User talk:ZuluPapa5

Ladies and gentleman, for good humor, we have here a "NPOV Dispute Skeptic" this xxx editor has no place in a NPOV discussion, they do not meet the NPOV qualifications. By decree, they must edit elsewhere.

— Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC), The Article NPOV Commission

"Within the body of a True Believer or a Skeptic you will find a heart that may unite them. "

— Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My editing occasionally suffers from transpositions transportation and typos. I apologize if I have confused you. Please let me know if you suspect this to be an issue.

— ZuluPapa5

Welcome!

Hello, ZuluPapa5! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Characterizing Uncertainty in Climate Assessment

Just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia cannot include copyrighted material. If you want to write a proper article you can do so, but verbatim copying isn't appropriate (or legal). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:copyvio and WP:NPA. Vsmith (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, it was fair use, changed some and on the way to being better.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Boris, I've heard your call to create other lists and public opinion articles. I don't believe any wiki article should be based on solely on a categorical opinion. My interests are in creating a Characterizing Uncertainty article, focused on the most significant scientific event in human history. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring and removal

Re [1]. Please learn to distinguish refactoring (which is somewhere between frowned upon and forbidden, for talk page comments) and removal (which is permitted) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Your point taken, thanks. My point was about fairness and [WP:CIVIL]. Got to break now. Be well. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Scientific opinion on climate change shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You get the warning because i can't see such a notification on your talk, and because you are at 3RR on sci op cc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cooling off ... from my attempts to defend a NPOV. If the POV-tag is being early reverted before talk, that is a valid indication the article has POV issues. Regards, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, actually its an indication that you haven't been able to convince people that your viewpoint is correct. Tags are there to be used when you have actually identified issues on talk (which you still haven't imho), they are not to be used as leverage to getting your will. (as it appears as if you do). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it indicated a fierce defense to a POV. Unless you are in denial, the whole talk page is filed with a POV dispute. Get real. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. tedder (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin Tedder corrupted the NPOV resolution process. The tag belongs in a state of on during a NPOV dispute. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm bemused about this whole "corruption" business. Here's the thing- either take it to WP:ANI or leave it alone. If you'd like to take it to ANI, and will not edit war with the {{npov}} tag on Scientific opinion on climate change‎, I'd be happy to unblock you personally. If, however, you intend on edit warring about the NPOV tag and disruptively screaming "corruption" on various inappropriate talk pages, the block should stand. tedder (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder ... ANI need not be bothered now by a valid POV dispute which you are in denial of. The suggested resolution paths is to leave the POV-tag on, declare your WP:COI. I pray you seriously reconsider your actions. Good faith to NPOV will be looked upon favorably. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Zulu Papa. Just to clarify on the three-revert rule - it's beside the point as to whether the tag is justified or not. The point of the three-revert rule is to prevent edit-warring. If you believe that the tag belongs, and other editors disagree with you, the place to solve the problem is on the article's talk page. The three-revert rule exists to prevent edit-warring, it exists to force people to seek alternate means of dispute resolution. Blocks are appropriate if people continue to edit war. If you believe this block is improper, you need to address the issue of edit warring. Guettarda (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ZuluPapa5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This 3RR block for my POV Tag addition is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. It is the result of corruption in the NPOV resolution process with regards to Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change. I hold that a valid POV-dispute exists with many editors. There is suspected evidence tampering (i.e. talk page changes) of my edits and misrepresentations that unfairly harming me. Civil WP:COI declarations are begin gathered at this stage in the resolution, which are being prevented by this block. I first placed the tag it should be on during the dispute and I was misrepresented by the blocking admin. Blocking me is disrupting a fair NPOV resolution process in this article. I pray for its fair removal (or significant reduction) with guidance appreciated from experienced NPOV defending admins.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring, not for POV issues. Your unblock request seems to indicate you would edit war once again if the block was lifted. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am at peace, although the article is dispute, the justice is in denial. Thanks for your comments Beeblebrox. Time off is doing me very well in exile. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The corrupt edit war, diff of users who changed POV tag with no talk, after Talk Page Warning [2], by admin who said not to change at all while when POV tag was off:

1. GoRight Added on - [3] Disruption block by admin, appeal granted
2. WMC Removed off - [4] no penalty for removing
3. ZP5 Added on - [5] 3RR block by admin
4. Tedder Removed off - [6] free and clear admin, no penalty for removing

Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• The GoRight POV tag on lived for 2:58
• The WMC POV Tag Removal lived for 1:58
• The ZP5 restore lived for 0:02

