User talk:Alexh19740110

message from TheBlog

Thanks for cleaning up A Watts, I tried years ago, but was overwhelmed by POV pushers. --Theblog (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

You may want to consider refactoring your comments to adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Draft: Early work section (work in progress)

Hi Alex, the usual way to do this sort of drafting is with a user subpage, eg User:Alexh19740110/Lindzenearlydraft. This is easier to edit (you can invite others to contribute too, and then it's definitely easier to keep track) without cluttering up the talk page (which particularly with multiple drafts becomes problematic). Rd232 ^talk 03:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Richard Lindzen.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Richard Lindzen.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism

If you make blatantly false accusations of me vandalising content again, I'll escalate. Your obvious attempts to inflate the non-existent qualifications of Watts won't succeed in the long run - Wikipedia requires evidence-based content - not your desperate need to validate anti-science bloggers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonoApe (talk • contribs) 10:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to your belief, I'm not 'smearing' Watts - I'm merely motivated to ensure people, such as you, do not inflate and manufacture credibility and non-existent qualifications for someone who works to undermine scientific understanding and spread ignorance amongst others. Far from being overruled by other editors who are scientifically literate, they have undone your constant attempts to insert weasel words and hyperbole.

"If I told you he had a degree in zoology what would you say about that?" - I'd say you're welcome to your fantasies, but it has no place on Wikipedia. Simple, eh? I note that you have not replied to me in the talk pages or responded to the evidence that Watts is not a broadcast meteorologist according to AMS. Unless you have credible evidence, your wishful thinking will not be an acceptable substitute.

Also, I note your hypocrisy in smearing other editors by accusing them of "bias" when they disagree with your evidence-free beliefs. Spoken like a true Denier. --MonoApe (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"your evidence-free beliefs" and "Spoken like a true Denier." are fine examples of WP:BAIT. If such things bother you then you would be well advised to develop a thick skin. They are but water off a duck's back and they are repeated by the majority POV pushers ad nauseum as a means of picking off all but the most dedicated of skeptics. It's not that there aren't skeptics, it's just that we lack the numbers to enforce our POV by shear numbers like the majority has. Its unfair, but that's the reality. You also have to try and develop a reasonable dose of WP:DGAF. Getting too emotionally attached to a point is easily done and a sure fire way to end up giving your opponents ammunition to use against you. Better to live and fight another day than to get yourself needlessly blocked or banned. That's just my opinion, though. --GoRight (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Stephen McIntyre. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Try to stick to commenting on the content/discussions on content - and leave out the personal attacks, in general an assumption of good faith never hurt.

As for why i comment several places.... They are on my watchlist. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

May i remind you again that assumption of good faith is a policy? The last part of this comment is not. In general please refrain from projecting assumed motivations to other peoples actions. Just as you, i have no idea why that was inserted, so i'm going to stay mute in that regard. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Guettarda (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make ridiculous claims like you did here "for the record". I added this simple boilerplate warning to help you avoid falling foul of Wikipedia policy. Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Guettarda (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply, timeout

Alex, hi: Why don't you email me at pdtillmanATgmailDOTcom, as this is a public forum, so I can't really be frank. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tillman"

July 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ► RATEL ◄ 13:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Charming, quoting Ratel's talk page: (1) "Attempting to give a damn about your WikiWhining" (2) "Wikipedia Quote/Unquote I'm not an admin, don't ever wish to be one, won't ever ask to be nominated to be one (unlike some people) and won't ever accept a nomination to be one. I won't ever kiss an admin's ring and sure don't want anyone else to kiss mine.. well, maybe this one but not the bureaucratic one." So I guess that means you're not in a position to be blocking anyone, only making threats here? Meanwhile, any clues on what the "disruptive comments" or "personal attack" were? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea (or interest in) what Ratels warning was about. But your introduction text here is a personal attack and shows a rather large degree of not assuming good faith. I hope you will refactor and delete this, so i will only answer the content related issues. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how this is a personal attack either, it is a statement of fact (that you are not neutral on the issue in which you've stepped in to mediate on with respect to neutrality). Or are you denying that you are an editor largely devoted to climate change articles, and that nearly all of your edits are made in defence of the human-caused climate change theory? On assuming good faith, there is nothing to do with here with assuming anything. It is again just a simple statement of fact that you are not neutral. If you still believe you are the right person to be mediating in a neutrality dispute on climate change, you may refactor the comments yourself as you see fit, as I stand by my comment. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment on context and content - not on the user. That is what NPA cooks down to. Yes - i do edit a lot of climate articles, and i do have a large interest in the subject. But i'm sorry to tell you that my position/opinion lies rather conservatively within the scientific opinion on climate change (which btw is rather irrelevant, since i'm going by the weight of references - not my opinion), and if that is "biased", then you have gotten something rather wrong about what WP is about. Nb: commenting on an RfC is not "mediating". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Heaven and Earth (book). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ► RATEL ◄ 15:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No that's absolutely false, you have engaged in an edit war here with me, and moreover I have not reverted the edit three times yet (I'm going to escalate it instead). I am defending WP:BLP, since you are insisting on inclusion of insulting, irrelevant, and potentially libellous remarks against a living person, and moreover you have failed to give any reasons why you want the material included. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Heaven and Earth (book). Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. ► RATEL ◄ 08:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have assumed nothing, and proved a point, which is why you are now attacking the editor, dismissing what I've said as a "rant", unwilling to discuss. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC

RfCs run for more than a few days, so don't jump the gun. In fact the robot that polices RfC tags removes them after a month. ► RATEL ◄ 07:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Be careful

I saw your note on my Talk page, I'm replying here. You may email me if you like, use the "email this user" link from my Talk page (Usually in the panel on the left, but it varies with the skin you use.) From your Talk page, you seem to be tangling with a number of editors. I'd urge that you proceed very carefully, get help before engaging in any conflict, back off if you are warned, do not insist, you may be dealing with some highly experienced editors who have strong points of view, and there are some administrators supporting them who may not be shy about blocking of editors perceived as disruptive in a field of interest of yours, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley, and particularly my evidence on the Evidence page for that case.

Dismissing a warning from an editor because the editor isn't an administrator is foolish. I'm not an administrator, but, should I find it appropriate for an editor to be blocked, I do know how to get the attention of one, and I'm not necessarily as well connected as some who have warned you. Others have been blocked for less than what it seems you may have done.

I'd recommend you discuss this with GoRight who may share your point of view (or not, I haven't investigated). You may have some valid points, but, faced with many experienced editors, and with your inexperience, you may make any of many common mistakes and be quite vulnerable. Ratel is not known to me to be a "cabal administrator." Be sure to be careful about warnings, rigorously avoid incivility, and do not edit war no matter how "right" you think you might be. Again, get help. Take your time. Being in a rush can lead you into many pitfalls. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the warnings from Ratel were completely frivolous. What can one do if an editor slaps frivolous warnings on your page? After warning me repeatedly about 'civility' anyone reading the thread in question can see for themselves that Ratel descended then directly into name-calling against the Evil "denialists" (not me) and finally into outrightly obscene language. I can't say that I've ever used any expletives here in WP. And there was no edit-warring with Ratel; he made that warning after I reverted his edits twice. I should probably take action about all these false accusations but I frankly don't care about this sort of petty stuff. Alex Harvey 04:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You raise the subject on AN/I or do a user RfC on those you feel are acting outside of what is reasonable/rational/policy. On the subject of civility, i wouldn't throw stones, since you have a very bad tendency to assume bad faith, and let this stick through in your comments on article talk pages. And AN/I (or an RfC) would look at the behaviour of all editors. And i think that Abd will agree with me on that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I measure actions by the disruption they create. AN/I reports, unless the matter is not only crystal clear but there is also is no cabal on the other side, can be quite disruptive. AN/I isn't part of dispute resolution process, it's 911 to get administrative support. If the matter isn't very clear, forget it, you will get nothing from it and you are quite likely to get a dent in your record, maybe worse. If you have been recently edit warring, any attention focused on you could result in a block, and in the field you are interested in, it could be an indef block. You could appeal and chances of success exist but would be low. It's difficult for highly experienced editors to deal with cabal opposition; see, the only cabal that matters is what I call a Majority POV-pushing cabal. Such a cabal can easily muster support beyond its own membership, because many people will instinctively agree with them. So if you are going to advocate an unpopular position, you are dead meat if you rush it. GoRight knows how to proceed, and even then it's dangerous.

RfC is better, but you'd better have your ducks in a row. In particular, if you file an RfC against a user, you will get the book thrown at you, your record had better be spotless. To navigate the byzantine WP process can take great skill, so, to start, I highly recommend you identify sympathetic and experienced editors and help them, and be helped by them. Look for small increments of improvement, not big changes. You are not going to get the cabal eliminated. You might notice at the current RfAr that I haven't suggested sanctions against anyone, though I've named a dozen names or so. And I'm not likely to suggest anything about more than a very few. In fact, I believe that much of what the cabal does is legitimate and helpful. It's just imbalanced, that's all. And the solution isn't to imbalance things in the other direction, it is to build process that finds balance. That takes a lot of work, and the work is probably going to come from editors who hold minority positions. Fortunately, most of us have a minority position on something, and so we can all understand the value of having process that is open, not frozen, and that allows minority opinion a voice, without making everything a tendentious and endless discussion.

Yes, I agree with KDP. You aren't ready for this. Build your experience, before it gets abruptly terminated. I'm working on my end of it, if I'm successful, some of the danger will subside, but you still would not be able to just push your point of view and insist that your way of looking at things is right and the others are wrong. Take your time. Read WP:DGAF and mediate on it. If you insist that Wikipedia be True and Right, and right now!, you won't make it long here. The project is full of errors and imbalanced articles, and in order to fix it we need a more efficient community, which does require taking the time to work out problems so that they don't keep recurring. It's my hope that KDP and the rest of the cabal, that part which doesn't implode and disappear, and I, will be eventually not only be on the same side, we already are on the same side, it just looks different. (I don't recall if I left KDP in the list of cabal members, but he's been associated with it at times..... not that it really matters. But one consequence of being a cabal member is that if somebody tangles with you, there will be other editors who will support you no matter what, until your actions become so ridiculously contrary to policy that they will drop out. KDP isn't likely to go there. In other words, if you attack KDP, you will be attacking whole group of editors, some of whom have block buttons and one of whom has checkuser and oversight privileges. If you even think of creating a sock, that's it, it will be over. --Abd (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not yet followed up on the current discussion on the page in question. I will try to do so when I can get a chance. One of the nice things about wikipedia is that there is no deadline, and so you can revisit things well after the initial events occurred. I can tell you from my own personal experience in these types of pages (i.e. global warning related pages) that there is a dedicate group of editors that tend to reinforce one another's POV which can be very frustrating. It is absolutely imperative that you not violate policies as a result of that frustration. Edit warring will get you blocked more often than it will advance your cause. If you are out numbered by a WP:TAGTEAM you will not win and so the only thing continued reversion will achieve is to provide aid and comfort to those with whom you may disagree because they will use it as evidence against you. NEVER make a post that can be so used against you, at least not without some well thought out reason why.

KDP and I frequently butt heads but in this case he is giving you good advice in terms of following policy and the correct WP:DR to pursue. While these may sometimes feel completely glacial in their pace, they are also your best aid in actually getting the changes you want. Note that if your point is not the most popular point of view, there are times where you are going to be forced to accept that reality and simply allow the majority to have its way.

If you feel like something is really bugging you that is the worst time to try and push it through. Focus on something else for a couple of days to allow your thoughts to work themselves out without giving others on-wiki evidence such as reverts and incivility that occur in the heat of the moment (not saying this is the case in your case as I haven't yet looked) but you get the point. I highly recommend that you spend such time reading through some of the policies I have linked to on my user page. You fellow editors will like quote them against you so it is important that you know what they say to recognize when a skewed or cherry-picked rationale is being cited. --GoRight (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your contribution history, Alex, you are largely an SPA. While there is nothing in itself wrong with this, SPAs frequently don't have enough general Wikipedia experience to understand the policies and guidelines, nor the actual community practice. You are immediately visible as an inexperienced editor by much that you do. For example, you don't use edit summaries beyond the defaults. Experienced editors will note a brief summary of what they are doing. There are even tools that can be used to report what percentage of edits have used summaries. It is a mark of courtesy to the community. And then if a major edit is covered up by "spelling correction" they will throw the book at you!

Someone like GoRight often suffers from lack of support. Back up. Consult with him. If he's not going to accept some change you'd want to make, if he's not willing to support it, it probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, so why waste your time and everyone else's time with it? (I'm again assuming similarity of POV, my own POV, personally, would probably be much more aligned with KDP, and where we might differ is on process and behavioral issues, maybe. I believe that there is a very important place in Wikipedia for "minority POV-pushers," if they remain civil.) Then, if you agree on a change, you might have more of a chance. At least the change could survive a single revert! But when you are in a minority position, you will need more support than that, so the hope of change is that, with some support, you could broaden support until you have a majority of active editors. If you over-reach, you won't be able to do that; the most that a minority POV can hope for is fair representation of what is in reliable source, not ever dominance; sometimes with obscure articles a minority can prevail because they bring more editors to bear on the article, but that's highly unstable. It won't last. All that work, for nothing, in the end.

Hence the importance of working on consensus process, and better documentation of what I call the "backstory." There is a FAQ for global warming, and right now it's pretty biased, last I looked at it. That should be improved, it should be insisted that the FAQ be neutral, that it explain why the article is the way it is, and where the reason for article state is illegitimate, building that FAQ will make it apparent.

One more point. Play the Whack-a-Mole game, look at Recent Changes and revert out vandalism. You can ask for Rollback privilege and use Twinkle for this, but you can do it without that special privilege. If you look at just the IP edits, you'll see a somewhat higher percentage of vandalism. At some times of day, it's hard to find a vandalism edit that hasn't already been reverted, even if you are quick, and this may give you some appreciation for what goes on. You'll be doing a service, and the more that you do stuff like that the more respect you will get from the community. Make a point to correct spelling or grammar or make other non-controversial improvements to articles, all over the project. (If you are reverting vandalism, you will look at a lot of articles, and you will spot lots of errors that you can quickly fix.) It's fun, actually, and simple to do, for a time. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Abd, GoRight, and Kim.

Firstly, I simply have not edit-warred with anyone. To edit-war seems rather immature and pointless. Assuming good faith, Ratel apparently lost count of my reverts after one. The morbidly curious may confirm this in the revision history of the Heaven and Earth book page. The incident with Guettarda should also be discounted because WP:BLP policy states very clearly, as I reproduced in the Ross McKitrick talk page, that WP:3RR doesn't apply if editors continually insert material in violation of WP:BLP. I specifically wanted to test this clause of the WP:BLP and stated so with references in the revision history. Guettarda then put that warning on my page. A consensus was subsequently obtained for my position that the material I was removing was indeed contrary to WP:BLP and the revert finally stood. Thus I cannot see how this can be counted as edit-warring.

On WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF I am guilty as charged. Maybe I just don't have the patience for this. And I'll give you an example of why. If you visit the Anthony Watts talk page, you will see that I have argued now for 7 or 8 hours over what is a very basic, simple, logical point. It is purely about improvement of the article.

I have argued that --

1. you can't include a refutation of something in Watts' article without first including discussion of that thing it is said to be refutation of. Not good enough, so says KDP & WMC. I am pushing my POV, says KDP & WMC.
2. I have shown that a statement given in the article is in no way relevant to the article.
3. I have demonstrated a factual error in the article and have tried several times to correct. A 2007 source is being used to imply Watts holds a specific position on NOAA's statement of 2009.
4. I have corrected grammar & punctuation and wording order several times to have my edits reverted in toto.

Now on WP:CIVIL I have lost 8 hours of my life over this trivia. That's time I should have spent with my family. Will anyone give me back these 8 hours after the minor point is finally resolved? Does this mean I have been treated with civility?

On WP:SPA, yes I have made that clear on my user page. Indeed, my main focus is in removing the slurs against living people from their biography pages. So far, I have not tried to do anything other than that. Had I not wasted so much time arguing over trivia, I would probably have contributed a lot more.

On my POV, to be very clear, I do not know what is causing global warming. I voted have voted for the Greens in the Australian Senate for every election other than the last. I have always voted for Labour (left) in the lower house. I am a progressive. But I also believe that certainty on the global warming issue has been vastly overstated. That is my POV; that is my bias. Everyone's got one. That is, in fact, the majority position. Even the IPCC position statement gives "90%" certainty that humans caused recent global warming.

On the remaining points you have raised, I thank you for your advice and will look into all points. Alex Harvey 08:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"IPCC position statement gives "90%" certainty" Actuality it's > 90% as defined by the IPCC. But don't let little things (like not knowing what the IPCC says in AR4 or not knowing anything about climatology) stop you from edit warring pages on global warming. ► RATEL ◄ 12:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ratel, on "little things" why not show us time and date at which I reverted an edit of yours a third time. Since it didn't actually happen, you're going to struggle with that; so why not just remove the warning from my talk page? You could even say "sorry."

Here is AR4, SPM. p. 5:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. 7 It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}

Next refer to footnote 2 on AR4, SPM, p. 2:

2 Words in italics represent calibrated expressions of uncertainty and confidence. Relevant terms are explained in the Box ‘Treatment of uncertainty’ in the Introduction of this Synthesis Report.

So I find AR4, Introduction, p. 27:

Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%.Alex Harvey 13:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thus, it follows undeniably that the IPCC position on human-caused climate change is less than virtually certain and even less than extremely likely. That means it's somewhere in 90% < level of certainty < 95%. So you are right, I suppose, if you want to split hairs. The point I made stands.

By the way, what makes you think that I "know nothing about climatology"? Is it consistent with WP:CIVIL to assert something like this? Thanks for reading. Alex Harvey 13:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the edit history from the Heaven and Earth page at the time Ratel's warning was added (order made chronological):

1. (cur) (prev) 13:34, 13 July 2009 Alexh19740110 (talk | contribs) (14,026 bytes) (→Content: - rm insulting, unscientific remarks from an astronomer comparing book to the work of Velikowsky. The relevance of astronomy & astronomers here is ... ? See WP:BLP...) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 13:37, 13 July 2009 Ratel (talk | contribs) (14,617 bytes) (Reverted to revision 301854828 by Alexh19740110; This is NOT a biography page! Do not censor cited material. (TW)) (undo)
3. (cur) (prev) 14:01, 13 July 2009 Alexh19740110 (talk | contribs) (14,026 bytes) (Reverted to revision 301856405 by Alexh19740110; pls read WP:BLP, it applies to ALL pages. further, these idle insults from an astronomer are simply not relevant to the article.. (TW)) (undo)

At this point, the above warning was added to my talk page. So I can only count two reverts. So again, Ratel, why not say "sorry" and remove the warning? Alex Harvey 13:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• WP:3RR applies to "any action... that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." See

diff 1: Reverted to revision 301851169 by Alexh19740110

diff 2: rm insulting, unscientific remarks from an astronomer comparing book to the work of Velikowsky

diff 3: Reverted to revision 301856405 by Alexh19740110; pls read WP:BLP, it applies to ALL pages. further, these idle insults from an astron...

