User talk:Arzel

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.

Edit to Illegal immigration

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

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

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Andrea Tantaros#Malia Obama and Plan B. Thanks. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

Fallacy

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)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

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)

Arzel Mental Issues

You appear to be Following me and having mental issues because someone does not agree with you. Please get help and stop editing at Wikipedia since you like to stalk/harass people that do not agree with your opinion. Resaltador (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)