This trend was run in the article change model. The Article NPOV Commission preliminary predictions and external to article consensus is the article is "very likely" heading for a NPOV change. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My Conflict of Interest statement for Scientific opinion on climate change declared

1. No interests with any subjects or sources in the article.
2. Never maintained a POV except that of NPOV for the article.
3. No denials of any relevant, notable and reliable sources for the article.
4. No claim to ownership for any of the article content.
5. No relationships with any of the other editors, except in wiki.
6. No claim to eternal or nihilistic and absurd arguments.
7. United States citizen and in spiritual solidarity.
8. As of December 2, 2009 only POV claimed is the questionable existence of hat notes that have no source support and the necessity of a controversies section to balance the article.

With whom are you in spiritual solidarity? I've never encountered the term before. --TS 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tony, aren't you a foreigner? That's a clear COI for any climate-related article. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well ... no Mr name changer it is not. I had something nicer to say until the obvious disruption on my interpretation. (which will be removed, unless the ed would like to correct themselves.) It is my faith, I really appreciate you asking, I can not explain it here. The best I can offer you now is [7] Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. After five years at Wikipedia I still run across surprises. --TS 05:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Faith, actually TS I am extremely glad you brought this up. Because I am very amused by folks that place faith in objects that have no true bearing in reality. I always ask myself, why do these object of the mind have such great power over people? They only can be objectified in the mind, for there is no valid subjective and measurable proof of their existence, except by what power but that of faith. The next question becomes what is the attributed and reliable sources of the individual's or organization faith? What intentional purpose does the faith serve? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My opinion Humanity will have greater benefit from civility, over any rash attempt to control human consumption of the world resources. Good faith in humanity is what must persevere in any vision of apocalyptic climate scenarios. Climate change participants will live to the end of natural lives before the world ends. There is no fairness to the good faith in the future with hasty conclusion. I declare myself a "Climate Change Humanist".Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Human consumption is as likely as scientific opinion to be a cause for concern, because both are human activities. Human consumption can be measured, while scientific opinion changes. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A Question for You

I had posted this on my talk page while I was blocked but I didn't realize that you were also blocked. I am moving this here so you can respond:

Re: [8].

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "corruption" in this statement and edit summary? I think you may be using it to mean one thing and others are taking it to mean another. This may be a simple misunderstanding based on the meaning you intend for the word. --GoRight (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let me make this most relevant to Wikipedia and minimize redundancy for high fidelity.

Corruption

1. impairment integrity of, virtue, or moral principle (i.e. violating WP:FIVE)
2. inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (i.e. WP:COI or worst)
3. a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct (i.e. WP:CIVIL feigned incomprehension and misinterpretations of semantics in commutation, re-factoring)
4. an organizational agency or influence that has unrealistic unanimous consent (i.e. WP:NPOV denial)

Corrupt

1. editing as if to degrade with unsound principles or moral values WP:NPOV
2. editing as if to subject (a user) to corruption or abuse WP:CABAL,WP:NPA
3. editing as if to alter from the original or correct form or version [[re-factoring, WP:IDHT]]
4. editing as if to become tainted or rotten to other user WP:CIVIL
5. editing as if to become morally debased to WP:FIVE
6. editing as if to cause disintegration or ruin to articles WP:VANDAL WP:FORK

Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, in reading through these is it fair to summarize your use of the words "corrupt" and "corruption" as meaning that you don't feel that the principles and ideals of the encyclopedia (as described in the policies that you reference) are being adhered to by some of the other editors? --GoRight (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick follow-up question, could you please elaborate on how it is you feel that Tedder has misrepresented you? Can you please point to a statement where he misrepresented you and why you feel it is a misrepresentation? Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll pile on- I've changed my reference to you; is that what you were offended by? If so, I'm sorry. If not, please explain in simple words, I'm obviously not getting it. tedder (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Apology acepted, thanks. I apologize for having to correct you. One thing, I suffered a 3RR block to my reputation however, I am finding the vacation agreeable. Can you help me here? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It started on the talk page [9] when the admin, took my words out of context put my name next to his statements and made them out as if my intention was to have the tag off. My intention was to have the tag on, that's why I placed it On after considerable talk. When you (GoRight) shared that intention, then an objective dispute was underway. After that, the admin unjustly enforced his own policy with regard to the tag (as pointed out above and ... he had a Tag Off bias, while his previous Talk indicated he was just going to monitor things.) The Admin should not have touched the tag to keep his word. After that, there are the clear regard to wiki policy and the tag itself as you have adequately pointed out, which strongly support leaving it on for reasonable disputes. Frankly, while I may have crossed the 3RR bright line, the justice was off, which is a larger offense to me. Ever greater to wiki. What is ironic, is that eds are calling for content and source checks, while at the same time there is denial of a dispute, as stated all over the Talk Page. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lessons learned about talk disruptor(s)