Now, who should apologize, you or me? ► RATEL ◄ 13:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Those were two completely unrelated reverts... I allowed the first one to stand immediately... it wasn't my understanding this violated WP:3RR or what an "edit-war" is. If that's the case, then, you also violated WP:3RR on the same day...

1. (cur) (prev) 15:30, 13 July 2009 Ratel (talk | contribs) (13,738 bytes) (expand quotes from RS; remove material sourced from somebody's blog) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 13:37, 13 July 2009 Ratel (talk | contribs) (14,617 bytes) (Reverted to revision 301854828 by Alexh19740110; This is NOT a biography page! Do not censor cited material. (TW)) (undo)
3. (cur) (prev) 13:06, 13 July 2009 Ratel (talk | contribs) (13,699 bytes) (Reverted to revision 301675448 by Ratel; Come on, not blogs again ..... (TW)) (undo)

Let's call it a draw then shall we? Alex Harvey 14:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll call it quits if you've got the balls to prove you're not a Rightard, as you claim not to be above, by watching this ► RATEL ◄ 15:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why prove I am not a "Rightard"? (=stupid right-wing person...?) I am not a rightist. I am left on just about every issue you can think of. My hero is the ex-labour prime minister Paul Keating. I am a huge fan of Obama. I support the Rudd government in Australia, and forgive their ETS as the fault of scientists. I have read a number of works of the extreme-leftist Noam Chomsky. On Oreskes, she appears to have argued something that offends my common sense, i.e. that she looked at journal abstracts or articles or something and found practically zero papers in the literature opposing the "climate change consensus". That's absurd because I've got at least 50 on my laptop right now. I'll tell you what; rather than watching that 1 hour doco which will exceed my broadband limits, I'll read her Oreskes 2004 paper and get back to you; how about that? Alex Harvey 16:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I see Rightards are actively trying to recruit you to their cause. You need to think carefully about that. Go to a library and watch that video of you don't have the bandwidth. The links between the denial industry and the smoking lobby will shock you. ► RATEL ◄ 23:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this Oreskes stuff apiece with the Union of Concerned Scientists document Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science? If so I've already looked at that this matter closely and it appears that UCS has made a lot of errors and misleading statements. The Marshall Institute replied to this document and to the best of my knowledge UCS has not been willing to discuss the matter further. Further, there are some skeptics, e.g. Christy, Pielke, who were environmentalists way before this global warming scare even started. It is absurd that they are in the pay or influence of Big Tobacco. I'll have a look though if I get a chance. It's a busy week for me at the moment. Alex Harvey 02:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My neighbor's Chihuahua ...

I must say, this Ratel person reminds me of my neighbor's Chihuahua who occasionally stops by to try and hump my leg. Yea, its annoying, but its harmless and the little bugger simply doesn't know any better. You just have to find a way to deal with it. The thing is, AH, you need to set your sights on the long haul. To make any changes to the status quo around here will require lots of time and patience. Think of yourself as the water that is trying to erode a giant mountain of crap (something else my neighbor's dog seems to be able to produce a lot of, BTW). The water does not get angry at the mountain, it merely goes on about its business of breaking it down, little by little, over time. Time is your friend. Learn to use it wisely, and don't be in a hurry.

This place is full of Chihuahua's who want to hump your legs and crap in your yard. They are testing your metal. They want to use their numbers to harass you into giving up and leaving. The solution, of course, is easy: just don't let them drive you off. Refuse to give them the satisfaction. Carry on in the knowledge that you are the water eroding the giant mountain of crap that they keep building.

If you are interested to correcting falsehoods and unfounded attacks in WP:BLPs then you shall find fertile ground in the BLPs of the AGW skeptics. The double standards and the tactics used by your opponents can be easily learned by reviewing the histories of some of the more prominent icons from either side. Off the top of my head James E. Hansen seems to be one of the more popular AGW scientologists to be defended, and Fred Singer seems to be a popular target for character assassination. Some other popular targets would include William M. Gray and Lawrence Solomon who is actually a journalist. His series on The Deniers will yield an entire Pantheon of BLPs which will benefit greatly from your efforts. And believe it, or not, the problem extends all the way into the BLPs of fiction writers such a Michael Crichton. No stone left unturned.

Now, carry on, and if you run into a particularly crufty piece of dog crap feel free to stop by my talk page and point it out. I'll be happy to lend assistance. In fact, you can consider this an unsolicited request to be kept informed of all such cases. Please make a note of it. --GoRight (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert M. Carter

You might add him to your list of BLPs to review when you have time. He is a favorite target of the usual suspects. --GoRight (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Standing Offer/Request

Given our past interactions on various topics I thought I would make the following offer.

If you ever have something you want me to offer an opinion on or that you feel I might personally be interested in anywhere on wikipedia, its talk pages, or within any of the official forums such as noticeboards, RfCs, RfAs, and the like, please contact me directly on my talk page and feel free to reference this standing request. I trust your judgment in deciding which topics might be of interest to me, and please keep me informed of any topics in general as well as items specifically involving you personally.

Consider this to be my unsolicited request to you to be given friendly notices. Please make a note of it. --GoRight (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)

My comment was intended to distinguish Watts' position as denialist rather than skeptical. I gave good evidence to support this. While you may disagree, it is incorrect to label my position mere "name-calling". It is a significant matter that Watts' position has been to attack the evidential basis for the warming trend; his various positions, taken in aggregate, can be seen without any great stretch to be a blanket denial of the consensus on every level. There may be scientific papers from the mainstream with which he agrees, but those are surely in the minority. --TS 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi TS, I may have only seen the heading and not read all the evidence/arguments (I see you regard his appearances at Heartland as significant?). I'll have to say I'm unlikely to be persuaded. I believe the very idea of the "climate change denialist" is problematic, but even if it was a useful concept, it would only apply to people who either are mentally ill ("in denial") or who are paid by industry to spread dissent, against their own belief that climate change is real. I don't think there is evidence that Watts fits either of these categories. I doubt that many do. At any rate, the point is that the term is offensive, a term of abuse. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

Re: "The implication of this well sourced and supported article is that anyone that believes that HIV does not cause AIDS is ignorant, OR biased, OR idiotic, OR has a hidden agenda, OR has been mislead, OR hasn't looked at the evidence, OR ... You'll find that any factual article often contradicts those that hold spurious and incorrect beliefs. This is an encyclopedia, it doesn't treat all views as equally valid. See WP:NOT, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE." I think you may have misunderstood. My point was that the article follows the sources, and that the supposed implicit implication in the previous post didn't hold up. What did you understand me to mean? Note the final OR followed by ellipsis. Verbal chat 13:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Verbal, well it appeared that you were saying that the article is very good, that the term "AIDS denialist" is perfectly fine, that if the article appears to communicate the idea that AIDS deniers are ignorant, biased, idiotic, dishonest, confused, and so forth, then it's because they are. :) I know nothing about how well-established the link is between HIV & AIDS (and I would of course assume like anyone else that it's very strong) but I can't support Wikipedia calling living people "denialists" under, well, many circumstances (I am debating with myself whether it's appropriate in the "Holocaust deniers" case). At the end of the day, certainly for climate change skeptics, it is just a term of abuse. Whilst the term is used widely on the internet, a bit in the press, it is not used in rational dialogue -- e.g. in scholarly papers -- where the ideas of the so-called "denialists" are often, quietly, taken a lot more seriously. Now it is possible that there are people who are truly "in denial" in the proper Freudian manner. But how can I know who they are? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Alex, but when someone is said to "be in denial", it doesn't refer to the holocaust. I'm a smoker, and despite intellectually knowing that this will quite likely kill me, i'm subconsciously in denial about that, or at least the dangerlevel involved. (otherwise i'd have stopped - i have nice children that i want to see grow up). When i say that - am i stating that i'm like the "holocaust deniers"? No. If someone is in denial about being too fat - are people who say it, comparing that person to a "holocaust denier"? No. The reason that some are drawing a line between X-denier and HC-denier is to try invalidate the statement. Its a fallacy plain and simple (a kind of reversed guilt by association) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I can't understand you here I'm afraid and in any case I should point out you're probably taking the remark out of context.

The very idea of "denial" is a Freudian concept and as with all things Freudian it has always been regarded as a marginal view by the mainstream of psychology and psychiatry. Today there are few who give Freudian ideas any credit at all. Karl Popper famously had Freudian psychoanalysis -- along with astrology -- as exemplifying pseudoscience as distinct from scientific method. So there isn't and never has been agreement in the first place that ideas like "the subconscious" and "in denial" even refer to real things. But even if we suppose for a moment that they do, we assume a sort of neo-Freudian worldview, a proper psychiatrist is still required to make the diagnosis. So, as I said, for you or I to call Ian Plimer a "denialist" is to indulge in name-calling; it is a term of abuse. Interestingly, you already agreed with this much here. So I'm a little puzzled that you seem to have changed your mind. Anyhow, you tell me: what objective criteria can a Wikipedian use to decide who is a "denialist" and who is a "skeptic"? Is there a Wikipedia board of psychoanalysis that can make a ruling here? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Alex, i think you should try to rewrite the denial article, since you apparently claim that its a "marginal view", to reflect that. Psycology also originated with Freud - but its also not a "marginal view". (hint: X has been the origin of marginal views; X has originated the idea of Y; therefore Y is a marginal view - is a logical fallacy).

There is a large difference between the case of Calder and Plimer, in the first case there was no sources for the wording, in the latter there are such sources, and sources are the (only) objective way for WP. Here btw. is an objective indicator (for us personally) that Plimer is denying things: His claim that Volcanoes produce more CO2 than Man. (which is only one of many)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. Once again, to deny things is not the same as to be "in denial" of those things. If one believes that volcanoes produce more CO2 than man, then one may say, linguistically, that one "denies" that man produces more CO2 than volcanoes. It does not automatically follow that one is therefore "in denial" of the fact. Indeed, my feeling is that in these cases Plimer has simply not done his homework. Now, you might think this is a good indicator of "denialism" but that is WP:OR. Also, psychology didn't originate with Freud. Once again, the idea of "denial" in psychiatry is very controversial, as is the idea of the "subconscious". Most do not take any of this very seriously. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved analysis from climate change denial

I've moved your long analysis from Talk:Climate change denial to a subpage in your namespace User talk:Alexh19740110/denial analysis, and annotated this with a link and a move comment on the CCD page.

When using up so much space, i suggest you do it like this. And if you want it to go into talk space, then i suggest a more neutral analysis - your personal soap-box comments in between, do not belong in/on the article talk space in any circumstance. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WMC

WMC is known for trying to bait opposition by calling their words a "waste of time" or "rubbish". Don't bite, just ignore him, because if you do bite, he'll get his friends to pile on and before you know it, you're labelled a "tendentious editor". The "Ph.D" thing was another example. See WP:9STEPS. ATren (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, ATren. You words of moral support are much appreciated. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"What you do mean, I think, is that while you're prepared to subscribe to the concept when it pleases you, you will drop it as soon as it becomes inconvenient, as it is when discussing GW here." - More absurd bad faith assumptions. I've seen this before with WMC: he views you as being on "the other side", therefore he will never engage you, only bait you. Even if you try to "make nice" with him, he will twist your words against you, as he did here. He once criticized me for not putting "revert" in an edit comment, I apologized, then he criticized me for my wording apology! This went around a bit more, until I finally said "William, please craft an apology in words which are acceptable to you and I will sign it". That was the end of it. All that because he objected to my my long explanatory edit comment not containing the word "revert".

But, you can be sure, if I had taken the bait further, he'd have been on a noticeboard calling me disruptive, and I would have been the one getting warnings.

The only way to deal with it is to treat him as a hostile witness, e.g. address his points but ignore his insults. BTW, I am on his side for the most part, but he just thinks I'm not because I'm not in lock-step with his attempts to ridicule all the skeptics and deniers. ATren (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am probably on his side for the most part too. Right up to the point where he would say the whole thing is proven. But I enjoy the exchanges with people who disagree with me -- they're the ones that challenge you to learn and reconsider things. Your essays on civility are interesting. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that anyone would state that its "proven" - proof is simply not a concept in science. But there are varying degrees of confidence. For instance: When its said that humans are causing the increase in CO2, then the evidence base is so solid (the confidence so high), that disputing it becomes ridiculous. When we are talking about the contributions of various forcings to the late 20th century warming - the confidence is high, but by no means certain, but there are several lines of argumentation that are ridiculous (for instance stating that human contributions cannot contribute very much (or doesn't at all)). There is a large chasm of credibility, and scientific merit between the arguments from (Lindzen, Christy,..) and those from (Singer, Ball,...). [btw. this thread is not a very good example of cooperative spirit, assumption of good faith or trying to keep things objective instead of personal, ie. not a credit to either of you.] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm telling him not to take the bait in petty arguments. What is wrong with that? ATren (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Staying in the combative mood - eh? Try reading your post again... Ponder a bit on the "he'll get his friends" part, perhaps enlightenment will emerge. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

But isn't that exactly what happened on Talk:Solomon? :-) What I find amusing in all this is that nobody is denying that WMC's Ph.D comments are disruptive and unnecessary, even as they try to keep me from pointing it out as such. ATren (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What editor has WMC gotten "his friends" to do anything about on Talk:Solomon? (ie. what proves that comment?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's Talk:Lawrence Solomon, and two allies quickly showed up to remove my response to his provocation after I restored it. Do you agree with WMC continuing to harangue Alex on the Ph.D issue? This is from this morning: What you do mean, I think, is that while you're prepared to subscribe to the concept when it pleases you, you will drop it as soon as it becomes inconvenient, as it is when discussing GW here. If it was all just a minor misunderstanding, why is WMC continuing to assume bad faith? ATren (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but it seems that you've been badly bitten by the ABF-bug, so i'll take a bow. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I must be dreaming, these people at my talk page keep assuming bad faith! Look at this, Kim assumed ATren assumed Alex assumed William assumed Solomon assumed bad faith all the way to Adam! (Would anyone mind if we blame it all on the Devil?). Alex Harvey (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This has provoked me into making WP:FLEAS which I've intended for a while William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh c'mon. There's a funny side here, isn't there? :) Alex Harvey (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with WMC's essay. ATren (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Energy Probe

Hi Alex. I've blanked the article, the content is now in your user space - User:Alexh19740110/EnergyProbe. I also nominated it for speedy deletion as {{db-author}} (see WP:G7). The same I did with that redirect (nominated as {{db-redir}}). I hope everything is OK. Have a good day, and happy editing. Antonín Vejvančický (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! Alex Harvey (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring of talk

Re. [1]: Fine with me. Simply removing a comment leaves a mistaken impression of who talks to whom. Leaving a placeholder that is sufficient to maintain the context is completely acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Stephan. But I am not at all happy with the sockpuppet accusations standing. It appears to be a shocking double-standard to enforce strict talk page guidelines on me whilst allowing Raul654's remarks to stand. To argue as others did that it wasn't a "personal attack" to say that I "might be scibaby" is to defend a rather bizarre linguistic distinction. By implication, if I am scibaby, then I am a real bad person, right? To say I "might be" scibaby is logically equivalent to saying I "might be a real bad person who is and should be indefinitely blocked." It is therefore an implied personal attack, and I daresay a logician such as yourself knows full well what I'm talking about. I realise you're probably just trying not to rock the boat, so no hard feelings. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not rocking the boat? Sure... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The other boat. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

3rr

Be careful. -Atmoz (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not particularly worried, read WP:BLP please. The 3RR doesn't apply when there is an open BLP/N issue, as I mentioned in the edit summary of my third revert, and you are meanwhile supposed to be erring conservatively in favour of the good faith editors who disagree with you. You know that, of course. Arguably, you have just violated 3RR by reverting me three times but let's not quibble. Meanwhile, how on earth can you claim there is a "consensus" at the BLP/N when only a single uninvolved editor has commented and only a few hours have passed since the issue was raised? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"An open BLP/N issue" does not excuse 3RR violations. Otherwise every troll can drop a comment on BLP/N and claim immunity from edit warring rules. A real BLP issue is exempt from 3RR, but the consensus at BLP/N is clearly against you - no editor, whether "neutral" or not, has supported your unusual interpretation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue had been open for only a few hours, as I stated. BLP does very clearly and explicitly excuse 3RR violations. A number of admins have confirmed this for me. Yes, I suppose a troll could do that. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This comes up again and again. BLP excuses 3RR. *Claiming* BLP does not. People have been blocked for getting this wrong. Removing a notability template is certainly not exempt because it clearly doesn't fall within BLP William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Alex, I personally don't believe this is a BLP issue. It's simply a request for more/better sources. Having said that, I disagree with editors warring to keep material in while the BLP discussion is ongoing. There is no harm in removing the template for a few days while the discussion is occurring on BLP/N, and BLP policy explicitly exempts an editor from 3rr in these cases. I believe the consensus will support including the tag, and if so, it can be added back in with no harm done. ATren (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"...BLP policy explicitly exempts an editor from 3rr in these cases." - no, that is plain wrong. Please do not spread misinformation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." ATren (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

..."such removals" referring to BLP material, which the tag in question is not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

When someone raises a BLP issue on BLP/N, it is an open question until the discussion is complete. Even if you believe that it is not an issue (and I happen to agree on this particular point), the material should be kept out until a consensus is reached on the noticeboard. As such discussions only last a few days, generally, there is little harm in keeping a potential BLP issue out of the article until others have examined the concerns. ATren (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, this too is a false interpretation. You might just about argue this for marginal unclear material, but for stuff that is obviously irrelevant (like the tag) BLP should not be invoked William M. Connolley (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

But the point is, what is obvious to one editor may not be obvious to another, so the one with the BLP concerns should be given the benefit of the doubt in case they see something the rest of us may have missed. If it truly is an obvious misapplication, the problem will be resolved quickly in discussion, and the content will be re-added without fanfare. But it might turn out that there is a valid BLP concern in the view of other previously uninvolved editors, so the text should be kept out while the discussion is ongoing even if it appears obviously false. This, of course, has its limits; if the editor with BLP concerns keeps pursuing the issue after it is clear that his concerns are unwarranted -- i.e. multiple uninvolved editors concur with inclusion and no significant opposition is raised at BLP/N -- then at that point the BLP exemption no longer applies. ATren (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't apply to a clearly justified tag on an article. This is just a very poor example of wikilawyering, and clear abuse of BLP policy. Verbal chat 11:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP policy stresses taking a conservative approach, which means taking all good faith editor's concerns seriously enough to discuss them rather than revert-war. Sometimes, as in the case of the "see also" concerns of a few weeks ago, what seems "clear" at first may not be so clear after discussion. ATren (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that although you're wrong on this, you're never going to admit it. Taking the concern seriously doesn't preclude removing the tag William M. Connolley (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Once it was clear that people disagreed (and that the removal was wrong - which was clear from the beginning), then the tag should have remained in place until the discussion came to a different conclusion - which in this case isn't going to happen. The "see also concern" was also unfounded, as was shown at BLPN. Mentioning BLP isn't a trump card to do as you please, with the first to call BLP getting there way until after a month of tortuous discussion. This really is a pathetic case to try and champion BLP concerns with. Verbal chat 12:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(e.c. resp to WMC) No, it's clear that you're wrong on this - see, I can make arguments by assertion too! :-) I've made my argument clear in this discussion and will comment no further. In the future, please discuss good faith BLP concerns rather than edit-warring, even if you think they are "clearly" wrong. ATren (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me know when we get to a good faith BLP concern; there isn't one here (a BLP concern). Verbal chat 13:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of Anthony Watts with James Annan with respect to Wikipedia:Notability (people)

insert I removed the comments from the beginning of this thread that WMC objected to below (apologies to WMC, I should have put this insert here to make the context more understandable below earlier). Alex Harvey (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Readers might like to consider this argument against Watts' notability (with >300 mentions and/or features in the print media) against some of the other BLPs of marginally notable individuals who are friends of Wikipedians (or indeed Wikipedians themselves) to fully appreciate the double standard in claiming that Watts fails the very vaguely worded WP:BIO.

