. Funny how the same Wikipedia entourage always show up before the big event. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I sometimes wonder if you even think about the logical disconnect that you present. CBS is conservatively biased but would not run Attkisson's stories because they were conservatively biased. Think about your hypothesis for a moment and realize it makes no sense in the least. Furthermore, the idea that the media leans right not left is laughable at best. State of the Media reports, year after year, show a distinct liberal dominance in the media (I've seen anywhere from 2 to 1 in the 80's to 10 to 1 now). Arzel (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
At the gym the night before the election I was forced to watch CBS "News"...it's the night before the election, which also was the same day 300 people were massacred by ISIS and a number of other important immediate storylines were available....but what does the ultra liberal CBS News headline as their top story? A pile of smoldering BS that according to the "nonpartisan" (lol) United Nations....global warming is probably irreversible! Replete with powerful imagery of dried up lakes, storm surges and other tbjbgs they lefties love to use as fodder for their premise...and they finish by talking about extremely recent weather events that have nothing to do with climate. If the conservatives use recent weather to support their premise they get lambasted by the lefties....so CBS is just a bunch of hypocritical morons and sadly, the real truth about climate change is buried under a bunch of radical zealot nonsense, and that nonsense interferes with wise decision planning that might improve things. Only an absolute noob could be so blind to believe that the mainstream USA media is not liberally biased.--MONGO 12:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
You've described what is often referred to as an "alternative reality", where you imagine that the conservative, corporate owned media is somehow "liberal" because they didn't cover a story the way you wanted them to, or because you actually believe that climate change is a liberal conspiracy subject to debate by Republicans who represent the fossil fuel industry. You really do believe this, and that's fine, but you must understand that many people view this alternative reality as a delusion. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Lindsey Graham[edit]

Just a heads up, Hcobb put back the content you reverted in the Lindsey Graham article. I've taken it out again, but you might want to put something on the talk page justifying your revert. I think your edit summary was pretty self-explanatory, but it might get him to respond better. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)