A NPOV taught by experienced talk disruptor(s)

1. Editors may claim you have no productive point and demand a point.
2. Editors may make unduly bold talk page assertions.
3. Editors may remove your talk (with or without notice) or obvious record.
4. Editors may misinterpret or transform your statements.
5. Editors may change the subject with no objective reason.
6. Editors may rudely interrupt a thread.
7. Editors may claim their disruption is justified by your obsession.
8. Editors may seek to have you banned rather than correct themselves.
9. Editors may make typos or transpositions which confuse other editors
10. Editors may make mistakes of which the were not made properly aware. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning

It seems fairly clear to me that you have no productinve contribution at all to make at SOoCC. I'd have hoped that your recent block might have taught you a lesson; it would seem not. Please be aware of [10] William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Which lesson should I be taught? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(This space reserved and assumes good faith for William M. Connolley to answer.)

Peacefully moving on with Bold, Revert, Discuss (WP:BRD) time cycle measurements.

1. The Bold lived 0:04 on Cycle 1, Bold[11], Revert[12], Discuss occurred over 121 hours with ~232 talk page edits [13]
2. The Bold lived 0:01 on Cycle 2, Bold[14], Revert[15], Discuss occurred over 192 hours with ~620 talk page edits [16]
3. The Bold lived 0:18 on Cycle 3, Bold [17], Revert [18], Discuss

• This talk lived 0:21, Bold [19], Revert [20], Discuss

Some polite advice

I have noticed you sometimes address other editors as "Mr X Y". In many circles both this form of address and the title "Mr" is considered rude and antagonistic. Doing it to people using their real names who are clearly entitled (or claim to be entitled, if you must) to be addressed as "Dr" (probably more than 50% of WP editors on Global Warming for example) is not courteous and violates WP:CIVIL. It is much better and more civil to stick to an untitled name. --BozMo talk 17:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. are Dr. too. Point taken. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Corrected it. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello ZuluPapa5

Hi ZuluPapa5, welcome to Wikipedia. It seems you've met some of the Global Warming editors already. I'm a GW editor as well, and yes, I am using my real name, and no, I don't have a Ph.D. I live in Sydney, Australia; I have an honours degree in history and philosophy of science, and I am somewhat skeptical of the IPCC & other government positions on climate change. My primary interest is the defence of living scientists who are often professionally smeared by Wikipedia (and, yes, generally by these same editors who have or claim to have Ph.Ds). I'd be happy to chat with you privately in order to help you understand some of the mysterious rules of Wikipedia that can help you contribute positively, and help bring change to the culture of Wikipedia (something which is badly, badly needed). Go to my talk page if you'd like help or send me an email, alexharv074 at gmail dot com if you'd prefer just to vent. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you. I've been doing well reviewing policy, edit histories and drafting requested content for an article. I appreciate the offer for help. Let me review your page. It is most likely not appropriate for us work outside of wiki. The wp:blp issues concern me too. I am often puzzled how anyone could deny that the climate is changing as time does, to me it seems as if being skeptical of this is flat denial. Any yet, folks will also deny a neutral point of view. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies; I see you're actually a reasonably experienced editor, and it looks like you've done some very good work here. So, on wiki then, what is it exactly that you're disputing about with WMC et al? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair, to start see Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and [21]. I will help on BLP when I can. FYI, I have extensive arbitration and scientific experiences outside of wiki. BLP is vital to wiki humanity. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It is literally 4.35am in Sydney, and I have been dragged into an evening of very addictive Wikipedia activities! I'll be brief, Although I agree with you in principle in [22], I think that it is inevitable, and probably necessary, that editors who have a POV continue to edit on the articles related to their POV. Otherwise, I don't believe there would be incentive for anyone ever to contribute to Wikipedia at all. I think, everyone has a POV on any topic about which they are knowledgeable. By strict adherence to policies of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, and so on, however, I believe that the POV of individual editors can be moderated, and the articles can, and sometimes do, obtain good balance. What is far more problematic is when editors start censoring according to their POV, and this inevitably leads to conflict. I feel you have raised some very valid points above, which is why I stepped in to offer assistance. On the other hand, I believe we need to accept that things are not perfect here, and accept that the needed changes in culture can only be made gradually. At the moment, for instance, it seems that 3RR is a rule we just have to obey, and I strongly recommend adhering to it. I'll try to review Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change in more detail tomorrow. Alex Harvey (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your advice. Rest up well. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi ZP5, I've had a look at the dispute. I think WP:NOT#NEWS is a good policy, and that we could avoid all this arguing just by waiting for a while to see if the Scientific Opinion on Climate Change really does change as a result of CRUgate. My feeling is that it probably will change in the short to medium term, but the change will be subtle. Mike Hulme has suggested that the IPCC has run its course, and I won't be surprised if he's right. Roy Spencer, the skeptic, has already admitted that he doesn't think the instrumental temperature record is likely to change much. Lindzen's WSJ response suggests that he doesn't either. Pielke Sr of course has a marginal view that there is a warm bias in the instrumental record, and his group seems to be more optimistic than the others that it could change.