• James Annan: 14 news hits, fails WP:Notability (academics).

I don't think many people would have heard of James Annan. I only knew of him as a result of his intrusion into Richard Lindzen's Wikipedia biography. He's certainly neither famous, his blog doesn't get hit that much, and he hasn't published many papers. It's probably not stretching things to say that his mention in Lindzen's biography has made him considerably more famous than he would otherwise be. Love him or hate him, there's no doubt that A. Watts is more famous & notable. On this case, the revision history of Annan shows that Wikipedia has even politely allowed Dr. Annan to edit the biography himself, then has defended the subject's edits from vandals, and even gone further to congratulate him for correcting factual errors, adding references, and so forth. Further, the revision history at that page shows the same small group of editors who defend Annan's edits and his right to have a Wiki-bio are the same ones who are presently trying to delete Mr. Watts' biography altogether.

There are plenty of other similar examples of course but one will do. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Was there some reason you refused to use the talk page? And is there some reason that reverting by me is "edit warring" but reverting by you isn't? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You could have simply moved it to the talk page yourself, with a polite note indicating such, instead of simply removing it twice. Alex does not seem to have a lot of experience (particularly with deletions), so he may not have known that the talk page was more appropriate for such extended arguments. ATren (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Annan almost certainly meets WP notability requirements (imo), as he has an extensive publication record [2] and is pretty well-known in Climate Science. But his Wikibio barely even rises to stub grade. Bicycle brakes! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well... he's not an ISI Highly Cited Researcher, here. I can't see his name associated with any fundamental discoveries. All in all there seems to be about 15 peer-reviewed papers with him down as lead author. I think most professional academics have published as many papers. I guess that's the point, the bar for notability is not set very high in Wikipedia. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there some reason, Alex, that you can't talk for yourself? You have been quite prolix in the past. There, I'm up to three unanswered questions so I'll stop William M. Connolley (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't have much to add. What ATren said is pretty much right. On edit-warring, sure, for every edit war there are two edit-warring editors around. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh good, you're now talking. But you aren't taking the hint. You must be aware that Since William Connolley is edit warring looks like (is) a cheap shot at me. Belatedly acking down here that you're edit warring too doesn't help. ATren hasn't explained why you aren't using the deletion talk page *now*. Nor have you. The reason is...? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason is, I had no idea you wanted me to move this discussion to the deletion talk page. What you actually said there was, "Alex added an irrelevant section re JA; I've removed it. I don't think that should be here. If Alex wants to delete JA, then fine - he can AFD him. But he should not be using another article to prop up this one - that is an abuse of process." As hard as I try, I am not able to interpret that as an invitation to move the discussion to the deletion talk page. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WMC, cut it out. You removed his good faith comment (something you seem to be doing frequently lately), he restored it, you removed it again, so he took it here to his talk page to avoid reverting you again. And yet you still seem intent on pursuing him. He's not edit warring, you are. Removing his comment was completely unwarranted, removing it twice was disruptive, and pressing for an answer on why he isn't using the talk page (??) is bordering on harassment. Did you request he move it to talk when you twice removed his comment, or when you accused him of process abuse on talk? No. Did you move it to talk for him? No. Yet now you see fit to come here and badger him for it. This is WP:BAIT and WP:BITE, and it needs to stop now. ATren (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

ATren, you need to stop butting in where you aren't helpful. Unlike you, Alex doesn't believe in one sided edit warring. Removing his text from AFD was entirely correct. If you have a problem with that, therre is the delete talk page available for use as a first step, and Alex can use it too, even though so far he has refused repeated invitations to do so. You claims of harassment are absurd; go find something useful to do William M. Connolley (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I can respect a liberal attitude towards moving and deleting other editors' comments -- if it's genuinely your view that editors are within their rights to moderate the talk pages and keep things on topic. But over at Lindzen's talk page I tried very hard to have Raul654's off-topic speculation that I am a sockpuppet removed and there you edit-warred with me and also another editor to actually keep Raul's comments in, taking the hard line that removing or refactoring another editor's comment without their permission is just not on. On your list of suggestions on how else I might get that comments removed, you've pretty much said that without Raul's permission I can't. But if you think my comments are just irrelevant, you feel perfectly within your right just to delete them. Nevermind that a number of editors have disagreed that they're irrelevant. How is that not a double standard? (And on "repeated invitations" to discuss at the "deletion talk page" I'll have to say I'm by now completely confused as to what you want here.) Alex Harvey (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Now you've gone back to believing in one-sided edit warring (notice how you "tried very hard" but I "edit warred"? Any reason other than personal bias why you didn't write that the other way around? I notice you've now gracelessly removed your previous cheap shot [3] (it is best to strike these things rather than remove, because it makes subsequent discussion unintelligible) only to replace it with another one). At L, you tried to remove Raul's comments under NPA, which didn't apply. Had you tried to remove them as off-topic, you might have got a different result, if you hadn't already replied. Either way, the refactoring you did there was impermissible. But if you think my comments are just irrelevant, you feel perfectly within your right just to delete them. Yes. Nevermind that a number of editors have disagreed that they're irrelevant - so what? Are you really arguing that if someone else agrees with X then X is automatically permissible? I hope not. You do indeed seem to be confused. If you want advice on how to proceed, please ask for it simply and politely William M. Connolley (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WMC, you are WAY off base here. This is how you've gotten a reputation as a Wikipedia bully. Cut it out. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Consider my advice to ATren to be repeated to you William M. Connolley (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WMC, you seem to be arguing that the rules apply in one way to me and in another way to you. That is, you seem to see yourself as a sort of judge and enforcer of the rules. "So what?", you say, if others think the comments you deleted were in fact relevant. Well, unless you now believe that you are infallible as well I would invite you to sit down for a few minutes and consider the possibility that they are right and that you are wrong. Having done that, come back and tell me if you are still entitled to delete other editor's comments each time you consider them "irrelevant". Alex Harvey (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

you seem to be arguing that the rules apply in one way to me and in another way to you. No. Now settle down, read what I actually said William M. Connolley (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you really arguing that if someone else agrees with X then X is automatically permissible? I hope not. The problem is, this can be turned around: Are you really arguing that if you believe Y and someone agrees with you then Y is automatically permissible? Now tell me: do you or don't you admit a possibility that you are wrong? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you really arguing that if you believe Y and someone agrees with you then Y is automatically permissible?. No. Please see my advice just above. Now tell me - do not attempt to give me instructions William M. Connolley (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, just don't attempt to give me instructions either. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Paltridge

careful. There is nothing wrong with questioning a SPA about COI. This is not a PA. ► RATEL ◄ 03:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Asking someone not to edit their own pages is not an accusation of sockpuppetry. WTF did you get that idea from? He also edits pages on MEP, Paltridge's pet subject (other than AGW), so it's clear from this almost WP:SPA-like edit history, as well as his writing style, which is similar to the things GP has written, that he should be asked if he has a COI. He is capable of responding "No, I am not GP" in which case it's settled. ► RATEL ◄ 06:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

To state the obvious, you did not ask someone not to edit their own page. You told a new editor, Chjoagame, about whom you know nothing, that you suspect he's Paltridge, based on his style of writing(!), and warned him that he may have a COI. That is a strong assumption of bad faith and you have subsequently edit warred to prevent me removing the accusation under WP:RPA and WP:BITE. So why's Paltridge doing all this editing with a pseudonym. Don't you think Paltridge would have better things to do? And their writing style isn't even vaguely similar. This is all so way out there I don't know what to say. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to have a Bex and a little lie down, mate. Your edits on that page are becoming tendentious, like your edits on other pages where I've been present, so not surprising. Forking the book did not work for me. it was tagged for deletion and despite my protestations, deleted. The book made so little impression and was covered so sparsely in RSes that I haven't had the ammo to try again. ► RATEL ◄ 03:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, sorry can you provide any diffs of edits you regard as tendentious? How about the fact that no one has come forward to support you. Does that cause you to stop & consider that perhaps you're the tendentious editor here? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. Your supporters are part of what's been called the "denier cabal" on WP, the usual suspects. I just haven't bothered networking with my mates on my side for support ... too busy. Unlike you. ► RATEL ◄ 05:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, you need to recognise that just about every time you open your mouth, something wrong comes out, often wrong on many levels at once, as is the case here. You just said you haven't got time to ask your mates to help you, i.e. to WP:Tag_team. Um, you're not allowed to do that. Maybe what you meant to say was you haven't got time to build consensus for your position? Um, okay. But what is really strange, is that after declaring you don't have any time to collaborate yourself, your accusations against me are than I am refusing to collaborate! "Please work with me!" you cried. Despite the fact that there are, what, five other editors who have either explicitly or tacitly supported my view in the dispute (Chjoaygame, Arthur Rubin, Bilby, Borock, Unitanode), none of whom I have ever had any interactions with previously. And now you're railing for Arthur Rubin to be desysopped? This is totally bizarre, Ratel. My guess is that you need to start playing by the rules or you'll end up being banned. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We'll see. You were clearly itching for a fight before all this started, probably because you've lost almost every other debate you've engaged in elsewhere recently. I've had interactions with some of them before (AR, Bilby, Chjoaygame) and they are not (by any stretch of the imagination) unaligned editors. For some reason, the opposing cabal is not interested in this argument, probably because Paltridge is of paltry importance in the whole debate, and his book disappeared without a trace when it was published. They're keeping their ammo dry for bigger fish. ► RATEL ◄ 07:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I don't want to join an edit war, but I also don't want to have you blocked for breaking or gaming the three revert rule. Please stop edit warring on this article. If you can make consensus for what you want to say by producing an acceptable form of words or some other method of discussion then that will be a good way forward. --TS 23:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what on earth are you talking about? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Another civility warning

You should go apologise for [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And yet another

[5] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern but I regret to say that I view the BLP violations as more serious than the lapses of civility so apologies won't be offered on this occasion. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(a) there are no BLP concerns for that edit (b) even if there were, you can address those without muckslinging. If you are determined to be deliberately incivil then I will lower my opinion of you and consider you accordingly. But I urge you to reconsider William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If there were no BLP concerns I wouldn't have gained the support of several editors and at least one administrator in the previous escalations to BLP/N for the same issue. For an Australian to use the expression "with a bit of luck" in passing once, it doesn't follow that this person is a philosophical believer in Luck, as the editor whom you defending here is apparently bent on presenting in the biography. The use of "luck" in the text is pejorative; whether or not the editor can actually tell, I can't say. But he should be able to tell that he's been overruled by the previous two escalations at BLP/N and he seems determined to press on regardless. This is rather disruptive, and I should think you would agree. As far as me becoming cranky today, that is because I am human and after being harrassed by yourself and others for days at various pages you can see that I've finally run out of patience today. Sorry, perhaps I'll have a break for a little while. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this luck nonsense? Do me a a favour guv and actually read the f*ck*ng diff just for once William M. Connolley (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the first diff, obviously. On the second one, sure, it wasn't a BLP issue as such; it was just spiteful and petty. I believe the editor knew that someone would certainly object, and in that sense it was also disruptive. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is weird. There are two sections, with a diff in each. If you want to talk about the former, use that section (this is your talk page so you can do what you like of course, but if you mix things between sections don't expect people to understand you). But the important point is your failure to apologise for mudslinging, which is noted. If you're too cranky to edit, don't edit William M. Connolley (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, WMC, please stop harassing Alex. ATren (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ATren, one warning is enough. Keeping on about it in several places reminds me of some behaviour that should be avoided, but I can't quite remember the name of it. Verbal chat 14:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

He continues to harass after the first warning, so that warrants a second warning. He needs to stop this. ATren (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to stop brushing Alex's incivility under the carpet and pretending that he has apologised when he clearly hasn't, and stop this gross hypocrisy William M. Connolley (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is pointless quibbling and a waste of time. All parties are fully aware about all parties' opinions on all parties, and are unlikely to change them based on snide remarks. Please stop posturing and wasting bits. Bits are a finite resource. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I would appreciate if you didn't refer to my edits as vandalism. Especially when they are clearly appropriate. -Atmoz (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you believe you can justify these deletions of external links as appropriate you may want to contribute to the discussion here. You are correct, as William Connolley and friends have been repeating on page after page throughout the entire Wikipedia for the last 12 hours, that it was wrong to use the V word. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If that is intended as an apology, it is singularly graceless William M. Connolley (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

William and friends, a more fulsome apology might follow an effort by Atmoz to explain, with references to actual Wikipedia guidelines, why he deleted the links to Anthony Watts' home pages in the first place. Whilst it was against Wikipedia policies for me to describe his deletions as acts of "vandalism" (which I do regret), it is still very difficult for me to go much further along the path of apology without understanding why he did it. Presently he asserts at my talk page that they were "clearly appropriate", yet a consensus of editors has restored them to the article, albeit with a new format. As a Christian I am sure you would agree that genuine apologies need mutual understanding. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your PA was [6]. This follows Atmoz's [7]. As Atmoz delicately hinted once is enough. I was more explicit: revert PA by AH; they are in the lede; please get over this flinging around accusations of vandalism). In other words, your question has already been answered, twice, but you were, apparently, in far too much of a hurry to listen. I await a more fulsome and graceful apology. You could add an apology for your last graceless edit comment here, as well William M. Connolley (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

William, is this how you treated people who didn't behave "properly" in your parish in Coten? Tell me about this edit or this one or this one or this one or this one or this one or this one or this one? These are all of your edits just within the last 48 hours. None of it is very nice, or polite, some of it is insulting; removing other's comments because you don't like them is wrong; you're swearing. If Atmoz wants an apology that's for Atmoz to say. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm de-watching here. Talking to you is not rewarding William M. Connolley (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyhoo... I removed one set of links after you added them a second time. I have no strong opinions if they should be linked in the article or in the external links section. But they should only need to be linked once. -Atmoz (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz, that's good enough for me. You seem to be a fair and reasonable editor and I'm sorry for the "vandalism" accusation. There was a lot of stuff going on simultaneously that had nothing to do with you and suffice to say I was already very angry about something else when I saw the changes at A. Watts and overreacted. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

BLPN response

Regarding this question: it takes two to tango. (Insert appropriate music here.) If you really want a third-party to respond, you need to not respond to those who are already involved. Even if someone responds and you think it deserves a response, don't. Because then they'll respond to you, and then you'll respond to them, and pretty soon there's a wall of text so large that nobody is going to read it. If you want to head involved responses at the pass, you should inform those editors of the discussion and mention that in your initial post. That way if they respond any non-involved editors will immediately know that you consider them to be involved in the dispute. Something as simple as:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Pellentesque luctus, lorem sit amet condimentum feugiat, augue enim iaculis tortor, sit amet suscipit neque enim ut leo. Nunc viverra venenatis ligula eu faucibus. Donec eget dolor nunc. Curabitur at ullamcorper lectus. Duis tincidunt velit vel augue laoreet ut faucibus sem tincidunt. Integer ut metus dignissim tellus ullamcorper pulvinar. Vivamus in dui nisi, malesuada gravida lorem. Nulla facilisi. Etiam quam elit, porttitor vel lobortis a, sagittis ac lectus. Suspendisse quis consectetur urna. Donec et velit eu massa vulputate tempus. Aliquam in augue volutpat augue cursus dignissim. I have informed the following involved editors of this thread: editor1, editor2, editor3, etc.

If you don't want to post notices to multiple editor talk pages, you can do it on the article talk page. In fact, that may be a better way of doing it. Be sure to name all those involved and not just those that disagree with you. That's more than 2¢ worth, probably at least 3¢. -Atmoz (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have tried many times politely asking involved editors not to respond but in all cases these polite suggestions have been ignored. What generally happens next is that an editor appears who makes a comment making it sound like he's an uninvolved editor but it generally turns out the editor, whether technically involved in the dispute or not, still has a history of editing the article, or related articles, and I find that the comment is often quite misleading. If my good faith summary of the original issue is then overwhelmed by a number of misleading responses from editors who are not always transparent about their prior or present involvement in the dispute, I don't think there's any choice but for me to respond in order to clarify this. All said, though, I agree with you in principle. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And I should like to add, I have generally made a sincere effort to summarise both sides of the argument in my noticeboard postings, which I think everyone should do. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

t:GP

You said I would like to say here very publicly that I feel humiliated by this. It isn't clear exactly what light you've seen; assuming this is recognising that We're talking about the same diffs. is in error, then you have a number of comments on t:GP to strike. In addition, some expression of regret for wasting everyones time would be good William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

WMC, this is now the third time I'm asking you politely: please cease your incivil tone towards Alex Harvey. There is nothing to be gained by you accusing Alex of "wasting everyone's time". Many points that Alex has raised are valid and the articles are better for him having raised them, and your continued insinuation otherwise is WP:BITE at best, WP:HARASS at worst. You are a well-respected editor here and this kind of behavior is beneath you. ATren (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you're butting in here, or why you think this is helpful. You need to read AH's recent comments at t:GP and stop making a bad situation worse William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

William, when you calm down you might read back through that thread a second time and you'll probably understand both the point I was making, and see that we were talking about the same two diffs all the time. I provided a second, earlier diff only to show that it was actually an admin who had initially described our friend's edits as vandalism. You now have two apologies and given the amount of time you've spent seeking them, I assume you are satisfied. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No: as I've said above, I'm not. But I have run out of inclination to chase you; I posted here in response to your request for comment on t:GP, in the (unfulfilled) hope that you meant it William M. Connolley (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to use BLP as a "hammer"

This [8] is a content dispute - not a BLP issue. Please try to differentiate between these. BLP is not a hammer to be used when you do not like content. You cannot use it as a Veto.

