User talk:Ling.Nut

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Good to see you back

Or, maybe not "back" for the long term, I don't know...but it was at least good to see your name pop up in my watchlist ;). Hope all is well, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I see you are contributing again! Are you still retired though? Me, I am still semi; just watching out for vandalism. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, but that 'good-bye' essay is a good read. Others should see that... Take care, « ₣M₣ » 20:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ton That Dinh

Replied YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 06:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

William Longchamp

Can you glance over this and see if anything is glaringly wrong? I've done a check of sources in footnotes against the bibliography but I do that every time and you always manage to find one booboo. Anything missing? The guy has no major biography of him ... this is the Royal Historical Society bibliographical listing for him. (I'm still trying to track down the Strickland work, it's not at anything close to me at all..) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan Povenmire

I responded to your comments at that article's FAC. The Flash ^{talk} 21:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you please respond to the FAC? There's a lot of comments left from reviewers which have been taken care of but with no response from the users, and it's making the review lean on fail. Thanks, The Flash ^{talk} 22:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI talk thread

have made many valid points and I hope you find an appropriate outlet to air them. I for one, share many of your frustrations and concerns. This would appear to be as good a forum as any for your complaints and I would encourage you to do is. I would be more than willing to provide additional feedback here. WVBluefield (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Meh. My name is not Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Grecian Urn

Can you revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ode on a Grecian Urn/archive1? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Applied the fixes. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

How does it look now? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I responded. For the Grecian Urn, the only real controversy is over the final lines. I've rechecked the major works and I see no disagreement except in the final two lines. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To Autumn#Themes for an example of an FA on a comparative poem. I made some comments in response - however, I am concerned that you would want something that could violate WP:WEIGHT. Also, the summaries about the critics would seem to go into original research, because the critics merely say the same thing, but they never talk about a consensus or the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[1] I posted that on the talk page. Is that what you are looking for? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a fourth paragraph and some other things to the page. I based the fourth on two of the critics, but not the feminist (he could have a one line summary possibly). I added two other critics before to add some basis. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's that time again...

Are we basically looking good with Mellitus? Longchamp's done at FAC and I was thinking of running the poor little archbishop through shortly. If things are missing, etc. let me know so I don't clog up FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

Nice to see you turn up now and then! (You are still my touchstone.) Warmest best, —mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

4th Test

Cleaned it up YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 16:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping things alert, again. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Global Boring

Ling,

you very aptly summed up my own thoughts on global boring. The same editors pushing the same POV protected by the same admins. And the real irony, is that their complete hash of the truth does more to develop skepticism amongst the public than an honest article ever could. After all, without their POV push what evidence would there be of partisanship by the climate "scientists"? And what better way to demonstrate this to the world than to have them on Wikipedia showing to the world just how little regard they have to a balanced open and honest debate and how they push to prevent the facts being presenting to the public. Realistically, these editors don't need to be stopped pushing POV because the harder they push to remove any contrary evidence, the more they destroy the whole credibility of their subject - and looking on it makes me laugh because most of them are so darn stupid, they can't even see this! 88.109.63.241 (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