On another note, Awickert is a good editor, from my brief interactions with him. It looks like you totally lost your cool during the SOoCC discussions, which is something I've totally done a number of times.

From your contribs, it looks like you may be a practising Buddhist -- is that right? Or just interested in Buddhist history? If so, it is curious to see a Buddhist appear here suddenly amongst GW skeptics. Do other Buddhists find the AGW theory implausible? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Disappointed it seems like I lost my cool, it could have been handled better. My purpose was served.

Here are my views on Buddhism, I hold no formal qualifications to teach Buddhism.

Buddhism was founded on empirical cause and effect observations for civil purposes to end suffering. (i.e. Karma where Dharma is the principle law). It generally avoids materialism (except for the Buddha's purposes), and extensively focuses on object of the mind.

All phenomena must be empty (i.e. scientific fact is pure NPOV).

Buddhist methods largely predate scientific methods, and have many similar qualities. Buddhism is literally a technology method.

I am a Dharma Protector, my Buddhist refuge name Tenzin Tashi means "Auspicious Dharma Protector". I seek refuge in the Buddha the Dharma and the Sanga (community) as governed by a reincarnated Lama (teacher).

The Buddha was skeptical of eternal-ism and nihilism, as they have no bearing on ending suffering.

My faith focuses on Tibetan_Buddhism#Skepticism_and_Devotion_to_the_Guru and Philosophical_skepticism#Ancient_Eastern_Skepticism. This form of skepticism has differences from traditional western interpretations. (mind vs. material) The wiki articles is a grain of sand in the ocean of knowledge amassed by the Tibetans on the topics on mind objects.

When Buddhism is not practiced correctly, it can lead to authoritarianism, like any other governing process (i.e. IPCC) IMO, the key is to be focused on what is best for humanity. Where Buddhism could be better is a reasonably appreciation of materialism to have a NPOV. (Neglecting materialism is a downside of preset day Buddhism. This could be because materialism leads to war.)

I should focus on another article, and return with a peaceful process. Because the scientific opinion on climate change is a changing mind object and not material fact. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No permission and other "deletable image" tags

FYI, since I noticed you tagged a few signatures for no permission... the "deletable image" tags go directly on the file description page, not the file talk page. It is actually pretty rare that tags go directly on the file talk page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked but could not find how to get to that page. Might have missed the obvious. Should have noted my insert. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Climate Assessment Uncertainty Characterizations

I have nominated Climate Assessment Uncertainty Characterizations, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Assessment Uncertainty Characterizations. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Polargeo (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you not talk on the talk page first before you tagged [23] and nominated. I suspect your nomination is rash and premature. Do you have a prejudice with this subject? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ZP5, asking about conflicts of interests or bias can be misinterpreted as an assumption of bad faith. It's best to just accept some things around here for the moment! (My own view is that everyone has a bias, one way or the other). Alex Harvey (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Polargeo good faith is restored (redacted my question). Alex Harvey, thanks and you are welcome to correct me any time. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Warnings

You left this on my talk page:

This is you second warning for disruptive talk. Your removal of talk [24] and not engaging in talk is being consider disruptive. Please do not make personal attacks on me by calling my comments "silly" in edit summaries. If you are noble, I ask you to please restrain yourself form from the article for 1 week. Other's comments are being addressed on the article talk page. I have no intention to threaten you, your recent actions may be consider disruptive, please reconsider them seriously and make amends where able. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