If there is something wrong with the sources - then raise it on talk. If you think there is undue weight provided to it - then raise it on talk. But please only use BLP when it is clearly a BLP concern. Otherwise you end up shouting Wolf one time too many. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate you sticking up for me. Before I found my “calling”, as it were, I was a Sheriff’s deputy for nearly six year. In all that time the one consistent complaint that I saw from the public and the most valid one, was that laws and rules are not applied uniformly. Based on my brief experience here, I think something similar is a foot. BluefieldWV (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on longer experience, you got that right. Thanks for stepping in. Hi, Alex. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP or not BLP

Alex, I have no position on that block. I haven't even read the pages involved. I just think it's irrelevant to the policy questions involved. Some editors are using this situation to actually *weaken* BLP policy by fiddling with the language. What's needed is to strengthen or certainly to not weaken BLP. I don't like the idea of an editor's individual actions being used as an excuse to make an adverse change to BLP.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please see here. Thanks, Master of Puppets 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this just a FYI? I wasn't edit warring at that page was I? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you intend this?

This self-revert removed Ratel's comment too, was that your intent? ATren (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, an accident; I'm restoring Ratel's comment as we speak. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is going too far

Calling it OR to say a "small percentage"[9] when the source[10] specifically says Watts at that point had checked 40 out of 1221 stations.... I'm sorry - but not mimicking the language of the source is not original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not about not mimicking the language, and it's not about "small percentage". The problem is the editorially-inserted value judgement word "only" and the quote-mining.

Here is the source:

Watts, who says he's a man of facts and science, isn't jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. But he said Tuesday that what he's finding raises doubts about NOAA's past and current temperature reports.

"I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

And here is what you have in the text (or at least what you're defending):

After only a small percentage of stations had been surveyed Watts predicted that the result of the SurfaceStations.org effort would ultimately be "to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

What happened to the bit about him not jumping to any conclusions? What happened to Watts' acknowledgement that 40 out of 1221 stations wasn't enough to declare a victory?

And keep in mind that Davey and Pielke (2005, BAMS) had already made similar predictions based on their own research. Thus Watts had reason to already have a view of what the outcome would be that had nothing to do with his 40 stations surveyed.

Also you can move this thread to the talk page if you like. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Motives

[11] Create any cognitive dissonance? I still can't work out if you're genuinely skeptical but misguided, or if something more sinister is afoot. ► RATEL ◄ 00:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, I've already seen that. It appears to be a dreadful straw man argument. "Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped — thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple." But... um... who says this? I have never heard a serious skeptic make this argument. So it looks like more propaganda to me.

Meanwhile, to help you understand where I'm coming from I've been thinking I might actually clarify my own view of global warming. When I do that I'll add it to my main user page. In a few words, though, I don't pretend to know what has caused recent global warming, but I do believe (know) that many of those who are claiming "the science is settled" are exaggerating their certainty and pretending not to have doubts. I have a passionate belief that nothing good can or will come from decisions or actions based on distortions of the Truth. I also don't like Wikipedia being used to further distortions of the truth. So nothing sinister is afoot! :) Alex Harvey (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Concern about BLP violation

I am restoring this section to its new home here at my talk page since editors are (still) edit warring to remove it from the talk:Garth Paltridge talk page. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It is essential to get the facts right, especially when dealing with WP:BLP. This is noted here with respect to alleged ties to the petroleum industry and Lavoisier Group. Awickert (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

---

[moved and titled by Awickert (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)]

aside I have been digging for some hard evidence of affiliation and still haven't found any but what I have found is evidence that this Wikipedia article has already started to cause damage, see here. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that really the best you can do? There is no evidence of damage there, merely that this article has been quoted William M. Connolley (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that there is no problem with evidence that Wikipedia has misinformed a member of the public and the faulty message is now reproduced at ABC online (e.g. "Paltridge accepted money from the oil industry", "Paltridge is a member of the Lavoisier Group", etc.) then I would have to agree with you that there is no damage done. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you linking to fourm comments? I could post in that forum right now saying he rapes goats. Hipocrite (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the whole point is that someone copy-paste cited Wikipedia in a way that made known that it is essential that we get facts correct. I'm sure enough about that that I'm going to archive this thread. Awickert (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• This above comments are an abuse of the Talk page and must be removed. Editor Alex Harvey has cited off-wiki anonymous comments as reason for altering the page content. This is not to be tolerated. I could make any number of anonymous comments on any number of comment pages and then cite them here as reasons for swaying the argument my way. This devious ploy falls outside Talk page guidelines and is, per these quidelines, subject to removal, namely:

Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article.

If there are any genuine BLP concerns, raise them at the appropriate noticeboard. If no cogent reasons are given for inclusion of the above comments, they will shortly be removed. ► RATEL ◄ 23:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I restored, responded, and archived, in such a way that is consistent with the WP:TALK guidelines. I interpreted the topic to be a cautionary tale about BLP that is relevant to the article at hand and the above discussion. Therefore it satisfies "keep on topic". It is certainly not forum-ey; it is about concerns over BLP on the article, this is very clear at least to me. And if consensus still fails here, then the BLP noticeboard is the way to go, but I find handling things on talk without requesting the administrative sledge is often much, much better.

In any case, it's over, it's done, it's archived, let's not dig it up from the grave and have another several-day edit war. Maybe it's not satisfying to you or to many others, but it seems that dropping the issue is the way to make the issue stop wasting everyone's time. Also, This [Alex's] devious ploy is WP:ABF. If that's where this has gotten, might be a good time time to take off and sniff the roses (or fresh snow, whatever). Awickert (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked for cogent reasons. "Cautionary tales", your judgement about the low value of the BLP noticeboard, and an "it's done, let it be" argument do not meet the cogency criterion. ► RATEL ◄ 07:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but they sure meet the maturity criterion. This debate has totally killed my plan to end this WP:LAME-qualifying edit war in a stalemate that would be forgotten so that progress could be made on this low-importance biography. Do you realize that we are doing nothing for the article at the moment? As to your judgement about the low value of the BLP noticeboard, please let me say what I think on my own; I am quite capable of doing that. I will rephrase if that makes it easier: let's only get the whole community involved if it's a big enough issue to take up all of their time as well. And as to your edit summary, you insinuate that I am just here to make nonsensical comments. Why would I take my time on something I don't care about to do something like that?

But go ahead, delete this, and let the edit war continue. Orrrr... collapse this little discussion and add it to the archive and let it gather dust. In either case, I'm signing off of this thread. Awickert (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (2nd nomination)Steve Dufour (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find this article interesting and useful as a future source

Climate change data dumped http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

not sure if you caught this over the weekend but figured you would appreciate its significance. In summary all of the source (raw) data used by the CRU to support their climate change claims has been deliberately destroyed (to make room for an office move in their explanation). Now no method exists to verify any of their theories. This appears to be consistent with Phil Jones documented animosity towards releasing any data ala FoIA as well as his documented requests to destroy data in advance of and subsequent to FoIA requests.Jgeddis (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I don't think that Phil Jones was responsible for the data destruction and I think the Times Online piece is unreliable. Pielke Jr has put this into better context on his blog here. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex, have you seen a better MSM disc. of this than the Times? -- which, I agree, has bloopers. If so, I'll sub over at my (long suffering) CRU draft, here. Thx, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Lindzen

Since we have a group of very experienced editors behaving badly over at Lindzen's biography page at the moment, I have decided to link here his recent WSJ response to the CRUgate scandal. The Climate Science Isn't Settled. I would welcome any comments, and support in getting editor Atmoz's & blogger John Quiggin's latest smears against Richard Lindzen removed from his biography. It is interesting to see out there, right now, who has learnt something from CRUgate, and who hasn't. For more information, see Talk:Richard_Lindzen#Health_Risks_of_Smoking_Section. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to talk sense to an editor

I appreciate your peaceful efforts. In my opinion the editor will reject anything perceived as painful to their existence. [12] The common cure is to have them realize the true source of their pain which causes them to jump around with the monkey mind. Avoid jumping away and stay focused on the root cure. (Which at present, the cure seems to be directed externally at eliminating me. This will not solve the problem because there are many like me an one of them). To me, rejecting BLP is an strong indication of rejecting thier pain and projecting it to others. It also indicates a strong disregard to WP:civil. Enough psychobabble for now. Regards Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Assessment Uncertainty Characterizations

So... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Assessment Uncertainty Characterizations. I don't think your attitude there is at all helpful.

• At the time you voted keep, the article was a pointless stub [13]. Were you voting to keep the pointless stub, or the version that ZP5 erased?
• Several editors (including me) have described the unstubbed version as incomprehensible mostly, and where not incomprehensible, OR. Your keep vote appears to accept the claims of OR and dodge the claims of incomprehensibility.
• And finally, what exactly is the difference between "move to userspace" and "delete"? Move is certainly incompatible with keep - obviously, if the article is moved to userspace it cannot continue to exist as a redirect to usespace. Did you mean "move, but without prejudice to recreation when sane"?

Finally, I cannot help but believe that your voting with GR and against everyone else is more a reflection of your dislike of the current scientific viewpoint than it is an expression of belief that the article says anything worthwhile (indeed, if you did think it said anything wirthwhile, why aren't you unstubbing it?).

William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I am simply noting that ZP5 has done a fair bit of work on the article and it's just not very nice to delete it with a comment, "incomprehensible." By voting "keep", I am suggesting with GoRight that we move it from the wikispace to a user space, fix up the article -- you could even help him -- and move it back. By voting "delete", I would be arguing that such a page should not exist, at all. That is not my view. It has nothing to do with whether I "like" or "dislike" the current scientific viewpoint (everyone should "dislike" the idea that we're headed for disaster, regardless of whether or not it's true). You are surely not about to tell me that "there is no uncertainty in climate science"? So, it is a valid topic, and we should indeed have a page on it (unless, of course, we already do? If so, then I might change my mind). And for what it's worth, the CRUgate leak/hack has actually, ironically, reduced my skepticism somewhat. This new openness has convinced me that there is, indeed, broad support within the climate science community for the basic idea that CO2 is causing enough warming to be a problem -- even if we can't exactly say how much. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're listening. If you mean "userify" then your vote should say that. "keep" is not the same thing at all. You're making various other mistakes but lets try to sort this one out first William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Still think ZP5 is making a serious effort to improve wiki [14]? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ping William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have given him good advice, I think. I hope he'll listen. If not, I can't help it. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Weak, but diplomatic. You still need to answer the Q above (your userify/keep confusion) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to decide if you're serious, or a joke. If you're serious, you need to provide an answer William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Be assured, I won't bully you into an opinion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The answer is, you're hounding me into answering a question about something I regard as utterly irrelevant, whilst I am busy. You have my permission to strike "keep" and change it to "userify" (that is, if you are serious, and there is such a word, and it will make even the slightest difference to anything). Alex Harvey (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

restored comment

Kim D. Petersen has [15] removed the following question under WP:NPA. I am restoring it here. The context is, poor Kim claiming that he has no choice but to allow whatever appears in the reliable sources to appear in a BLP. Kim, of course, forgets this quite a lot, on other BLPs. I have asked:

I see, and at this point, as always, dear Kim, you become that poor, helpless automaton, who wishes he could do something about the content of the "reliable sources" but, alas, they are what they are, and as a Good Wikipedian, you can't. You just can't. You try; you wrestle with the ethics of smearing a living scientist's professional reputation, but a spade just is a spade, and for some strange reason, you also find, every time the reliable sources say something negative about a climate change skeptic, the WP:WEIGHT parameter just seems to immediately revert to infinity. It does! And you just can't stop it! I mean, climate change skeptics are Evil. Right? On the other hand, when the reliable sources say bad stuff about climate change heroes (e.g. Michael E. Mann), the WP:WEIGHT parameter reverts instead to zero. They are Good. Is this pretty much right?

a very good video

For those IPCC advocates who are hard of learning, this video shows pretty much where the public is right now: [16]. It's very funny, too. A must see. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"This video is no longer available because of a copyright claim by Viacom" but I guess the fact I am prepared to go and take a look tells you something. --BozMo talk 19:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Too bad, it was rather funny. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the video was funny. Here is another news piece, then, to show where the public is at with respect to Climategate: [17]. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Collaborative drafting

You might also try creating a draft at Talk:Richard Lindzen/rewrite or something and inviting participation there. When it is ready, it can be copied to mainspace with a note in the edit summary pointing to the relevant history. I am in general in favor of not coatracking and of determining balance of coverage by weighting according to what the independent sources deem relevant. It is not precisely on topic, obviously, but last I checked WP:FICT did a nice job of emphasizing the point. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF

Alex, you are going over and beyond the bounds. If you are incapable of assuming good faith, then it is time to meditate, calm down or consider if being here is good for you. Your comment here[18] is just one of many in the last week that directly accuse your fellow editors of bad faith. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't directly accuse anyone specifically of anything. Calm down, Kim, and consider that you are wrong. I am trying to help whoever wrote that text to see what it looks like to general public. I am trying to help you all save a bit of time. I did not imply that it was intended to mislead, but that it looks like it was intended to mislead. And it does look that way, and many readers will draw precisely the same conclusion. Bring on mediation, if you think that's necessary. Alex Harvey (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Then i think you should refactor this particular sentence "Any one of our millions of readers can see, here, that the editors don't care a bit about misrepresenting Singer's view, because the editors frankly don't like him". My comment here did not originate from that sentence though, it comes from an array of statements you've made lately where you accuse your fellow editors of acting in bad faith. I'm saying this because i think you are raising some good points - many of which i disagree with, but still respect. And i'd expect that you would come to my talk-page to state the same thing if i was going "over the fence". I try hard not to see people in a bad light, and not to infere what they may or may not think, or what their motives might be, that kind of thinking (to my view) is self-sustaining and leads to judgements that are wrong. So please take this as advice, and well meant at that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex, please cut out the personal attacks and comments [19] - you are stepping way past what is acceptable. Calm down, step away from the keyboard and make some Tea or Coffee if you are too angry[20] to be civil. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't let them bait you

Alex, they've been making outrageous arguments for years to defend their POV, and then when reasonable editors like you get angry and lash out, they go to DR and present you as the problem, and soon you're conveniently out of the way. These BLPs are a mess, I agree, and they need to be fixed, but flaming out doesn't do you any good. Take a step back and come back when your (justifiable) anger subsides.

I think there is a serious NPOV problem in this topic area, but it is only obvious if you compare articles from one side to the other. NPOV policy is pretty silent on this particular issue, and whenever I try to bring it up they cite (mistakenly) OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I think there may be a policy hole here and I may take it to the NPOV noticeboards next. It can't be NPOV to apply one set of weight/RS/BLP standards to proponents and a completely different one to skeptics.

Reasonable uninvolved editors will agree (because our position is more reasonable and logical), but it will never get to that point if editors like you flame out defending a single BLP. Think of the big picture here. I was once in a war that lasted two years on a single article - look at my edit stats to find out what it is :-). I see this one going on MUCH longer, since there are a large number of entrenched editors who are used to simply dictating their will. So think of the big picture here, let Lindzen go for a bit, calm down, and return when your anger has subsided. ATren (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Whilst editors are allowed to hide behind a silly mantra, "assume good faith", that effectively inhibits free speech, I don't think these discussions are going to go anywhere. Imagine a parliament that was bound by a mantra, "assume good faith." Imagine if the Speaker of the House regular admonished the members of parliament for not "assuming good faith." The fact is, "assume good faith" only works if everyone, firstly, chooses to act in good faith. And that, as we all know, is unrealistic. I agree, we should assume good faith to a point. But then, there is, for instance, a well known debating tactic, known as the "black is white slide". How that works is, in a Socratic style dialogue, a defender of one position is driven to a point where he must either contradict himself, or assent to an absurd position. At this point, the debater should do the honourable thing, and concede defeat, and reconsider where he went wrong. Of course, if he wants to, he can also just go ahead and assent to that absurd position -- just call out, "no, black is white!" That leaves his opponent with two options: He can (1) call his opponent and assert, "You do not believe that," i.e. violate WP:AGF, or (2) say that his opponent is either crazy, stupid, in denial, so forth, i.e. violate WP:CIVIL. As such, the debater with the untenable position then becomes the one who is fully protected, and the person who has won the point has to concede defeat??? Rubbish, if editors will not act in good faith, they should be called on it. Sure, with as much civility as you can muster. I can't see any other way. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Back off

I've cut a pile of personal irrelevance from RL. If you have questions that are specifically addressed to anyone, put them on their talk page. And please get out of the habit of attacking people based on their wiki pages - I would have hoped you'd have learn something from the sad end of your doing that to me William M. Connolley (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex, this is just more baiting, I suggest you remove it. Be the bigger man and don't play the games others play. ATren (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying that the comments where alright, and didn't violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? (since you seem to say that the removal is "baiting"?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, I commented on his outburst above. I was specifically referring to the condescending "I would have hoped you'd have learn something from the sad end of your doing that to me". WMC has a history of trying to bait Alex (shall I bring up the "who you calling doctor" fiasco again?) and this looks to be more of the same. ATren (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You can bring that up again if you think AH might learn from it. But I think he has already understood his errors on that issue - if only you'd understand yours. But why are you butting in here, and reviving memories of what was a painful incident for AH? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

William, you can remove the personal irrelevances from the talk page at RL, but what can't you do is change the fact that I am right . Alex Harvey (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion with Stephan

As William has (correctly) removed the whole hubub from t:RL, I'll repeat this question here. Do you think there are any circumstances in which "does your employer know about your Wikipedia contributions" is ever an acceptable approach to a discussion? If no, please state so clearly and unambiguously. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you have misquoted me, no, I will not answer you. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not quote you at all, but that's how it arrived on my end. If you intend another interpretation, explain. Why do you think any participants employer should ever be relevant or mentioned in a discussion? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You did, actually, misquote me, directly above, and if you were not meaning to misquote me, I guess, you should have made clear that you were paraphrasing. Otherwise, you appear to be simply be misrepresenting me, which is worse than assuming bad faith, I would think.