1. It's hard to hold a conversation with an IP address. ;-)
2. I have been finding all Wikipedia controversies painfully boring. As fascinating as watching grass grow. I give up even though I know I'm right. Because. It's. So. Painfully. Boring. So I almost certainly am not the one to ramrod any effort to stop the POV pushers. <further commentary redacted> • Ling.Nut 03:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, if you're going to make accusations of professional misconduct against real people, you need to provide supporting references. WP:BLP applies to talk space as well. Guettarda (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about CRU, just google it. It is everywhere. The WSJ has been talking about it a lot. .. uh even Wapo is talking about it... here ... wait, better stuff here. • Ling.Nut 16:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That conservative right wing bastion the New York Times had a front page story on it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I read the links you provided. Neither of them appear to support your allegation that the CRU "ma[de] up its own [facts]". Not even the Weekly Standard (!) article supports your claim. There are claims that data was massaged which is, of course, no big deal unless that data went into their reports or publications. So again, I ask that you provide reliable sources for your accusations, or remove them. Claiming that professional scientists made up data while failing to provide any sources to support your claims, is clearly a violation of our BLP policy. You're well aware of our policies. You're usually a reasonable person. I'm simply asking that you abide by policy. Guettarda (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Massaged data, as you state, is the very definition of making something up. If you take the color green and say that it is blue (since blue and yellow make green), that is "massaging" the data but also not what it actually is, thus, made up. Any fiction, even the slightest, is still fiction. If you want to pursue it, you'll have to first start with yourself where you stated the numbers were massaged. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, yeah. I am so conflicted about these things. On the one hand, both the self-assigned papal infallibility of the AGW folks and the consequences of their POV agenda-pushing make my butt cheeks pucker (and do harm to Wikipedia's value as an NPOV data source). On the other... ahh... you know me. I have been in argument after argument after argument for the past three-plus years, and I am just so weary of it all. Rather than "Fight or flight", this is a case of "fight or... just... sorta.... let the parade of lunatics march by." But.. if you're saying there's no proof the CRU folks were bad little boys (the sort of naughtiness that arrested Galileo, but this time by the other team) well.. you haven't been reading the email excerpts. They bullied, blocked, and basically did everything possible contrary to the scientific method... the hockey stick is shattered, but far worse, their credibility as being impartial and fair experts is also shattered. I can't think of how this makes them look like scientists. They look like they were far far far far more worried about their careers than the facts... • Ling.Nut 05:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Massaged data, as you state, is the very definition of making something up". Nope, not at all Ottava Rima. Have you ever worked with data? 'Look, that point's an outlier, I wonder if it's affecting the trend'. Well, you take it out, you run the analysis again, and then you see if there's any difference. If there's no difference, you don't worry about it. If there is, you try to figure out why, you say "the R² was 0.7 for the whole data set, but 0.9 if you removed that one point". Or maybe you're working on models. You need data sets to parameterise models. And say you suspect that the reason your model isn't matching reality is because the data you used to paramterise your model is inaccurate. So you modify the data to normalise the problematic bit, so that you can determine whether the problem is with your model or the data that was used to parameterise it. Now, granted, this is all speculation, but there's a difference between speculating in the world of the probable, and speculating in the world of the highly improbable. Neither of which, of course, gives one the right to make unfounded accusations of misconduct against living people. Which is why we have a policy that forbids that sort of behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Good one. I really didn't think you could be seriously arguing that nonsense. Guettarda (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No one is arguing that data can't be adjusted for any one of a number of reasons. Seasonally adjusting sales figures to account for Christmas surge, forex, is standard procedure... The problem here is this: in order for science to be repeatable/verifiable, the adjustments must be carefully explained and recorded, and the raw data musrt be kept. Did that happen? No. Without raw data, it all comes down to a matter of trust — and science should never, never come down to a matter of trust. If you base your support of CRU's conclusions on your trust for CRU, then your support is faith-based rather than evidence-based. As even the Bible states clearly, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." If you can't see the evidence (because it has been destroyed, in CRU's case) then you are making a statement of faith regarding the veracity (or scale) of their conclusions. • Ling.Nut 04:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for accidentally striking your comment....

Sorry again for this[2], i was striking rather a lot of socks at the time, and must have overlooked that your comment was separate from that of Comfort&Joy (which is a scibaby sock). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries! • Ling.Nut 09:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

AWB

According to the not on the top of AWB's talk page: AWB 4.6 is broken due to MW Changes. Feel free to download a SVN snapshots, and use 4.9.0.3. This will also help us with testing, and help us release it to you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I thought mine WAS 4.9.0.3, but Help--> About says it's 4.6. Is it possible that y'all forgot to revise the Help-About text? • Ling.Nut 00:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. Try downloading again and saving in a new folder. Then run AWB form there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed your report from AWB's talk page. If you have any questions please write them here and I will be glad to help you. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks! • Ling.Nut 01:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

InvalidCastException in d__1.MoveNext is already fixed. If you download the newest snapshot you won't see it again! Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate change denial

You appear to be involved in a revert war at Climate change denial, and have made more than three reverts in under 24 hours. As you seem to have stopped editing for the nonce, I shall not block you, but please seek consensus at Talk:Climate change denial rather than continually reverting against multiple fellow editors. I saw your edit summaries pointing to the talkpage, which also figured into my decision to request calm rather than blocking, but I confess I am unable to find a firm consensus there for your edits. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Admin: First, I thought I was at 2RR, sorry. second, I'm being tag-teamed; did you warn them? Third, dear friend, stop clinging to the rather childlike fictional idea of consensus. It doesn't work at all, except as a figleaf to cover up the fact that Wikiedia itself doesn't work with respect to controversial issues. Oh wait, it also functions as a cover story for the efforts POV-pushing gangs. :-)