I don't want any more warnings from you. You are disruptive; you don't really know what you're doing; your warnings are pointless. I will ignore future requests from you to stay clear of articles; please don't trouble yourself with making them. And please don't make silly comments William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

May your ignorance be bliss. However, would you agree I must now take up this issue with others? I will decide what I am doing, not you my friend. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You do decide but, well, when you have been asked to stop posting on someone's talk page you need to decide to agree to it. I don't think you will get a whole load of sympathy beyond the obvious half dozen whose determined role in life is harrassing WMC (which is counter-productive to the project in my view). But you remain more than welcome to come to my talk page whenever. --BozMo talk 23:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. To be clear: if all you want is to be able to say "I posted a warning on his talk page as an attempt to settle the dispute but he ignored it, so I've posteed to ANI / started this RFC instead" then please consider your future warnings posted and ignored. You have, as I said, posted quite enough incomprehensible, insulting and pointless warnings William M. Connolley (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For comprehension WMC, I suggest you relax, breath through it and focus on the mind, follow why the thoughts run as they dance around, stay with them as they dissolve away harmlessly. All will come to you in this way. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Indignation is one of the most rewarding of emotions, as well as one that automatically gives meaning to life . . . There is nothing like irritation to get the juices circulating and the mind working. Of all the ideas that have made me irritable and indignant in recent weeks, this one steams me the most. I disagree so completely that I am practically beside myself with paralyzing rage. And as I plunge my attention further and further into his ridiculous proposal, I feel the tension coursing through my body. I sense my mind becoming swampy, my perceptions distorted. There's a good chance that I am inducing in myself a state of stressed-out stupidity."

— In part by Theodore Dalrymple, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Assessment Uncertainty Talk

This section is for my sovereign User_talk:ZuluPapa5/CAUC page article and eds interested in such. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD Measurements

• Created here.[25]
• First talk here. WMC[26], P[27]
• AFD started here. [28], [29], [30]
• Article lived for xx:xx before AFD with only on x talk comments.

The AfD and so on

Hi ZP5, I think you still need to cool off from this a little. It seems you've edited Wikipedia for quite a while, but not in such a controversial space as the global warming pages. The rules here are more tightly enforced, by one side or the other, and I am guessing that many of them you will actually be new to you. I think William Connolley et al. are right that the article you're writing has problems, and I agree it would be better to draft it in a user space. I've done a little googling and I can see now that there's a literature out there on Bayesian analyses of uncertainty in climate change. Google scholar is bringing up 14,000 hits against "bayesian uncertainty climate change"; is there a review paper out there?

I guess, there are going to be a number of ways of analysing uncertainty in climate change, and we'd need to have an article on the more general topic before we create one on the more specific topic (which seems to be a Bayesian approach).

I just read one abstract that asserted there is a 1 in 40 chance of temperature exceeding 4.9 C by 2100 in a BAU emissions scenario, and 1 in 40 chance of exceeding 3.2 C if we aggressively reduce emissions. I'll have to say, this sounds to me like metaphysics. Quoting the article on the Greek philosopher Anaximander, the Earth floats very still in the centre of the infinite, not supported by anything. It remains "in the same place because of its indifference", a point of view that Aristotle considered ingenious, but false, in On the Heavens. I wonder, how many people said to him, "Um, how on earth do you know?"

Reading this abstract just now made me think of this. I've shaken my head right now at least 20 times, I'm serious, trying to get myself into the mind of a person who would try to figure out the probability of T being 4.9 in the year 2100 without first having figured out the exact value of climate sensitivity. It is, to me, totally bizarre. So... anyway... what exactly do you want to achieve with this article? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPCC would like folks to have consistent methods for characterizing uncertainty so that when it is reduced it can be measured and they can demonstrate progress. I would like to point out their specific progress. I just want these concepts adequately represented in Wiki. In truth, many proabilites are Baysian, because of how Sample Spaces are defined. Bayesian says greater things about sample spaces as they change. Where frequencies facts are involved, the sample spaces are rigidly set. Where there is no fact but opinion, the sample spaces can dramatically change. What I want to accomplish with the article is on the Talk Page To Do list. I'll cool off some, but will stay the this article. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Name calling