For the record, what I said was, and I paraphrase myself now, "Does the university that employs you also support the abuse of Wikipedia to smear the reputations of great living scientists, viz. Richard Lindzen?" If you interpreted something different, that's fine; you're human too.

To answer your question, though, are there any circumstances where it is acceptable to bring your employer into the equation, I'm not sure. I'll ask Kirk-Davidoff for you, if he feels that it's acceptable that he's been brought in this way you've done into Richard Lindzen's biography. I am inclined to think, no, there probably is no circumstance where my remark would have been appropriate, and I apologise. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And further to this, whilst I am sorry to have made this remark in the talk page, it is a serious question, and something you should consider. I am not threatening here to actually write to your university and make a formal complaint, but do you not see the possibility that your Wikipedia activities could become an embarrassment to them? I remind you, that you, too, have chosen to become a public figure, just as Lindzen did. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm well capable of standing up for my actions - I'm kinda grown up. You also seem to labour under a misapprehension. I did not "bring Kirk-Davidoff in". Seed did. I don't know who brought Seed as a source into the article - it was not me, either. The thing I objected to was discarding KD's opinion as that of "just a former student" when, in fact, he probably is one of the most qualified people to issue an opinion. Your apology is appreciated and accepted. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remove this thread from my talk page, or I will, and contact me privately, alexharv074 @ gmail . com. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I do know who brought in the Seed Magazine quote; it was John Quiggin, another academic, from Queensland, Australia. I was not discarding KD on the basis that he was merely a former student, but on the basis that he is almost certainly, and pretty obviously, frankly, taken out of context in the Seed article, i.e. there is just simply, obviously no context given. It is, therefore, an unreliable source, for how it is actually used. Meanwhile, it won't surprise me a bit to hear back from Kirk-Davidoff that he's been bitter about that article ever since it was published. But, I could be wrong, and maybe he'll respond with his full approval. We'll see. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ATren and others

Thank you, ATren, and also the other administrators who have quietly supported my position, if not my temper. You are, of course, correct, and I'll concede defeat to our climate change gang what they'll hopefully, maybe, possibly, soon, or one day, realise is yet another Pyrrhic victory at Lindzen, and return after New Year. Meanwhile, I will certainly write to Dr. Kirk-Davidoff to find out how he feels about Wikipedia's abuse of his voice to smear his respected teacher's reputation. My suspicion is, he will not be very impressed. I'll keep you all informed, so watch this space. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

General apology

I would like to make a general apology to the community, that I am a highly emotional person, and I have bad temper, and I have always had it, as have others in my family, and I am not sure that there is much I can do to change it. Once I snap, I lose control, and I am indeed fair game for baiting. This evening, I was literally shaking in anger. On the other hand, I am genuinely here to help, and moreover, I am here to help those on both sides of the debate. I have no hard feelings against any of you, neither William, nor Kim, nor Stephan. William, I believe, is not unlike me in some ways. Kim, I believe, is a very decent person. Stephan, is usually a good administrator, from what I've generally seen. I genuinely want you all to see that the BLPs are a problem, and that you are presently part of the problem, not the solution, and that if you listened to what I was saying, not stopped seeing me as the enemy, simply because I am somewhat skeptical of the climate change theories, we could work together. For the record, I consider myself a centrist. I believe that action to stop fossil fuel use is a good idea -- even if I am not sure if CO2 is causing all the warming. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex, i don't see you as an "opponent"/"enemy" - i just do not agree with you, which is an entirely different thing. Generally i consider you a value to WP, since i believe the disagreements come more from perspective than anything else. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lindzen, more comments deleted

Since the Kim D. Petersen & William M. Connolley are edit warring with others to stop a remark of mine appearing in the Lindzen talk page, I restore it here, as I generally do when they delete comments without justification, [21].

I will return January 12th, to bring more and more and more attention to Wikipedia's proposition that 625 words for Lindzen's career against 1472 words to discrediting his stance on global warming is "balanced". To the various editors who have contacted me privately expressing support, I suggest that you make that support public, and move forwards from the days where the whole of Wikipedia bends to the will of a small group of advocates. To anyone else who finds this article offensive, please see that all focus needs to begin and end with this fundamental lack of balance, and that Wikipedia is not, to quote Lawrence Solomon the other day, "the missionary wing of the global warming movement", but instead, a free encyclopaedia, which is what I thought it was, years ago, when it first appeared, and has served me so usefully as a resource throughout my career. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have, by the way, written to Kirk-Davidoff, although he hasn't responded at this stage. I'll let you all know ASAP on his view of this matter, if he's willing to share it with me, and willing to let me share it with others.

Alex Harvey (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"delete comments without justification" is ignoring the edit-comment i made[22] - i'll present it here: "remove per WP:TPG - try without soapboxing". In other words - it was removed because you violated the talk page guide by using it as a soapbox. Start a blog if you want to vent your frustration. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

given that one of the opposing editors represents Wikipedia as an Administrator (i.e. SBHB).

I don't see Boris abusing his admin bit. Indeed, his admin bit appears to be irrelevant. Going further, his admin bit appears to be absent. What makes you think otherwise? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

William, I did not say anywhere that Boris abused his admin bit. What I said is, it looks bad. Alex Harvey (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What looks bad? That Boris is involved in the discussion? (note that he is not an admin - which was what WMC hinted at). Another thing: Admins aren't special, they are editors like the rest of us mortals. Yes, they have the ability to block - but if they do that spuriously - they will end up badly. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As Kim said: what looks bad? Boris isn't an admin, as I said fairly explicitly and as Kim has amde absolutely explicit. More importantly, even if he had an admin bit it would be irrelevant. Your focussing on imaginary admin bits looks like an attempt to exclude Boris from the discussion, or slight his contributions William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks people, Boris is not an admin. I thought he was. I'll go correct that. Thanks, as always, for making me a better person! Alex Harvey (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question here. What is it that looked bad? And you could at the same time answer: What difference would it make whether he was an admin or not? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And... You've now left it saying "but the situation is difficult, given that..." This no longer makes any sense. You reason for it being difficult has now vanished. Is the situation still difficult (but for a different reason) or is it now not difficult? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Good pick-up, William. You're right; the sentence doesn't really seem to go anywhere now does it. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A test

So far, your interest in BLP violations has been, to my view, rather one-sided. So why not come over to Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri and help there? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

William, a funny test given that I've already indicated that I'll be offline until 12th January. Anyhow, still here, for a few more hours, and I've made a comment supporting your correct appeal to the BLP policy. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(e.c. x 2) WMC, you obviously know Alex is going to be away until mid-January. How do I know you know? Because you've edit-warred to remove the comment where he announced it. So my question to you is: how am I to assume this "test" of yours was executed in good faith? Alex has been reaching out to you for months trying to find common ground, and you've been nothing but rude and condescending; yet today, the day he announces he will be away for 2 weeks you decide to "test" his willingness to work with you, knowing full well he'll be unable to.

So what is this about? Trying to prove a point? More baiting? Trying to get him to react badly so you can get a friendly admin can ban him? Really.

Please retract this offer or I will, because from my perspective it could not have been made in good faith. ATren (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In which way was i incorrect in what i added? If the letter is a fact and the conflict of interests on [[23]] is correct then why should it not be added? Thank you for your time. mark nutley (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What the heck? atren how can he be away if he replied? mark nutley (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

To Mark Nutley, welcome to Wikipedia ;-). It seems you need to calm down a little. :) Anyhow, Pachauri may or may not have a conflict of interest, but we nevertheless have a guideline here -- and you may disagree with the guideline, but it's there -- that we don't add contentious material to biographies of living people. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(BTW, the point ATren is making is that I announced last night that I was going to be away until January 12th, although, as it happens, I haven't left yet, but no one could have known that, other than myself. Certainly I will really have left the building within, say, four hours, or thereabouts.) Alex Harvey (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok and thank you. Enjoy your holidays :) mark nutley (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF and NPA

This [24] is way beyond what is acceptable under WP:TPG. If you have troubles with my editing then i suggest that you prepare for an RfC/U somewhere in userspace. Now i know that you at times have problems with your temper (at least you've said so), but your continued assumptions of bad-faith and critique directed at persons and not edits are getting problematic. There are appropriate venues for this, but article talk pages are not such a venue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, two of us have now found evidence of tendentious editing from you, and we haven't even started looking yet. There is bound to be more as we actually start looking for stuff, probably in the coming weeks as we prepare the RFC or RFC/U. So I suggest you take a step back and think about how your "Exxonsecrets.com is sufficient sourcing for a skeptic but major newspapers on 3 continents is not enough for proponents" argument will fly when presented to a neutral audience.

Alex, I suggest we remove our comments there, before they start calling us Scibaby and trying to topic ban us. I'm removing mine. Let's keep it 100% professional on our end. ATren (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

ATren, if you think that i'm doing tendentious editing, then i suggest that you collect evidence and start up an RfC/U, although the easier way at the moment would be through Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Article talk space is certainly not the correct venue. Btw. i'm rather certain that even if you consider doing an RfC/U, it is not an excuse for incivility, and wild accusations (the scibaby thing) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what we're doing, filing an RFC. As for the rest, please. ATren (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Please" what? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No matter, I'm disengaging. ATren (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, instead of using TPG and AGF as a shield, how about addressing the contradiction I have raised? I have unambiguously demonstrated tendentious editing at that page. Assume good faith is fine, but as I have shown, your arguments are not made in good faith. The reality here is that you owe the community an apology for this and other incidents. Yet, instead, you preach to us standards that you are clearly not following yourself. Do you agree? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, I am not actually assuming good faith. My sincere belief, actually, is that you have lost all objectivity by this stage. You are too close to these issue, emotionally. You cannot see what you are doing. That is what I think. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Alex. Unsurprisingly i do not agree. You are free to join ATren in his creation of an RfC/U, or create a parallel one, where you can vent all your concerns about my conduct - but article talk space is not an appropriate venue for such problems. But using article talk space for this is simply not an acceptable conduit for this - and that is what TPG and AGF are about. Use the appropriate forums, please. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The articles in question fall under the climate change probation. Why not just file a request for enforcement? --TS 18:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just guessing, but perhaps because the last non-GW-proponent editor who filed a report there, was blocked for "wikilawyering"? ATren (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well this is assuming you can make a sensible case and do so civilly--of which I have no doubt. GoRight's conduct on the enforcement page was antagonistic and unhelpful. --TS 20:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Even when editors have presented their case civilly and sensibly, their concerns have been summarily dismissed, sometimes with a warning directed at them. So, best case, it's a waste of time; worst case, it's a block. No thanks. ATren (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So your complaint, it seems to me, goes far further than the conduct of one editor. If the uninvolved administrators are making biased judgements, perhaps you should gather evidence and start administrator conduct RFCs on them. --TS 20:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's coming Tony, it's coming. Evidence collection takes time, especially for something of the magnitude of this particular several-years-long POV push. ATren (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it could turn out that the uninvolved administrators are looking at conduct issues and, broadly, making calls that are acceptable and defensible. Editing science articles shouldn't be this contentious. --TS 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, 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 14:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Make another comment about my personal appearance like you did here and I can assure you that you'll end up blocked. My age means absolutely nothing here - I'm 24, I'm not 10. Making judgments about the climate change probation based on my age is unacceptable. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ryan, yeah, I can understand you might be offended, and I'm sorry for that. When I was 24, I believed I could conquer the world like everyone else. The reality is, I got older and changed my mind. If you want to know, the photo you have at your user page would be regarded, in any place I have ever worked, as most unprofessional. It shows you out drinking with your friends, apparently having a wild time, and a caption that says, "A Wikipedia admin at work!" But what does that say to the public about Wikipedia, which has the power to influence millions of real people all over the world? It raises a first question, is that guy serious about the project or does he think that Wikipedia is about socialising with his friends? It raises a second question, how did someone so young get elected to such a position of power? It raises a third question, how many other Admins are that age? Are they all 20-somethings still at uni? I guess, it's not about you but about a system that allows this to happen. No one who is 24 years old should have the power to block people from Wikipedia. So I'm not saying you did anything wrong, and I am really commenting on the Wikipedia system. (But seriously, I'd do something about that pic.) :-) Alex Harvey (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This *should* have been an apology for your grotesquely inappropriate comment. Instead it is pathetic self-justification. Take it away and re-write it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the other nonsense he wrote in that edit, it's probably just tottering old age. Maybe he's 32 or even 33, certainly well into senility. How will he react if he ever finds out that our youngest known admin was, at the time, 14, IIRC? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Why was this comment not similarly censured?--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alex, here you compound a personal remark about another editor with further personal comments. Please don't do that. You've been around long enough to know better. --TS 11:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me see, I have William M. Connolley lecturing abusing me about incivility again; Stephan is just idly insulting me, and Tony is telling me that I'm not allowed to have a personal conversation at my own talk page. I think I'll just go back to what I was doing. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Insulting? Sense of humor seems to be spread mightily thin around here... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Alex, ignore them, this is an obvious attempt at baiting you. Having looked through this [[25]]thread it is not only obvious they are baiting you but actively looking for opportunity to do so. Really though guys, way to obvious, must do better :) --mark nutley (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP alert

Somewhat but not entirely facetiously I draw your attention to this [26] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you there, and would myself prefer not to see skeptics labelled as such in the article, and for the same reasons you have given in the talk page. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

Would you (should you have time) look over an article i have been working on in my user space? [27] I am looking for feedback to ensure i have followed the wp:npov and wp:weight rules to prevent to much arguing when it goes into main space :) Thanks --mark nutley (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I'll certainly have a good look over it & see if I can help in any way, but I must confess that my personal bias on all this stuff, as I've indicated at RKP's talk page, is that I feel it's all a bit pointless trying to get breaking developments into these articles. If you want my guess, I think the IPCC is finished, and that there won't be an AR5. With both China & India now both publicly questioning the reliability of the whole of the IPCC itself, I can't see it recovering from here. I guess, from an encyclopaedia point of view, I feel inclined to wait for it to all to happen. So I'll have a look at your draft, offer some help if I can, but probably keep silent on any Wiki controversies that follow. Best, Alex Harvey (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've read right through it, made a couple of suggestions and corrected some grammar & made a few minor changes that I hope you'll find helpful. I think most of what you've done is fairly factual, although you would need more sources. Also, it appears to be pretty one-sided, so I wouldn't consider it balanced. Again, though, I don't think this story is anywhere near over yet. I think with India setting up its own IPCC, maybe China will do the same. Then what, will the UK & the US will need to do this as well? I mean, if China & India don't trust the IPCC, and China & India are the ones that we have to convince to stop emitting CO2, what future relevance can the IPCC possibly have? But who knows what will actually happen; I certainly don't. It won't surprise me if before you finish writing this, the IPCC actually ceases to exist, and that'll be a far more interesting story! :) Alex Harvey (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well if the IPCC goes kerplunk before i finish it`ll make a good end for the article lol, In the wip you said italics meant pov, but i am using those in actual quotes. What should be used for quotes if not italics? mark nutley (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you just generally put the quote inside double quotes. If you put it in italics it reads as though the editor is trying to add emphasis. You can have a look at WP:MOS. Alex Harvey (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok i removed the italics :) i left a few comments next to yours on the wip btw, if you get a minute check them out please :) mark nutley (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Richard Lindzen

You are starting to drift a bit towards an antagonistic tone over there, which detracts from your policy-based arguments. May I suggest starting an RFC or a thread at RS/N if this does not hash itself out over the next few days? Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning

I have warned you three times not to refactor my comments into a seperate section. I'm responding to some comments in context. If you insert a new section, then the context is removed, and once it gets archived it will lose the context entirely. Now please go back and remove the section header - you can go in and make an arbitrary 3rd level break - but do not refactor my comments. I'm asking nicely again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. Firstly, I didn't refactor any of your comments; please don't make misleading statements on my talk page. I just put in flipping thread break. Here is what really happened: I made an aside in the context of the statistical warming thread. You came along and decided to refute my aside and make a new conversation in the middle of an unresolved thread. So I added a thread break in the hope that we could still resolve the previous discussion. You removed it. I assumed good faith, and assumed that the reason you removed it was the same as the reason you said you removed it, to wit, that I had put it in the wrong place (which I had), so I added it back in the correct location, such that the context was preserved, and figured we could both live with that. Next, in this diff here, apparently taking the piss, you moved the section header to a new, completely wrong location, and renamed it "arbitrary section break". I thought, ah, that's terribly funny, but I returned it to its present, correct location just the same. So after a lot of petty, disruptive editing, you are now making warnings to me at my talk page, allegedly because you are concerned about the context in the archives! If you were concerned about the context in the archives, you wouldn't have put in a section header yourself called "arbitrary section break" in a place that completely destroyed the flow of two threads. The real problem is, you have presented false evidence in the thread, and I have called you on it, and you don't want to admit it, and ideally you'd like this hidden a bit inside a boring, unrelated thread, in the archives. You have wasted far too much of my time already for me to be going back changing thread headers at this stage. Alex Harvey (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You may want to examine what the difference is between a 1st level section (what you did (2 equal signs)) and a 2nd level one (the arbitrary one (3 equal signs)) - and how they get archived. I am again imploring you to undo your insertion of a section break. You are refactoring my comments - and i have asked you several times to change it back. I am btw. not amused by your "misleading comments", "taking the piss", "disruptive editing" etc comments or your general assumptions of bad faith, and especially not about your statements that i'm presenting "false evidence". Again: Either revert back to the original version without the refactoring - or remove the section add and reinstate an arbitrary section break. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Kim, you have seriously lost your objectivity. In any case, I have restored the section breaks per your request. Alex Harvey (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the restore - now if you could also tone down/refactor your incivility then everything would be good (you could for instance start with your comment right here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am allowed to say whatever the hell I like at my own talk page, and if you choose to make frivolous warnings here, you can expect the same sort of frankness in the future. This thread is closed. Goodbye. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refactor

This [28] is not an acceptable comment - more specifically the last part is extremely out of hand. (the rest is not much better imho - but that part is out-of-line) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Kim, not interested in your higher codes of civility at the moment. What I said was entirely correct. But if you're still concerned, you should probably explain to this editor that our policies really do matter, and he shouldn't be using Wikipedia to restate the arguments he makes on his blog. It is clear that he doesn't understand the material; that he had no consensus to add a new section; that the material violates the weight guideline; and that moreover he just doesn't care about any of this. It is also clear that he has no interest at all in Lindzen's biography, clear that he hasn't read any of Lindzen's works, and that his interest begins and ends with his desire to punish Lindzen for inadvertantly forcing Phil Jones to admit the lack of statistical warming since 95 recently. In short, you have come to my talk page to defend another egregious POV pusher. If you're still concerned, please request enforcement under the climate change probation guidelines. Alex Harvey (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Impressive - you counter your incivility with yet more personal attacks on JQ. I'm hoping that i do not have to go to enforcement, but there are very little space in my glass of water for more drops. Please do some introspection here: Take a long hard look at your talk page, and consider how those diffs, warnings etc look. It may be that you are in possestion of the Truth^TM - but that is not how wikipedia works, and you know it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kim, once again I have not made any attacks on anyone there. I have stated objectively some facts. It may sound rude, but I'm sorry to say that based on the number of false statements he's made both at his blog and in the talk pages it is clear that he doesn't understand the Lindzen material. That's fine, and we could agree to disagree if that was the end of the story. But he is unfortunately determined to add his opinions to the article, and perhaps, I'd have to say after taking a cue from yourself, he's also refusing to address the policy based objections I have made. I note, it's rather ironic to recall that you and I have had a very similar discussion at another page where you stubbornly insisted that Lindzen could NEVER! be categorised as a believer that global warming stopped in 1998! As it happened, you were right. So what has changed? Why are you silent here now that JQ is putting in the article something you said could never be true? I have left my talk page in an unedited state for a reason. Look at the threats directly above based on my good faith attempts to keep a talk page manageable by adding in a flipping thread break. You have lost your mind, Kim. You're a good person, but you need to take a break from this. Thanks for your comments anyway. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please ...