For what it's worth, I was just reading through the logs there and I wanted to give you a nod for standing up to bullying. --π! 03:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Looked at your user page. All my life, every time I read about a philosopher, that person is always influenced by Immanuel Kant. One day or other I should take a stab at reading Kant, though my brain cells do not fire at nearly the rate that they did say twenty years ago. Tks for the kind words. • Ling.Nut 07:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:) Heh, thanks. As for Kant, I can't exactly claim to be a scholar on the topic, but from what I know I would offer a warning. Contemporary attitudes toward Kant are generally filtered through the lens of those who later claimed to be inspired by him, though most of those people would only actually agree with relatively small parts of what he had to say, and by attempts to paint his work as extremist, when he spent most of his career trying to reconcile opposing extremes. I myself don't agree with everything he said, but it's hard not to respect the guy when you read some of his stuff first-hand. --π! 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion

This is a friendly notice of the following:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephan Schulz‎

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiproganda on Global Warming

I thought you might be interested in these votes. Regards, ~ Rameses (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Shulz et al just make stuff up at their leisure, I've coined a new term: Wiki-op-ed-ia. Feel free to use it; just attribute it to me. ;-) • Ling.Nut 08:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

The weekly Policy Report in the Signpost features community feedback on policy pages; see for instance here, here and here. We're putting together another one for the Signpost 9 days from now at WT:Consensus#Signpost Policy Report. I'm asking for your participation because you made an edit within the last two months at that talk page, but all responses are welcome. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions or comments, please drop a note at the policy talk page or my user page. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My FAC

Re North Carolina class battleship and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North Carolina class battleship/archive1: I didn't know how to format the Second London Naval Treaty reference, so I took my best shot at it. If you think you have a better solution, please change it. :) Many thanks, 19:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Charles Fryatt

Thanks for catching the "the the" in the article. One point though, dates that are in direct quotes do not need to comply to with WP:MOS, thus 2nd and 28th are fine in the quotation of the watch inscriptions. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

3rd Ashes Invincibles

Good spot on Perry (2002)! Fifelfoo (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Scotch bonnet

OK, I've moved the review subpage so that the transclusion isn't redlinked. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Again I comment

This is wonderful. Everytime I come across your page and listen (and watch) I am uplifted. Warmest best, —mattisse (Talk) 01:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See {{User:Ling.Nut/Sarahchangfan}}. Sometimes people just need a treat to make themselves feel better. Sarah Chang is non-carcinogenic and calorie-free (I dunno about non-addictive, though). • Ling.Nut 02:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

She is filled with vitality; she is earthy and exquisite. She is tapping into deeper meanings than Episode 20 of the first season of (whatever). She gives me hope. —mattisse (Talk) 03:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Ball public appearances

I'm quite in favor of including Ball's notable public appearances, and I think these are notable, but that source is awful and the alleged misattribution of his job in some show is not notable and confuses the reader. I'm having a hard time finding good sources. Do you think Newsmax would pass muster as news rather than opinion? It's the best I can find, but I've only checked the first few Google results pages. P.S. Don't be so ready to conclude I'm biased against Ball -- you can get an idea where I'm coming from from my contributions. Flegelpuss (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings and all that ...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

A noiseless patient spider, I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated, Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding, It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself, Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them. And you O my soul where you stand, Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them, Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold, Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul." —"A Noiseless Patient Spider" by Walt Whitman Happy New Year Awadewit (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Garrow

Brilliant, thank you! I'll start those up on Saturday. Ironholds (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Aye, it was in the ODNB article on him. The local library is just that - a local library. Besides, I'm British - I doubt my law library at uni keeps the Cornell in stock, paper or electronic. Ironholds (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Japan/archive2

I addressed your references concern at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Japan/archive2. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Text files

Thanks for your note about this. It's a very good idea. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation at Climate change denial

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climate change denial, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 10:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific, posts such as this and this suggest that you are viewing the topic area of climate change more combatively than collaboratively. Please try to restrict your posts to discussing ways that reliable sources can be used to improve our coverage of the topic without wandering into debates over the topic itself or speculating as to the motives of your fellow editors. You do good work in other areas - please try to bring the same thoughtfulness and dispassionate care to this topic as well. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you've already been warned. That makes your behaviour all the worse. Guettarda (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, I do not see a warning on your talk page. Unless I missed it (possible), that is an extremely informative fact. • Ling.Nut 06:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. While I make my share of mistakes, I try not to misuse article talk pages. You should try it. Guettarda (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

William Garrow

Thanks again for your help here; I think I've addressed all your concerns. Yours, Ironholds (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I've been distracted. Sorry. Will look, albeit perhaps kinda quickly. 05:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)