It appears you have now refered to me twice as POVFORK on Talk:Climate Assessment Uncertainty Characterizations This is extremely incivil. May I politely suggest that wikipedia is not the place for the personal essays of editors who blatantly cannot write, do not understand what they are writing, have no concept of wikipedia and then defend their essays with rudeness and stupidity. Polargeo (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologizes, I didn't realize this. There may have been some confusion. I only meant to question another single editor as POVFORK. Combining my statements in a single answer may have caused confusion. I am qualified to write on the topic at hand, thank you. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistake and apology accepted. If you are qualified to write on the topic why are you not writing in a journal? It is very poor practice to publish your own research on wikipedia. Even if your own research is an analysis of existing reports/papers this is unacceptable as it is a straightforward synthesis. Polargeo (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I did my best to redit what I found and make it consistent, by translating the content into standard semantics and syntatics to aid in reducing confusion. Although, I may have caused confusion too. Whoever gets an article right the first time on wiki? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my harsh reaction. I am independendtly minded and will not just jump after other editors. If I think WNC is wrong I will say so. I genuinely think the article should not exist at present and certainly not ever under the current name. I would think the best thing for you to do is to add small sections of 'summarized' 'balanced' information on uncertainty to the articles as they currently stand rather than adding new articles. Polargeo (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you might clarifying that the article is a "Content Fork" on the AfD. Because this particular issue crosses many disciplines, it would be best to have a separate article. The name could be better. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

ZP5 answers to GoRight Questions for ArbCom Candidate

:These questions were put forth here:

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Comments/William_M._Connolley

1. As I am sure you are aware, the proper application of WP:NPOV sometimes involves the inclusion of certain points of view that some may find disagreeable. As an arbitrator, would you seek to ensure that minority points of view are protected from being silenced by the tyranny of the majority? If so, what are the primary tools which you would employ in trying to achieve that goal?

Arbiters should be able to clearly bring out the POV from each disputant and help them to see and resolve contention according to wiki guidance. The good thing about the arbitration process is that it is designed to protect from the “tyranny of the majority” so that both sides may be heard. The primary tools are help from the clerks to keep things orderly, then there is adherence to the procedures them selves. They are not perfect, but the come closest to being fairly humane, in that both side get a clear and fair hearing without mob interruption or bias. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Can you describe for us some examples of the types of things that you consider to be valid WP:NPOV disputes? Under what circumstances do you feel it is appropriate to place the {{POV}} template on a given article, if ever?

When there is an ongoing WP:BRD cycle, the tag is valid, especially when there are considerably long D periods on the talk page. When greater than two editors are objecting with content, and others reverting, this is a valid reason to keep the tag up for peaceful resolution purposes to avoid edit wars. Specifically, when there are NPOV concerns for structural issues, content and source suppression within the article, the tag is valid. If the issues aren't addressed, they are ignored, then the tag is valid. The tag should remain for as long as an typical RFC period of 30 days, unless the issues are addressed. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

3. On the issue of WP:CIVIL you have indicated that the best you believe we can hope for is parliamentary language. If we had a Wikipedia-specific list of unacceptable words and or phrases, what types of things do you believe should be included? As an arbitrator would you be in favor of developing such a list?

Following WP:TALK is a good guideline because this exists as a result of WP:CIVIL. A list of unacceptable words would be exhausting. What is productive is that as discussions heat up, then civility and procedural structure must increase to obtain a peaceful resolution. A “List of Motions” (to be seconded) pertaining to WP:RS, WP:V to civilly establish disputed content within WP:BRD seems a most relevant start to me. When the “tyranny of the majority” may disrupt civility, then mediation or ArbCom must be employed to maintain civility. Parliamentary procedure is a good guide for formal motions and debate; however, is would have to be adapted to support WP:5. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

4. Many people believe that humility is an important trait for any leader or person of authority. Looking back on all of your experiences here at Wikipedia, have you ever felt humbled in any way and if so would you care to briefly relate what you consider to be your most humbling experience here? (Obviously it is OK if you prefer not to respond.)

"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18. With so many good editors on Wiki (including guides and essays); there are countless chances to be humanized. To prevent pride, I seek to place gratitude on others. The Wiki mission and principals must always come before me. Whenever another person or org mission is held above wiki, there is a minor threat to wiki’s non-profit status as granted by the government. Fortunately, the laws of cause and effect are active in wiki’s edit histories. I have faith that when reasonable eds get together, Wiki will resolve all forms of individual editor pride. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

5. You have obviously been very involved in the Global Warming related articles. Given your significant level of involvement in that area, should a case come up related to Global Warming would you be likely to recuse yourself, or not, for that case?

Perhaps a mistake you made?