Alex,

Nobody can appreciate your frustration more than me. Everyone knows the who's who of editors and admins that create this toxic environment. However, I would consider it a personal favor if you apologized (I'm a stranger, but hey, do me a solid) to Jimmy Wales. He really has no obligation to get involved in this dispute. Although I think it can't be far off from the worst ongoing scandal at WP, it may not be the only one and poor Mr. Wales has made himself a sitting duck at the top of it all.

People who are well known and in the public eye have to grow a thick skin, but they *do* have feelings. I honestly feel that your criticism of JW was unfair. I can appreciate the frustration level that would send you there, believe me. It is more than a little disturbing the carnage in the Climate area with all the bans, the kangaroo courts, accusations of meat puppetry, egregious double standards for those in favor, etc, etc. It is beyond awful. I have not (so much) been the target of this yet, beyond having my text pitched into the memory hole. I have been baited a couple of times, but have not taken the bait and am now about to leave Wiki for a while because I am close to the edge just like you. I am dangerously close to telling the truth and we all know how that can go...

Anyway, I was surprised to see JW weigh in at all and even though you have every right to be prickly, I don't think that JW is really the target of your ire and he really could not possibly have control of this sprawling multi-million article beast called Wikipedia.

Beyond his likely inability to keep his hand on the whole thing, I think that to some extent it would be improper for him to use his position to specifically interfere personally in disputes. That is a dangerous precedent to set, a slippery slope and a totally no-win situation.

What he can do and I hope he does do is contact people high enough up who have no ties to the Climate universe and its admins *and* have a science background, sound reasoning and other skills necessary to review this mess and have those guys fire the whole lot of us and start over.

Mr. Wales has neither the personal resources, nor, in my opinion the responsibility or even the right to do as you have asked him. Meantime, I think he has shown more than a little good faith and I think you should reward him for that. Me too. It would make me feel like I made the world a nicer place and although I can't come close to the death by a thousand cuts that ails you, I *do* feel your pain. You may not be able to make yourself feel better, but you sure could help me.

Don't feel bad if you disagree or just can't get motivated to go there. You must be half crazed if you have been at this for a long time and involved yourself in many articles. I will take no offense.

It is true that if we take a rest, the hive will swarm back, but I say take a rest anyway. This has a high profile and I may be naive but I really do think that others will step into the breach.

Best of luck whatever you do and don't let them get you down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepNorth (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

... Thank you!

Thank you. Whether prompted by me or not, you did the right thing WRT to JW. It just plain made me feel good. He deserves it and so do you.

More importantly, thank you for the excellent work in bringing real substance to the conversation. I think that what I have complained about speaks for itself. However, a reader does need some type of entre and I think you have done well with the information you provide.

[It just occurs to me that the Please/Thank You combination is one "You're Welcome" away from a dead giveaway that I'm Canukistanian (sometimes referred to as Canadian). No, really, you're welcome.] DeepNorth (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It was partially prompted by your note here at my talk page, although I would likely have added some kind of apology anyway. I, too, think that despite all its warts the world is significantly improved by Wikipedia, so it saddens me to see what goes on in the climate change pages. Maybe the answer is that all BLPs should simply be deleted. Anyhow, thanks for dropping by. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing and ABF - *again*

This is not acceptable under WP policy. Please refactor. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you be specific about the problem? Looks to me like an editor who is generally sympathetic to the skeptics has chosen make sure that one of the skeptics "targets" get fair treatment. Sounds like something to applaud. Is your concern about the reference to suicide, which is well-documented, or his personal observation that Jones is in the wrong? Or something else?--SPhilbrickT 23:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think this is acceptable?: Because a group of POV pushers has ganged up on me to obstruct progress at the Lindzen biography

The rest is simply soapboxing - we have no mention of "suicidal" for the very good reason that it is not verifiable (and a rumor - which Alex just stoked), "despite my view that he has done wrong" is a statement of clear POV.... etc etc.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If Alex asked my advice, which he didn't, I'd counsel that it does help him if he wants to improve articles, but it doesn't rise to the level that legitimately requires refactoring. Would it be better if he didn't say something like that? Probably, but requesting refactoring for penny-ante comments is helping confirm his claim. --SPhilbrickT 00:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If i'm not mistaken calling other editors "POV pushers" who "gang up" to "obstruct" is not acceptable - neither under regular talk-page guidelines. And especially not under the probation guidelines. But perhaps you are editing in areas where such is accepted? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When you start complaining at the people who constantly refer to me and other skeptics as a POV pushers then I might have some sympathy for your case. As it stands now from my personal observations, which are admitted incomplete but likely sufficient, it seems an generally accurate description of the situation. As SP correctly points out, Alex is making a principled stand here and should be applauded for rising above the partisanship ... or at least moving on from a situation where the partisanship seems to be impeding constructive progress. --GoRight (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well GoRight - i have never called you a POV-pusher outside of formal procedures. That is the venue for such issues, not talk-space, and especially not article talk-space.

Alex has been warned again and again (and again (and again) ) on this. If you as his (apparent) ally here can't seem to have it within your means to actually help Alex - then i'm sorry to say that i believe its going to go down very badly. I really don't think that "the others are bad persons as well" is going to be a good defence.

As i said in the previous section: There are very few drops left before my patience is running out (which is very rare), and do please notice I won't have to search long for diffs on this - you can find all of them placed here on Alex's talk. Take a look at them - contemplate for a bit how such a case would look - and then i think that, if you are serious in wanting to help Alex, then you should try to advice him a bit. Thank you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"i have never called you a POV-pusher outside of formal procedures." - Mostly acknowledged. This is why I directed my comment at "the people who constantly refer to ..." and did not include you specifically.

"I really don't think that "the others are bad persons as well" is going to be a good defence." - It's not really offered as a defense, per se, but merely pointing out that Alex's statement isn't out of line with the level of rhetoric that is considered acceptable community practice (based on recent RfE civility cases and the sanctions which have been handed out in those).

Now, that having been said and I specifically disclaim taking any position either way with respect to Alex's behavior, I would like to make Alex aware of [29] in the event that he is unaware of it. While I don't believe that anything formal has actually been enacted relative to that discussion he really should take it to heart as it provides an insight into the thinking of the admins overseeing the climate change probation which would apply to both of the pages in question. Also, consistent with my most recent unblock pledge I will also point out to Alex that it is in everyone's best interest to try and remain as amicable as possible even in the face of frustrating interactions. So in the interests of promoting a more collegial atmosphere I think he should refrain from making any comments which can be interpreted as being pointy, even IF he feels provoked into it. --GoRight (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks GR, no I wasn't otherwise aware of it and probably don't have time to worry about it. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I have actually seen that. I will be more concerned about my own frankness when I see other editors observing the content policies. Meanwhile, to keep Kim from hyperventilating I refactored this comment at the Jones page. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Richard Lindzen

You are edit warring at Richard Lindzen. Please stop. While I respect that you have concerns about the section in question, WP:BLP not intended as a hammer to be invoked in run-of-the-mill content disputes. Doing so risks chilling effects and the NPOV of our biographies will suffer. It would be nice if you would also reconsider giving advice like this. Thank you, though, for starting a BLP/N thread. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't get this at all, admin 2/0. Can you show me some problematic diffs? An editor made a bold edit after failing to build a consensus for his position (you know this already, but others reading my page may not). I followed the process and reverted, and asked him please to answer the objections with respect to the content policies. Another editor seconded my concerns about the weight guideline. A third editor also noted my concerns about the weight guideline. Throughout the entire discussion, this opposing editor has refused to even respond to my concerns about the weight guideline. As such, the editor is refusing to discuss (see WP:BRD). There are, indeed, numerous problems with his material: WP:STRUCTURE (there's no way his material deserves its own subsection), it is original research (synthesis of original material to advance a position unargued in the source material). It is indeed contradicted by some of his very own other POV edits (e.g. he claims elsewhere to believe that Lindzen's "main" contribution to climate change debate is the Iris hypothesis). I took it to BLP/N because I couldn't very well take half of it to NOR/N and the other half to NPOV/N could I. It is, therefore, astonishing, although I regret, typical, that you have chosen to make a warning about so-called edit warring at my page. I suggest, you are discriminating against me here based on your perception that I am a skeptic. If not, how to you explain that I am the warned editor here, rather than the offender? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Another warning on NPA

This, despite your redaction, is not acceptable. Address the arguments not the editor. I have no idea what Ratel does, and i do not care - nor should you. Don't do something like this - unless its on an RFC/U or on a noticeboard for such items.

Please. Every time you want to use a username in a content debate, consider whether you are adressing the person or the content/arguments. If you get to the conclusion that it is not content related - then drop it or consider starting an RfC/U. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Kim, another frivolous warning based on a comment that I self reverted. You are behaving like a little child, and it is sad. Go and do the right thing and add your voice to mine in favour of having the section removed. You know that I have diffs where you've made precisely the same arguments I have. End the fighting, and help save Wikipedia. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The comment in the redacted version on whether Ratel is an "activist" or not. Has no place in article-talk-space. You are shooting for the person, instead of the argument. Not acceptable. That was another drop. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I see. Well, I don't consider calling someone an activist to be a personal attack. Ratel came forward and presented his comment in the "uninvolved editors" section. I asked him to be transparent, and to admit that he's not a neutral observer, for the benefit of other editors who may not know who he really is. So, there it is: you don't like comments about editors; I don't like dishonesty. Shall we just agree to disagree? Alex Harvey (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Alex, what exactly don't you understand in: Address the arguments, not the editor? It doesn't matter whether Ratel is an activist or not (or whether you are one either)... It doesn't matter one bit. If there is cause for concern then you will have to go the formal route to address that concern - which means RfC/U, COI/N or similar.

We disagree - and with the "drop" note, i am informing you that my patience is running out - fast. And that i will escalate to a formal complaint, if you do not start acting according to the rules. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Then start the RfC/U. What you don't seem to get is that the more you harass me here at my talk page, the more determined I am to see public attention brought to your behaviour. If you start an RfC/U, that will suit me perfectly. I can't speak for the community here, but I can certainly say that the general public will view you even less favourably after you do that than they do already. My talk page is a living document that testifies to the following fact: Kim D. Petersen is a bully. So if you still don't get it, then start the RfC/U. Just stop wasting my time with these nonsense warnings. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I would start thinking about some other way of rationalizing yourself. Stating that someone is a bully because they point out your misbehaviour is not really going to carry much weight (imho of course).

Please go back over all the comments i've made here - and think abit about this: Is there some truth to the complaints, and what conclusion can be drawn from the accumulation of these? Now i do believe that you'll find that there is several grains of truth in the complaints, and that the sum of these isn't looking very good.....

Now i know (or at least you've stated so) that you have a tendency to overheat and to react out of proportion. This is the reason that i've been very patient, and why i've asked you several times to behave. Now this may all blow up in my face, but frankly i do not care, since i believe that your attitude problem need to be addressed, either by you, or by the community. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Kim, when I say, "you are wasting my time", I mean, you really are wasting my time. What I mean is, I have a full time job, and what I'm doing for Wikipedia and the BLPs I have been working on, e.g. Richard Lindzen, Phil Jones, Rajendra Pachauri, Garth Paltridge, is a hobby, and something I am doing in my spare time. I am a volunteer, Kim. I don't have the time or interest to read back through my comments for a second time. I don't have time to rationalise anything. If you can get me successfully banned from Wikipedia, my wife will be very grateful to you. And I'd say, you will probably succeed. I say that because I have absolutely no intention of mounting a defence. Take me off to your kangaroo court, Kim. Hop to it, but please, please, please stop talking about it. No, I'm not going to read through your comments a second time. I am sorry, but I think you are crazy, and I think it is in fact you, not me, who should be meditating on the discussions above. It is your choice, Kim. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Namespaces

See Wikipedia:Namespace. -Atmoz (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

RWP

Hi mate, i saw this post on 2/0 page [30] I saw that post on WUWT as well, but the roman warm period article was deleted right? Which is why i began work on a new article of it [31] is it still around and been given a weird name? mark nutley (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it was just never created. There's a discussion about this at Jimmy Wales' talk page somewhere. If you want to create an article, there probably should be one for the Minoan Warm Period as well. It is rather hard to understand why there is not a single article in Wikipedia that mentions either the Roman Warm Period or the Minoan Warm Period.

You could start by googling "roman warm period" at google scholar, e.g. Bianchi & McCave, 1999, Nature.Alex Harvey (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That conversation is here (last version before archive), with my peek at the deleted page near the bottom of that thread. So far as I know it is not known by a different name, but neither would I know what to check or anything like that. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(Hope this does not break my parole promise?) Alex i have actually started on an article for the RWP Here I have used google scholar to find the facts but funnily enough KDP took a look at the wip and said it was so be it would need to be rewritten, i suspect this is due to the fact that all the papers i have found so far call it a Global Warm Period, not good for those who are fond of the theory of AGW :-) If you have time please take a look and let me know what you think of it thus far, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I can't help with your parole promises but with regards to your WIP, I would tend to agree with KDP that it'll need some work. Have it state only the facts, and back up the facts with reliable sources. If Romans grew grapes in Northern England, have it say that, but don't go that step further and assert, "Therefore, the period was globally warmer than the present." Scientists are having enough trouble measuring the temperature over the past 150 years without pretending they know how relatively warm it was in Roman times. So to say that the RWP was 2 C warmer than the CWP (Current Warm Period) is just as dogmatic, I think, as someone who asserts that the RWP was some kind of localised climate anomaly that only affected N. England -- or that it didn't even happen. I would have the article cite Blanchi & McCave above:

There is growing evidence of millenial-scale variability of Holocene climate, at periodicities of ~2,500 and 950 years (possibly caused by changes in solar flux)[2][3] and ~1,500 years (maybe related to an internal oscillation of the climate system).[4-6]

Then go on to document those changes for the Roman and Minoan Warm Periods. Also find out what the IPCC AR4 had to say about this. (Or did it, like Wikipedia, just pass the matter over in silence?) Alex Harvey (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the IPCC have ignored the RWP, most people focus on the MWP and seem to forget the earth has had warmer and colder periods since the year dot :). The 2c statement is for a specific region only, the paper is cited. I`ll take a break from RC patrol (been doing it solid for a few days) and concentrate on my few wips i think. I`ll give you a shout once i think it`s looking reasonable mark nutley (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you've got me quite curious now. Could it really be true that the IPCC completely ignored the existence of all warm periods earlier than the MWP? That would be completely bizarre. I'll get back to you. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I'd say that a reader of the IPCC report would indeed come away completely unaware that the Roman Warm Period ever happened. I don't think there is a single mention of it (although I haven't found a way to do a keyword search). What I do find is the following key paragraph [32]:

When forced by 6 ka orbital parameters, state-of-the-art coupled climate models and EMICs capture reconstructed regional temperature and precipitation changes (Sections 6.5.1.4 and 6.5.1.5), whereas simulated global mean temperatures remain essentially unchanged (<0.4°C; Masson-Delmotte et al., 2005b), just as expected from the seasonality of the orbital forcing (see Box 6.1). Due to different regional temperature responses from the tropics to high latitudes, as well as between hemispheres, commonly used concepts such as ‘mid-Holocene thermal optimum’, ‘altithermal’, etc. are not globally relevant and should only be applied in a well-articulated regional context. Current spatial coverage, temporal resolution and age control of available Holocene proxy data limit the ability to determine if there were multi-decadal periods of global warmth comparable to the last half of 20th century.

So the IPCC has more or less defined these warm periods as 'globally irrelevant', and for this reason, it sees no point in mentioning them.Alex Harvey (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(Moreover, I can't find a single reference to the existence of the very long multicentennial to millennial scale ocean-cycles discussed in the literature as likely causes of the warm/cool periods.) Alex Harvey (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And this surprise you why? :-) mark nutley (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose, because I found it myself rather than by reading it at a skeptical blog. I am generally not inclined to believe the things I read at skeptical blogs, whereas I believe the things I see with my own eyes. It appears to be undeniable that the IPCC really has, with a shrug, thrown all discussion of multicentennial to millennial scale climate oscillations under the rug by merely defining them as unimportant. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Could that perhaps be because the multicentennial/millenial ocean cycles are A) speculative B) impact regionally...?

