User talk:Raymond arritt

Archives

2007 2008

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I'll watch your page and reply when able.

Greenwich

October 2024

11

Friday

4:51 am UTC

A note on email: Wikipedia-related discussion should be carried on here, in view of the Wikipedia community. Following the principles stated in this arbcom decision, I will not conduct Wikipedia business by private email. My email is enabled and you're welcome to initiate contact that way; however, I won't respond by email to your inquiry and will instead reply on-wiki.

The awesome **BULLSTAR** is hereby awarded for facing down so much BS and yet managing to not lose your self control.--MONGO 08:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't here to take your call. You can leave a message after the tone.

Tone

Ping ping

E-mail hasn't arrived. Maybe it is delayed somewhere? Carcharoth (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still hasn't arrived. Is it worth bothering about? I could test the account by sending myself an e-mail. Carcharoth (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a spade a spade can get you blocked

WikiCommonSense Igor Berger (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Please find something more constructive to do. seicer | talk | contribs 04:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in build Wikipedia consensus is constractive! Resist Hivethink Igor Berger (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singer

Apropos these comments [1], regarding edits on Climate Change Science Program, it seems that this indeed was S. Fred [2]. Doesn't look like he got help... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting indeed. I thought someone was impersonating him, but apparently not. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanthalas39's RfA

Hey there. You wrote "we need to be careful handing out the admin bit, and that requires observing the candidate's track record longer than just 3-4 months". I know and respect what you've said about this not being specific to Archtransit, but I'm just curious...if someone as skilled as AT were to try and get adminship from us, do you think we'd spot them after 3 months? After 9 months? Do you think that waiting longer will do any good in such cases? Just curious as to your thoughts :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 14:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a saying "hard cases make bad law," so once again I regret mentioning Archtransit. The real question is, how long do we need to observe someone in order to have confidence in them? It's longer than one day, but shorter than 10 years. I think 3-4 months is a bit short. I'm comfortable with something in the range 6 to 9 months. The fact that the guy was shooting for adminship almost immediately after becoming active is a little disconcerting, too. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I personally disgaree on the time frame you've stated; I think 3-4 is fine, personally, but I respect your opinion. Thanks for clarifying, and for agreeing that mentioning AT is/was a bad idea. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

I see you erased my change to the global warming article. The purpose of that graph is to show a detailed description of global temperature data over the last 10 years. Despite what you said in the comment section, it is not just a one month period. It is 10 years. I think you misinterpreted the graph. The article has another graph over a 10 year period - the colored map. But you didn't erase that graph. Therefore, I think you may have mistakenly interpreted my graph to be a month instead of a decade. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misinterpret the graph. Month-to-month variations don't tell us anything about climate, and changes over 10 years are too short to depict climate anyway. The colored plot you mention is based on an average over 10 years, not a difference over a 10-year period. It compares the 10-year average for 1995-2004 with the 40-year average from 1940-1980. It depicts a change over roughly 40 years (the midpoint of the 1995-2004 averaging period versus the midpoint of the 1940-1980 averaging period).

It's important to have a chart showing detailed temperature changes over the past 10 years. Global warming theory claims that temperature increase is supposed to be accellerating. My chart disputes that claim. What's wrong with letting people see NASA satellite data that disputes global warming theory? Are you afraid of people finding out the truth? Grundle2600 (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean about the other chart comparing one decade to a past decade. But I still think my chart is relevant. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA - Discospinster

Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... discospinster _talk 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Why are you being so combative towards me? I've stated several times why I removed the word, and you simply revert that along with all my previous, unrelated edits? Are you a reasonable collaborator or will I have to go whine about your unacceptable blocking of my participation? (I hate tattling, ugh.) CreepyCrawly (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An edit summary of "revert to harmonize with cited source"[3], is combative? You really must have a thin skin. FYI Raymond and JoshuaZ weren't the only ones that conflicted in reverting - i failed along with JoshuaZ[4], because Raymond was faster.

Perhaps you should try to establish a consensus for a change first? Instead of insisting that your opinion is the correct one? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was the edit itself that was combative. My edits could have been addressed individually, as per policy (reverting is to be avoided whenever possible, as it was here). What that says to me is, "go away." As to consensus, nothing says I need to ask permission at the talk page every time I want to make an edit. In fact, policy says the opposite. If you AGF that I'm trying to improve the article, as I'll trust you have, and if I'm not vandalizing, as I'm clearly not, and if I take it to talk when I am reverted, as I have, and if I make a rational case once replied to, as I believe I have, then what happens next? Apparently I am reverted by a group of friends, exhausting my own 3 reverts and rendering me a non-threat to "your" article for at least 24 hours. This is not how WP is meant to work. CreepyCrawly (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress like a hamster. Perseverance brings danger. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too cryptic for me I'm afraid. Could you please come right out and say what you mean? CreepyCrawly (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly how Wikipedia is meant to work. You have to actually convince people that your edit improves the article, not just reinsert it 3 times with a talk-page comment which you feel proves your case and then complain about being "baited" into violating 3RR. MastCell ^Talk 03:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a democracy. CreepyCrawly (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. It operates by consensus. That's the point. MastCell ^Talk 03:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must we do this? I am neither required to follow prior consensus, nor obtain prior permission in talk before making a good faith edit that I believe will improve an article. Traveling in packs does not increase credibility. The edits of an individual dissenter are just as valid as those agreed upon by collective opinion, especially when the minority is correct. CreepyCrawly (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sun never sets when you're wearing a steel hat. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, Confucius, is that you? CreepyCrawly (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the change. That's what I wanted in the first place ("large" majority), but I couldn't justify it in the source, so I just removed "overwhelming" pending a better word with a source. In fact if you look at my first edit, that's what I did, but It didn't show up on the page so I reverted it because I was afraid I'd broken something.CreepyCrawly (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notability for academics

Hi, Someone made a proposal to merge WP:PROF into WP:BIO and there is a discussion of the proposal that is currently ongoing at the talk page of WP:PROF. Since you have commented on WP:PROF before, I hope that you will participate in the current discussion. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==Re Float upstream==

You did an amazing job on that. Well done. Ward20 (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've seen everything

... apparently even our article on bone marrow is hopelessly biased and POV. I think this project is starting to circle the drain. MastCell ^Talk 08:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Wikipedia is under control of aliens..:) Igor Berger (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ray's Rules

Very funny! Count Iblis (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provocation

I wasn't provocating him [5] . I simply replied to what he had to say. [6] . It would've been nice for him to be able to read what I wrote, but I'm done. All the best. Uconnstud (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]