This edit doesn't appear to do anything other than edit someone else's comment. Perhaps you made a mistake? Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit was intended to remove my person from an escalating attack. The attack has no bearing in specific content, it was not over sources, nor was there any relevance made to wiki policy. The editor making the original statement, choose to ignore me (see above), and yet he also chooses to take my name in vain for arguments which may not be resolved but for escalating a dispute. I chose to peacefully remove myself from such attacks and prefer to stay focused on specific content issues where sources are involved. This is my claimed right. If the original editor is truly concerned for behavior, he may talk to me on this page. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:HARRASS

I need to go to bed but I thought I would point out that [31] was reverting a good faith removal of really bad English. The article may deleted anyway but you need to write in clear English and make a big effort to be understandable. On the WP:HARRASS I raised this softly with you before [32] some of your comments were very hard to understand but the things which were "close" to WP HARRASS taken together were (1) leaving repeated "warnings" on a user talk page which is an aggressive way to raise any issue (2) diffs with edits summaries implying you thought he was "corrupt" [33] also "disruptive" and (3) interjecting yourself into two arguments between him and third parties which is kind of what you did e.g. with GoRight's questions (4) moving the focus of your editing entirely into pages where he was already editing without looking back at your habitual articles. However I don't think you crossed the line into harrassment but I say just came close. WMC complained about you to an admin who had just blocked you. I think that's legitimate and less "in your face" than warnings. However you may regard some of his complaint as invalid and clearly some of his edit summaries and talk page comments were rather terse. --BozMo talk 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend that you take some of what BozMo has to say to heart. I understand that the process here can be frustrating, believe me I know all about that, but you must not appear to be antagonizing someone excessively (not that I am saying that you have been doing so). Others will use everything you say against you and if they can point to a long litany of such behavior it may come back to hurt you. A few push backs on the more obvious incivilities is sufficient to make your point. For the rest your best course of action is likely to be to simply ignore them. Don't let your antagonist know that they are bothering you at all.

On the use of the word "corrupt", while I believe that you are using it in a technically correct manner you have to understand that the majority of people will interpret this as meaning that you are equating someone with being a criminal. I don't believe that this is your intent, so it may be better to avoid using the word corrupt and find a different manner in which to express your thoughts. --GoRight (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please record your issues ...

If you have any specific issues that are not adequately covered by the 4 I articulate at [34], please briefly summarize them under your post in that section. We need to be concise but thorough. --GoRight (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, will outline in time. For me, they all start with NPOV and breakout from there in a structural argument. Good work on sticking to it. As you may realize, the NPOV issues can be addressed with the cognitive bias approaches I am writing about. [35] Simply replace the word "uncertainty" with "NPOV". These are righteous dispute resolution methods in application to wiki's mission. Please do not let eds force you across any reasonable lines of civility. I will admire your patience. Kindly, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how things can start with NPOV - NPOV is something that RESULTS from issues with an article - This may be part of the reason why the debate is going in circles, people are perhaps looking for you to outline what the NPOV issues are, and (ideally, for better comprehension of those issues) indicate a specific corrective action for each that might resolve the issue. If arbitration will soon be pending, it would be useful to everyone if you could clarify what the underlying issues are. (I am aware you've made some attempts here in the past, which is why I suggest you propose what you would see as nominal corrective actions.). It also helps to reference which subsection(s) of which policy or guideline supports your contention. Finally, keep in mind that NPOV relates to article CONTENT, not what is or is not a suitable article topic (but does touch on article titles in limited circumstances. Jaymax (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

All starts from the sources my friends. I have listed them from recovered Talk Archive Pages 6 and 7 here [36]. You two have my permission to add to the list from those that appear as if a POV neglected them. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Has my summary at Scientific opinion on climate change ...

Adequately represented your concerns? If not please, please let me know.

Also, note that Jaymax has a short-term proposal on the plate and wants to know if this satisfies the concerns sufficiently to justify removing the POV tag. I want to make sure that your concerns are addressed before I respond.