For instance Bond cycles are primarily a North Atlantic phenomenon. The trouble here is that you are both coming into the topic with a preconception "that these periods must be global in extent", a preconception most likely gained from reading blogs, so when you read the literature, you will be surprised. [please note though that pre-reliable proxy data, it was generally assumed that a lot of these periods where syncroneous and global in extent, reliable proxy data changed that (you could call it a paradigm change)]

The Holocene climatic optimum probably was warmer than the current period - but that is to my knowledge the only period within the Holocene where we with reasonable certainty can say this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I agree that the article should avoid metaphysical assertions about whether or not the warm periods were "global" or not. As for reading the literature, that's precisely what I've been doing. It's quite eye-opening. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I note that despite what you've said here ("The Holocene climatic optimum probably was warmer than the current period"), the article implicitly asserts the contrary, with a graphic showing the 2004 temperature being higher. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone else wants it, here is the Bond et al. 1997 paper. From what I can gather so far, the following are facts: (1) there are multicentennial to millenial scale climate oscillations detectable in a number of proxy records (e.g. ice cores, history books); (2) although nothing is proved, all researchers look to the oceans for the most likely cause; (3) many of these researchers relate these oscillations, whatever their underlying cause, to the Minoan Warm Period, the Iron Age Cold Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages Cold Period, the Mediaeval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. And a few of these papers state quite explicitly that the Current Warm Period is likely to be a part of this cycle. For example, here is the concluding paragraph of the Bianchi & McCave:

The main concern for future climate must be that a possible increase in melting of the Greenland ice sheet resulting from anthropogenically induced atmospheric warming may reach a critical level where the `conveyor belt' will flip to its early Holocene operational mode[33]. The resulting perturbations could conceivably result in climate extremes exceeding those of the Little Ice Age for northern Europe. Without such perturbations, the climate looks likely to be warm for several hundred years (ref. 6).

So Bianchi & McCave's concerns are, in fact, that increases in CO2 may lead us to an extremely cold correction to the CWP. Now it may be argued that this is just the view of Bianchi & McCave, but what can't be denied is that this was published in Nature, it is not "refuted", and therefore, it is Wikipedia's job to report whatever is in the literature -- not just what is in the latest IPCC report. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have struck the above after discovering that there is a very brief discussion of this in the IPCC AR4 report [33]. Since it's so short I may as well reproduce it here:

6.5.1.6 Are There Long-Term Modes of Climate Variability Identified During the Holocene that Could Be Involved in the Observed Current Warming? An increasing number of Holocene proxy records are of sufficiently high resolution to describe the climate variability on centennial to millennial time scales, and to identify possible natural quasi-periodic modes of climate variability at these time scales (Haug et al., 2001; Gupta et al., 2003). Although earlier studies suggested that Holocene millennial variability could display similar frequency characteristics as the glacial variability in the North Atlantic (Bond et al., 1997), this assumption is being increasingly questioned (Risebrobakken et al., 2003; Schulz et al., 2004). In many records, there is no apparent consistent pacing at specific centennial to millennial frequencies through the Holocene period, but rather shifts between different frequencies (Moros et al., 2006). The suggested synchroneity of tropical and North Atlantic centennial to millennial variability (de Menocal et al., 2000; Mayewski et al., 2004; Y.J. Wang et al., 2005) is not common to the SH (Masson et al., 2000; Holmgren et al., 2003), suggesting that millennial scale variability cannot account for the observed 20th-century warming trend. Based on the correlation between changes in cosmogenic isotopes (10Be or 14C) – related to solar activity changes – and climate proxy records, some authors argue that solar activity may be a driver for centennial to millennial variability (Karlén and Kuylenstierna, 1996; Bond et al., 2001; Fleitmann et al., 2003; Y.J. Wang et al., 2005). The possible importance of (forced or unforced) modes of variability within the climate system, for instance related to the deep ocean circulation, have also been highlighted (Bianchi and McCave, 1999; Duplessy et al., 2001; Marchal et al., 2002; Oppo et al., 2003). The current lack of consistency between various data sets makes it difficult, based on current knowledge, to attribute the millennial time scale large-scale climate variations to external forcings (solar activity, episodes of intense volcanism), or to variability internal to the climate system.

Alex Harvey (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There's another key paragraph here [34]: "Knowledge of climate variability over the last 1 to 2 kyr in the SH and tropics is severely limited by the lack of palaeoclimatic records." Note, that only refers to 1-2kyr. But without actual records from the tropics or Southern Hemisphere, any assertions that the observed N. Atlantic centennial to millennial oscillations are merely regional phenomenon would indeed be dogma. I'm now going to read Masson et al., 2000 and Holmgren et al., 2003. Alex Harvey (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

De-coatracking Michael E. Mann

Following your example on Phil Jones (climatologist), I've done a similar job of de-coatracking Michael E. Mann. I'd be interested to know what you think - please see the discussion at Talk:Michael E. Mann#Climatic Research Unit emails section. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Chris, I agree with the comments and the de-coatracking and I've already made similar remarks myself in the archives of the Mann page I think. On the other hand, I think Mark Nutley is right in as much as the present treatment may go too far into whitewashing the whole thing. That said, I'd have to be honest and say that I have no sympathy for Michael Mann and a part of me would like to see the guy skewered. So... I think I'll just keep out of it. If Mark Nutley wants to respond here, though, I'd have to ask wouldn't it be better to focus on making a Roman Warm Period article than worrying about Mann in Wikipedia? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Because i don`t like to see stuff whitewashed is the short answer, I have been working on a few new articles, the newest being on Dr Judith Curry who i have a great deal of respect for, but the usual crap happened. wmc removed the fact that she has posted on sceptic blogs and is willing to actually talk. Along with his usual snideness of course [35] [36] [37] I tell you, the guy is incapable of being civil, mark nutley (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark, and I don't like seeing skeptic biographies being greenwashed and the only way we can ever end up with a sustainable truce is if we all agree to follow the same rules. I agree with you that Michael Mann <redacted>, and that's why I feel a conflict of interest going anywhere near his biography. I can be honest and say I have no interest in Mann's life so I'm not the right person to write his biography. I think the same applies to you. At any rate, it is indeed coatrack to be using the biographies as forums to discuss controversies. So I have to support Chris's reduction of the controversy section. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Alex, I'm interested to note your interest in BLP policy, and appreciate your work to avoid coatracking. The above accusation about a living person is a blatant BLP violation, please remove it and take care in future to comply with that policy on talk pages. Thanks, dave souza, talk 13:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in you turning up here at this irrelevant corner of Wikipedia in order to score a silly point so that WMC can repost it on his page as an example of 'hypocrisy'. So that there's no confusion, I think BLP concerns on user talk pages is complete nonsense, whereas BLP concerns in the public biography pages of living people is very serious. I am glad you understand the difference. Thanks for dropping by. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to have caught your interest, you drew attention to yourself so I had a look at your talk page and found this violation of WP:BLP#Non-article space. Please read that carefully and remove the slur. Thanks, dave souza, talk 23:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I think it is nonsense but you may clean it up if you think there's a problem. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed this, I accept your invitation to clean this up and have redacted the statement which contravened WP:BLP#Non-article space as well as amending my own comment. Thanks for your cooperation, please take more care in future. . . dave souza, talk 08:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say you've preserved the intent whilst making the whole thing a lot funnier. ;-) Alex Harvey (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Q

This you? [38] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi William, no it's actually not me. There is another Alexander Harvey who is also a follower of the climate change debate and has been around for longer than I have, and I think he's got some background as a scientist. He posts as 'Alexander', I always use 'Alex', so you can tell us apart. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate change

Many people may see it as unhelpful to the project to make controversial posts on topic-banned editors pages and doing so may, at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator, put you at risk of discretionary sanctions. This is for information, and is not a formal warning.  Roger ^talk 16:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What a lovely place Wikipedia is. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

sorry to hear

Reposted from WMC's wall

William, I was sorry to hear (from blogs of course) that yourself and about 15 other editors were topic banned for six months. As I said at Jimbo's page, I was especially angry that editors like Cla68 were banned, and wasn't impressed at all with what appeared a most obviously unjust outcome. In the year I spent editing here, I have not a single recollection of Cla68 concerned with anything other than: Is Wikipedia policy being applied? I know he often disagreed with me, and I respected his obvious neutrality. Other editors who got the six month ban, in my opinion, just occasionally started pushed their own POV into articles, like me, or got too caught up in 'gotcha' warfare. As I also said, this contrasted markedly with your own editing, which unfortunately in my opinion was frequently dismissive of rules, of editors who disagreed with you, and of course, your consistent disregard, and apparent contempt, especially, for the BLP policy.

That said, I was also genuinely sorry that it ultimately came to this and that you are now unable to add value in science articles -- as you did for a long time in your early years. As I said privately, I don't understand why you did it, and I also don't understand why you seem surprised at the outcome.

Obviously, I went through hell, personally, to get some bios of skeptics into a sane state. Many hours of my life were wasted, and my progress was stalled by pointless arguments about trivia that were inflicted in the talk pages and edit wars. Ultimately I burnt out and left. Which is not, of course, to deny that my own hot-headed temperament was also problematic.

I really hope that you will take a break from this. Write another scientific paper. Do something else. And come back refreshed. In six months from now (it's been six months off for me I certainly feel refreshed) I really think you might see things in a new light. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI: CRU email controversy

Regarding [39], there was a humongous discussion on what wording to use, somewhere in the very recent archives that finally settled on some sort of consensus (I think) for the current wording. You might want to take a look at that, as I can almost guarantee that your edit will be disputed. NW (Talk) 04:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the need to have a cite on 'illegal release' suggested a long battle but as someone uninvolved I thought it still better to try a more neutral wording. However, point taken, it's not worth bloodshed. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Climatic Research Unit email controversy, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change discretionary sanctions

Hi Alex, please be aware that the Climate Change articles were recently subject to an Arbcom decision which largely centered on "battlefield conduct" between participants. Your characterizations of other editors as "shooting your mouth off post after post", "play(ing) this question / answer game" and so on aren't helpful in avoiding a return to the battlefield. We can disagree on the underlying issues but let's everybody try to stay cool. Regards, Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Boris, and I hope you'll also consider the difficult time I'm getting with one editor there and perhaps have a look at all of his postings (the swearing, assumptions of bad faith, the shouting, the sarcasm) and try to counsel the other user too. I look forward to a positive working relationship with you Boris. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, here are some of his comments, with the shouting removed that have led to this heated discussion, although like yours, the quotes aren't in context:

JJ: "Bullshit. Considering how finely you parse every little, nit-picking possible way that the article might be misinterpreted, it is hypocritical of you to so egregiously mis-state what I said."

JJ: As many (most?) of us here do not share your particular ideological fixation, you need to explain your argument in simple steps that we all can follow.

JJ: I am sorry if "ideologically fixated" offends you, but that does seem to be the most parsimonious explanation of your behaviour.

JJ: PLEASE STOP SPITBALLING US with claims you cannot support. Okay?

JJ: Compromise? What compromise? Are you thinking of your prior factually incorrect claim of consensus? Searching this page and the last archive shows no mention of Blueboar and Sean.hoyland (except by you); again you are claiming what is not there.

(Here I am accused of lying, when in fact JJ in his haste just missed Blueboar & Sean.hoyland.

Alex Harvey (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Those comments were inappropriate. At the same time they do not excuse your own excesses, which is what I am inferring from your comments. Everyone needs to cool down. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"For the record": no one (certainly not I) accused Alex of lying; that is his mis-interpretation. My comments on this can be seen here. For anyone interested I would suggest reading the pertinent talk page sections to get the whole context. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Trenberth

Hi, Alex, you may find these comments wrt the "travesty" question illuminating. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Yopienso, as a general rule, I don't consider that particular website to be reliable at all. Generally, I find just about every page I read there to contain misinformation. Still, I have read it per your suggestion, but as expected, I am not impressed.

Firstly, there is a straw man argument presented in the very first paragraph. It says, "Trenberth's statement was used completely out of context ... The statement is distorted to mean that there is no global warming". In fact, no one has (at least to my knowledge) suggested that the statement implies T secretly believes there is no global warming.

Secondly, it hides the fact that Trenberth, in the paper I linked, and in the Climategate email discussion, really does consider the possibility that the missing heat is just not there, i.e. has radiated out into space. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact, no one has...

"Global warming… LACK of global warming. Hey, what’s the difference?"

... that took all of 10 seconds to find... And since you regularly read WuWT (and in fact comment there) - i find the "to my knowledge" strange..... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kim, long time no see... glad to know you're still reading my talk page... For the record I neither read WuWT regularly nor comment there often, although some interesting news does occasionally appear there. Out of curiosity I just googled myself at WuWT and it turns out only a few of those comments are me. I believe there are at least two other Alex Harveys making up the remainder of the comments. As for the thing you've just found, it actually has nothing to do with what we're talking about. That guy is having a bit of nitpick about something Trenberth said in an interview and it really doesn't relate to this conversation. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If you follow the links - then you'll find that the text is directly related to the travesty-email. (ie. that is what the IEEE interview was about). So the text is most definitely about the cherry-picked sentence, and the poster at WuWT is not only misrepresenting Trenberth in the way that you are discussing - but doing so ... after ... he has been informed about what it was about. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be related to the 'travesty' email, but it doesn't contain a claim that Trenberth's travesty email says 'there is no global warming'. Therefore, it is not relevant to what I said. In any case, I am only interested in serious analyses and I don't consider this WUWT piece very serious... Alex Harvey (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

[cut] ... i guess he must be referring to another email no relationship whatsoever and the "global warming.. LACK of global warming. Hey whats the difference" isn't referring to conflating the latter with the former. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

To be sure the WuWT piece is a bit of a rant and it's possible, I suppose, although I don't think likely, that your reading is correct, and that the author really does believe that Trenberth's travesty email implied that Trenberth secretly doesn't believe in global warming. I find it pretty hard to believe anyone could be either stupid or dishonest enough to misunderstand or misrepresent the email so badly, but I'm sure if you dig for long enough you'll find at least someone... I would still say that no serious analysis of the Trenberth travesty email would claim that it shows Trenberth doesn't believe in global warming. As such, the Skeptical Science page presents a straw man argument. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

e/c Alex, is the straw man to which you refer the difference between *no* global warming and a *lack* of global warming? Wrt the heat radiating to space, Trenberth, like any good scientist, asks a series of questions about where the heat he can't account for may be going. One question is to space, another into ice, another under the sea. In any case, thank you for the link to his Oct. 2009 paper, which was illuminating for me. You and I seem to get exactly the opposite idea from it, which is why WP doesn't like us to use primary sources! Regards, Yopienso (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Yopienso, you seem to agree that T holds open a possibility that the missing heat has radiated out to space. Do you understand/agree that if it turns out that the missing heat has radiated out to space it would imply that climate sensitivity is much lower than expected? And yes, you seem to have understood me wrt to the straw man argument. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A possibility always exists ... the question is whether it is likely. And in this case it is very unlikely as Trenberth points out, since that should have been measurable, and wasn't. And while that may translate into a changed climate sensitivity - that is even more unlikely, since CS is calculated from very much longer periods of time. The likely explanation. A much more likely explanation is that our instrumentation simply isn't good enough - which we already know isn't - and which Trenberth also points out. (btw. more likely would be a higher CS (afaict), since more rapid responses to decreased solar, or more serious response to aerosols....) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Kim, you seem to be confused about a number of things.

1) Climate sensitivity is not generally estimated from data at all, as you seem to be saying, but from global climate models (GCMs). While some ambitious recent studies have attempted to estimate climate sensitivity using long periods of data (e.g. the 150 yr temperature record), they have failed to get uncertainty to even within the same wide range as GCM estimations. And contrary to what you've said, others have shown that climate sensitivity can, at least in principle, be estimated from short periods of data, e.g. Forster and Gregory 2006.

2) You say "a more likely explanation [than lower climate sensitivity] is that our instrumentation simply isn't good enough". But the poor instrumentation is a given here; you can't use it in the explanation. What we are trying to explain is where the missing heat is that is identified on p. 25. "Accounting for the known contributions to energy uptake still leaves a likely residual of 30 to 100×1020 J/yr, although total error bars overlap". You're not going to find it inside the instrumentation. Trenberth also says it's unlikely to be found in ice melt/sea level rise (SLR) as SLR has actually slowed for this period (p. 22 "given the modest sea level rise observed, it is clear that the energy has not all gone into melting land ice, and nor has it gone into melting Arctic sea ice as there is not enough"). It has to be therefore either in the deep ocean, or just not there at all (i.e. radiated out to space). These are the only two options, and Trenberth is consistent and explicit about this. And if it has radiated out into space, this would be quite consistent with clouds behaving the way people like Lindzen and Spencer predict they should, i.e. as a strong negative feedback.

So the stakes are very high, and this is doubtlessly the reason Trenberth's private language in the emails is seen to be so strong. "Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming?", he says. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Tom Wigley says he disagrees with this last statement. Trenberth responds:

How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

Note again, Trenberth considers that clouds may be changing to make the planet brighter, i.e. responding as a negative feedback.

3) I can't see at all your reasoning behind suspecting that higher climate sensitivity is more likely. The sentence that follows really doesn't make any sense.

Now back to the SkepticalScience page that Yopienso linked above, does it anywhere even address the question of the possibility that clouds may have changed to make the planet brighter? Sadly, no. It is hoped/assumed that the reader will not actually read the emails or the 2009 paper himself and thus will be fobbed off with disinformation. According to SkepticalScience:

When Trenberth said, "...we can't account for the lack of warming..." he meant the same thing as that accountant. He could not accurately determine the Earth's complete global energy budget because the measurements he had for the ocean's warming only went down to 900 meters (little over 1/2 mile) and oceans can be several thousand meters deeper than that. There is thus no way that we will be able to account for all the energy absorbed by the oceans until we place measuring instruments deeper than they are now. However, our measurements of how much energy from global warming is flowing through our atmosphere, land, and melting ice, are well known.

I hope that Yopienso can at least see that this is not what Trenberth really was saying at all. Maybe it's what Trenberth wished he said in retrospect... Alex Harvey (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

.#1 Yes - and? Where is the contradiction between estimating from data and using a GCR? (GCR's are after all only mathematical representations of our current understanding of the physics involved).

.#2 a)The whole purpose of Trenberth's article is to complain about our measurements and instrumentation's being inadequate to measure the energy-budget at short timescales- so your dismissal of this as the basis of his problem is .... to be frank... confounding.

b) "Stakes are high"? Huh? For whom?

c) Wigley and Trenberth's problems come from time resolution - Wigley is satisfied with consistency on the long term, and Trenberth wants to be able to see and determine the energy-budget within a small timescale (annually)

d) You failed to notice that T's is giving clouds significantly less chance than other factors to be the cause - in the paper. (even though i pointed it out). "Just not there at all" is not really an option (since CERES and MODIS indicate differently).

e) And even if we presuppose that T is assuming that clouds were the reason - then it most certainly wouldn't support Lindzen (or Spencer). Why? Because the place where those clouds have to be is the 60-90° latitudes (according to the paper), and L (and S) are only talking tropics!

.#3 I didn't think so. Just as most people haven't realized that something like a warmer MWP would demand a higher CS, and thus be the opposite of the thing that they claim is the reason for "wanting to disappear it".. If natural causes are the prime reason for warming - then CS by necessity must be higher.

b) I disagree (from reading T's paper) with Scepticalscience in one aspect - T is not just complaining about our instrumentation in the deep - but the lack of resolution in all aspects of measurement on short timescales.