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ... covered most of it which is difficult considering the interruptions. I would say the name change issue (because "opinion" in the title should be avoided) and potential source suppression issues could be covered better. It's content time. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request

I'll try, but I'm pretty backlogged with stuff at the moment (Resolute (talk · contribs) and Brianboulton (talk · contribs) have both made requests of me recently, and I owe them both favours), and that's not really within my area of expertise. If I get a chance, I'll try to provide some thoughts, but no promises. Steve Smith (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Would appreciate your views (as the hat notes seems to be excluding views). Sincerely. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page, where William M. Connelly has chimed in. I'm inclined to agree with him; it looks like what the article needs, if anything, is content dispute resolution, which is not what peer review is for. I haven't examined the dispute in any detail, so I may be off-base in my suggestions, but have you considered WP:RFC, WP:MEDCAB, or WP:MEDCOM? Steve Smith (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok ... these are under consideration. Thanks for your time.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"RV STOP EDIT WARRING"

I suggest that if you wanted an edit war to stop, the best way to do so is to try to find a solution that all parties agree with, not to frequently revert to the version you think is best and ask the other "side" to stop edit warring. I don't think that works. Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Think again with the facts ... I am tracking my BRD edits above with measurement which don't seem to support your accusations. The war will stop when the warriors calm done to reason. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You are one of the warriors. You need to lead by example. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The example I have lead demonstrates a preference for BRD with peaceful talk. I appreciate your concerns but, they don't stand up to the simple facts. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But they do - you reverted the article stating "stop edit warring." That dosen't work. Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And you started the Discussion .... that's called BRD. Thanks for starting the discussion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I already asked a few other people this morning, please try not to edit war right after an article leaves protection; diff. Could you please in the future make explicit reference to a specific talkpage section when making reverts at that article, starting a discussion if necessary? Please note that NPOVD is an essay, while WP:EW is policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, felt like I had to speak up on this to meet the intent of your message to me. I had no intention of a second revert. Should I make an "make explicit reference to a specific talkpage section" in the edit summary? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Final warning - editing others talk page comments.

You should consider this your final warning. Do not edit other people's talk page comments. "ZP5" is not a "personal attack." I have warned you about this before - I don't intend to warn you again. If you feel that someone is making personal attacks directed at you, I suggest you raise it with a neutral admin. Hipocrite (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is your first warning. How should I treat personal attacks on me? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

By removing the attack, not by replacing your name with some wierd statement that dosen't remove the attack at all. Or just grinning and bearing it. Hipocrite (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing myself from the attack is not "wierd" is is my right and in accordance with the wiki desires to peacefully step away from an attack (in addition to my personal religious (non waring) faith). I am about to pursue a third opinion on the subject!! The attacking editor has a long history of this kind of foolishness, which may only be designed with his sole purpose to block me; that's personal when I am taking great pains to be peaceful with objective measurements. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, H, you can't come here demanding such a thing when you just did it yourself. What are you thinking? That said, ZP5, you might want to take a break for a while. Don't let the regulars get to you, you have to maintain a thick skin on the AGW pages. It may not be right, but it is reality. Also, I recommend letting others remove the PA's against you when they feel it is appropriate. The best course of action, IMHO, is to ignore them as much as you can and to simply push back in your own comment when you can't. --GoRight (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks GoRight, point taken. I am going to retreat to my yogi cave to realign my forms of peaceful existence. Keep up the good work! I sincerely hope we can avoid ArbCom. Speak-up here if I miss something important. Best regards.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WQA

1. Requesting advice after claiming that a user is trolling (without diffs/evidence) is unhelpful, and borderline unacceptable. If you cannot substantiate your claim, you need to strike it. To substantiate a claim about trolling, WQA is unlikely to be an appropriate venue in which case you are advised to escalate this to the appropriate venue - RfC/U to establish the issue.
2. It is acceptable to create a page that is intended as a draft RfC/U as I noted at the discussion. WMC's page is clearly marked to this effect and he is entitled to present the evidence in the manner in which he wishes at the time of filing an RfC/U - you simply need to be ready to respond at that time. Unless you intend on aggressively attempting to change what is acceptable on Wikipedia, that is not an issue.
3. Some of the things he has called you is certainly a possible issue - that the parts others found to be an issue have since been refactored or removed moot that concern. If you believe that WMC is going to continue in that style of commentary, then again, please use RfC/U to establish that problem.
4. Bringing up an user's history of being a desysopped admin certainly comes close to an attack as it attempts to cast aspersions on one aspect of the user's contributions with another aspect. If anything, it is your approach that appears to require some modification.
5. I'm not sure what you are expecting - but you've been given advice on how to deal with the issues you seem to be having. Rejecting that advice and insisting that the WQA stays open is unproductive. I agree that it may not be a correct conclusion to mark the WQA resolved, but it is certainly fully appropriate to mark it stuck where the parties clearly have not and are unlikely to come to an agreement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)