To actually get to your conclusion, you not only have to presuppose a conclusion (ie. read between the lines), you also have to ignore what is actually written. Not a very good or sceptical way of handling something. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Kim,

1) you write, You failed to notice that T's is giving clouds significantly less chance than other factors to be the cause - in the paper. (even though i pointed it out). "Just not there at all" is not really an option (since CERES and MODIS indicate differently). Well it is obviously not relevant that CERES and MODIS indicate differently, given that we know that at least one of our measuring systems is giving us false data. So where does Trenberth actually say that clouds have "significantly less chance" of being the cause? I can't find anything of the sort in the paper.

2) I am not saying that if clouds have radiated heat away into space this will necessarily support a specific mechanism like Lindzen's Iris hypothesis. I am saying more generally that if clouds have radiated a lot of energy into space that scientists predict should have been trapped in the climate system, that will be evidence of clouds behaving as a negative feedback where it was otherwise predicted by Trenberth and others that they should behave as a positive feedback. Correct?

3) The reason I can't follow you on point #3 is that you are making bold assertions, but providing no evidence or arguments, and asking me to take your word for it. Although I can't see how it even relates to this discussion, can you refer me to actual peer reviewed science to support the contention that a warmer than present MWP would imply a higher CS? And back to the actual discussion, how can anything in Trenberth's paper be seen as implying a higher than expected climate sensitivity? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

To make the matter of climate sensitivity clearer, the received estimation of climate sensitivity enters Trenberth's paper as an assumption on p. 20: "The Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) measurements from March 2000 to 2005 were used at top of atmosphere (TOA) but adjusted to an estimated imbalance from the enhanced greenhouse effect of 0.9±0.5 W m-2 (with 90% confidence limits)." Thus, the argument is very simple. Having assumed an imbalance of 0.9±0.5 W m-2, and after considering all measurements, it is found that there is a missing 30 to 100×1020 J/yr of heat that cannot be accounted for. It is the inability to account for the lack of this very specific amount of heat that Trenberth sees as a 'travesty'. Trenberth then asks where is the missing heat? Well, we all know and agree that he hopes and believes it will be found in the deep ocean. But, if it turns out it was radiated to space, something he considers possible, then it follows that the climate sensitivity assumption was wrong. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

update 1 I have been doing some research on this and it seems there are other peer reviewed papers by non skeptics confirming my understanding, e.g. Schwartz et al. 2010. They are also asking where the heck is global warming. From their abstract: "The warming discrepancy is found to be due mainly to some combination of two factors: the IPCC best estimate of climate sensitivity being too high and/or the greenhouse gas forcing being partially offset by forcing by in-creased concentrations of atmospheric aerosols." Alex Harvey (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite simply Alex - Trenberth and Schwartz aren't talking about the same thing. Apples and Oranges. Schwartz' "where" is about the whole of the industrial period (ie. is it aerosols? natural variation? (basically checking the IPCC figures)), and Trenberth's "where" is for a short period of time after 2003 (precisely where is the heat going). You should read Schwartz a bit closer though - then you'd see what i mean about a warmer MWP begetting a higher CS. Oh, and Schwarz isn't (in this paper) estimating a lower CS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, except that Schwartz's period overlaps Trenberth's, both assume the same GCM estimated climate sensitivity, and both find problems of missing heating that need to be somehow explained. But the real point is that which I've highlighted below, and which you have ignored. As far as the MWP is concerned, Schwartz has this to say:

Although this paleological approach is thought by many to give reliable estimates of the earth’s climate sensitivity, the uncertainties are substantial. The IPCC report (Solomon et al. 2007, chapter 6) gives the total forcing between the present and the LGM as ‘‘approximately 28 W m22’’ with no uncertainty range specified but with the level of scientific understanding ascribed to the main non-GHG forcings, which arise from changes in continental ice and sea level, mineral dust, and vegetation (23.2, 21.4, and 21.2 W m22, respectively), indicated as low, very low, and very low, respectively. The very likely range of change in GMST is given as 24 to 27 K. The range of climate sensitivity (DT23) due to the uncertainty in temperature change alone is 1.9–3.2 K, but this uncertainty range is surely an underestimate because of uncertainty in the forcing. Based on estimated uncertainties in the magnitude of temperature change in the Antarctic between the present and the LGM (27 to 211 K), the ratio of the Antarctic temperature change to global mean change (1–2), and the forcing between the two climate states (26 to 210 W m22); Ganopolski and Schneider von Deimling (2008) conclude that the range of DT23 that can be inferred from this transition cannot be narrowed below 1.3–6.8 K. A further concern would be the applicability of the climate sensitivity inferred from such a large forcing and temperature change to the smaller anthropogenic perturbations associated with response to forcing by incremental GHGs.

So all in all I think he regards it as hopeless trying to estimate climate sensitivity from paleo data. As far as what a higher than present MWP would indicate, it could indicate anything. It could indicate that there is a 1000 year ocean cycle causing the present warming and the MWP warming and say nothing at all about climate sensitivity. Your argument here (assuming you have one since you won't actually say what it is) is likely to be far fetched I think. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

update 2 I believe I've actually found Trenberth's missing heat myself, right here in this review paper by Schwartz et al. 2009.

b. Lack of attainment of equilibrium

The effect of the increase in heat content of the climate system that would be due to disequilibrium, that is, the lack of attainment of steady state subsequent to imposition of a forcing, can be examined empirically.

From Eq. (1)

(3) S = DT / F_eff

where

(4) F_eff congruent with F_tot - N

is an effective forcing that is less than the total imposed forcing Ftot by the heat flux into the planet (Cubasch et al. 2001; Gregory et al. 2002). This heat flux is manifested mainly in heating of the World Ocean. Here we estimate N, expressed as watts per square meter of the earth’s surface, from the rate of increase in ocean heat content from the surface to 700 m (Levitus et al. 2009) using the mean for the time periods 1955–2008 and 1969–2008, with the uncertainty taken to encompass those two rates and their uncertainties. This heating rate is increased by a factor of 1.44 (Levitus et al. 2005) to account for the heating below this depth (to 3000 m), yielding 0.31 ± 0.10 W m-2, somewhat greater than the value 0.21 ± 0.04 given by Solomon et al. (2007). This heat flux is multiplied by another factor of 1.19 (Levitus et al. 2005) to account for additional, minor heat sinks, mainly heating of the atmosphere and solid earth, and melting of land and sea ice (cf. also Huang 2006), to give N 5 0.37 ± 0.12 W m-2.

Values given by other investigators (Gouretski and Koltermann 2007; Domingues et al. 2008; Wijffels et al. 2008; Ishii and Kimoto 2009) of the planetary heating rate determined from heat flux into the ocean are for the most part comparable to or less than the value presented here. From the short-term time derivative of the ocean heat content given by Domingues et al., Douglass and Knox (2009) infer a time-dependent planetary heating rate that ranges from -0.15 W m-2 (i.e., cooling) to +0.15 W m-2; by a similar analysis Murphy et al. (2009) infer a time-dependent planetary heating rate that varies from -0.6 W m-2 to +0.8 W m-2 (1954–2001 average, 0.24 ± 0.32 W m-2, 1s). A considerably greater planetary heating rate was given by Willis et al. (2004), based on an indicated heating rate of 0.86 ± 0.12 W m-2 of the ocean from 1993 to 2003 for the upper 750 m of the water column (0.61 W m-2 globally). This heat flux had served as the basis for the conclusion by Hansen et al. (2005) of a substantial planetary radiative imbalance, which in turn served as the basis for the imbalance given in the review of the global energy budget by Trenberth et al. (2009). However, much of the apparent increase in heat content reported by Willis et al. is now attributed to problems in the measurements (Gouretski and Koltermann 2007; Wijffels et al. 2008), so such a large heating rate and planetary radiative imbalance seems unlikely; for these reasons we retain the value of 0.37 ± 0.12 W m-2.

I am so excited by this that I am considering writing to Trenberth and asking for his view of this. ;-) Alex Harvey (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Comedy

I remain slightly astonished by the goings on over at Climatic Research Unit email controversy but I have no idea what can be done to improve the article. Any change that I suggest appears to be labelled PoV on the basis that I made it. Given that the only change that I ever made was made with the enthusiastic backing of the six editors that were active at the time, I am slightly non-plussed.

The one upside is that it has proven to be a rich source of comedy. --Thepm (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's how it works. It's odd the way the far left and the far right can have so much in common, but in the Wikipedia climate change pages, held forever hostage to a small group of leftist extremists who simply don't have enough self awareness to realise that they even have a bias, it's very much a case of you're either with us, or you're a climate change denier. You're not the first to have this rude awakening, and you won't be the last. Talk to some of the neutral non-skeptic editors like Cla68, ATren or AQuestForKnowledge who ended up topic banned for their troubles. To avoid this fate, simply take it from me that there's nothing you can do to solve this problem, other than perhaps to agitate for fundamental process reform. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

CRU email controversy

Can you take two weeks off from this article please? It might not be entirely your fault that the general conduct (with persistent IDHT, battlefield conduct, etc.) has deteriorated, but I feel that unfortunately, you have played a fair role in it. This message is also being posted on the talk pages of Viritidas and Pete Tillman. NW (Talk) 15:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Hockey stick controversy

Please undo this revert you made to Hockey stick controversy: you're removing properly sourced context of the statement made by Pearce, and introducing a spurious link to the earlier criticism Briffa made of the MBH99 study, which is already covered in the proper context and date sequence in the Hockey stick controversy#Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1999 subsection. I'll add that your proposals on reorganisation are unacceptable, as they move points out of historical sequence and appear to be aimed at pushing a fringe POV and hiding the initial development of political controversy over the graph. Please take more care to give due weight to mainstream views, and provide sources rather than promoting your unsourced opinions. If you undo the reversion you made, that will be a good first step to properly sourced coverage of this important aspect of the controversy. . . dave souza, talk 18:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What happened is this: B: You added material I regarded as biased; R: I reverted; D: you now need to go discuss this at the talk page, per WP:BRD, not make false accusations of edit warring at my talk page. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ben Lyons

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ben Lyons. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Karrine Steffans

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Karrine Steffans. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Selena

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Selena. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

War of the Pacific

Alex,

Yet again I am finding that Keysanger incorrectly attributes sources to foreign authors when they are clearly written by Chileans, by the same people, or by unknown authors. (1) In the discussion held at the NPOV board, Keysanger attributes a source to the "New York Times", but fails to mention that the information is provided by a Chilean correspondant. (2) In the discussion at the article's talk page, Keysanger uses Sater three times (in separate parts of his list). (3) In the source where he attributes William Jefferson Dennis, the authorship is designated to the "British and Foreign State Papers". These three instances are just a couple new ones from many past attempts on his part to purposely trick both me and mediators into thinking he is providing "different sources" when, in reality, it is both the same POV (from Chile) or from the same people. I have mentioned this situation to Keysanger plenty of times in the past, and at this point I find it absurd to assume good faith from his part. It's difficult to work with a person who is not trustworthy and provides dubious sources (How many other instances in the article has Keysanger incorrectly used sources?). What would you suggest be done?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a difficult question because it's not obvious to me that anyone is acting in bad faith. Based on what you said yourself earlier, Chileans are taught one thing at school, and (presumably) Peruvians are taught something else. So I would expect the reliable sources to derive ultimately from one of these two perspectives. I do agree that using Sater three times was unfair and it did trick me, but I think he would still have made his point. It doesn't matter, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that a viewpoint is a Chilean POV; it only matters that it is what people believe. Also, K has given you permission to rewrite the lead with your new text; it appears to me that there is good hope of progress. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that it's not a matter of concern whether something is from Chile, Bolivia, or Peru as long as the source is reliable. However, what is an issue is that his source attribution is often cited incorrectly. It's difficult to analyze the reliability of the source if he does not provide the correct authorship. Also, now there seems to be an issue regarding the "factuality" of a section which Keysanger believes is made-up ([40]); despite I have provided several sources for it (the information is easy to find: click on the link and find the page number). I'm really sorry to be bothering you with these things, but I do appreciate the help you have provided thus far as it has certainly moved the discussion into the right direction.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're losing your cool a bit so I'd suggest do continue to assume good faith because I suspect that there is no actual intention to deceive. Try to tone it down a little and I'll try to help out in the talk page. No need to apologise because it's actually a welcome distraction for me right now! Alex Harvey (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I would apreciate that such thoughts are also presented in the respective discussion.

Sater wrote more than one book about this theme, he is a profesor of Latin American History in the USA and probably one of the best informed person in the world about the War of the Pacific, so I cited him as often as needed.

I don't understand you, Alex, why do you find unfair and tricky to use Sater three times, one from page 28 and another from page 39 of "Andean Tragedy" and other from page 9 of "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎. Yourself have problems to understand the first citation of Sater (page 28), that I cited wrong, then you can use the second (page 39) and the thrird ones (page 9) to see that Sater without any doubt asserts that there was a Bolivian declaration of war.

Sater's sentence: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." is for me very clear.

The word Apparently in Sater's sentence means "for some persons" and to avoid any ambiguity he says at the end "which he announced on 18 March". We remember that the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta occured on 14 February, so the first "declaration" was two weeks later, we say end of February or begin March. The second declaration was also on 18 March.

If MarshallN20 still has problems with the first citation of Sater, then he should use the second one from a second book and the third one from a third book. I don't see there ANY problem in Sater's stance.

It doesn't matter whether the author of the NYT is a Chinese or a Canadian, it is matter only that it is published by the NYT one of the most consulted newspapers of the world opposite to MarshallN20 "La Razón".

Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 11:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should continue this in the article talk page. :-) Alex Harvey (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Treaty of Mutual Defense

Alex, I thought we had reached consensus in the defensive/offensive issue by using the NPOV term, "Treaty of Mutual Defense". However, Keysanger is once again changing things to fit his POV: [41]. I really don't know what Keysanger's goal in this discussion is...he seems to be more interested in pushing Chile's POV than in reaching a NPOV consensus. Could you please undo his edit in the article? I'm sure he won't revert it if it is you the one who re-establishes that "Treat of Mutual Defense" is NPOV (which is what you had originally suggested).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes agreed. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I would apreciate that such thoughts are also presented in the respective discussion. The core of the agreement says that the treaty can't be portrayed as a defensive treaty disregarded the name of the treaty. That is the issue. Best Regrads, --Keysanger (what?) 10:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes fair enough that my talk page isn't the right place to be having this discussion. I took the core of the agreement to be that Marshal's compromise wording was satisfactory and you requested him to make the change. However if you are still not satisfied with it then I would recommend raising an RfC requesting outside opinions on it. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologize for error

Hi Alex, Hi MarshallN20,

I apologize for my error by the transcription of Sater's passage. It was unintentional and I don't know were occured the first time. My rationale stays without prejudice of the typo. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 10:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For myself I assumed it was an error. :-) Alex Harvey (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Western Historians

Alex, I was wondering why it is necessary to have more Western historians in my sources? Currently there are two, Sater and Caivano, but I don't understand why more are necessary. Also, regarding Sater's statement, I think your analysis of it is correct. Based on his 1984 book, Sater probably did not know there was different point of view regarding the March 1st decree. What's interesting is that Sater not only opens his mind to the possibility of it with the wording "apparently" (which seems to be aimed more towards himself than to the reader), but has gone as far as to find a March 18th statement from Daza in which he declared his decree was not a declaration of war.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit: From many of the new sources I have found, historians seem to avoid mentioning the March 1st decree at all. Either they don't want to get into the issue of whether "it was or wasn't" a declaration of war, or they simply find it unimportant. What they all have in common is their attribution of Chile as the primary aggressor (the one which declared war).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the issue would be the same as your complaint about Keysanger's sources all being Chilean. If all of your sources are Bolivian or Peruvian and all of K's are Chilean then the best we could do is note that Bolivia/Peru & Chile disagree on aspects of the history. Do you have any Chilean sources that support your viewpoint? They would be even stronger evidence. Really this belongs in the article talk page rather than my talk page. It seems these discussions are branching across all of Wikipedia! :) Alex Harvey (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have 2 Chilean sources ([42]). The first is from a Chilean historian, Guillermo Cortés Lutz, who does an analysis of Chilean historiography and its errors. In his analysis, he does not mention the Daza's decree at all, but rather he claims that "the start of the war" began with the Chilean invasion of Antofagasta and their declaration of war. The second is from the General Directory of Statistics (Chile), in which the March 1 declaration is once more given no importance; Chile is once again described as the primary aggressor and the first to declare war. I also have gathered further Western Historians/Foreign Relations experts: Edward D. Mansfield, Jack L. Snyder, William Spence Robertson, John B. Allcock, Benjamin Keen, and Keith Hanes. Also, I found an interesting primary source from Richard Gibbs, US ambassador to Peru during those times.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, regarding the branching out of the discussion, it's all mainly coming from Keysanger. Since he doesn't like your suggestions, he's trying to find someone else who will agree with him. However, for the sake of not flooding your talk page, I will only focus on the article's talk page as you suggest. Once again, sorry for all this mess, but thank you for being a neutral contributor to this discussion.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph proposal @ Talk:War of the Pacific

This is just to notify you of a proposal for the analysis of Daza's decree in the article's talk page. I hope it will end this phase of the discussion. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Decisions

Hi Alex,

I am a little bit unsure. Where will we discuss the declaration of war issue?. Where will we discuss the defensive/offensive issue?. I would suggest to stop the discussion of the declaration of war and concentrate in the d/o issue. Please answer here. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 17:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have only limited time and we seem to be about 75% of the way to resolving the declaration of war issue which you raised. I don't believe it would be efficient to now stop discussing that one and move back to the d/o issue. But if you want you can raise a new thread and if Marshal is willing to discuss it I suppose we can discuss that again instead. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I will concentrate to the declaration issue now. --Keysanger (what?) 09:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Dates...The Dates...lol

Hi Alex,

Please do take a look at the dates. I can't explain this enough. What I am noticing is a trend on the March 18 date. I seem to have misinterpreted Sater's explanation that he thinks Bolivia declared war on March 18. Nonetheless, that doesn't take out the fact that even Sater explains that no declaration of war took place on March 1st. It's not enough for Keysanger to provide sources that say "Bolivia declared war". He needs to present sources that state when it happened (month and day). Do you understand my point? Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marshal, I'm afraid I don't understand your point. If the reliable secondary sources agree that Bolivia declared war first, then even if there is confusion about the dates, our article must say the same thing as the reliable sources. It looks to me that Keysanger has demonstrated an almost unanimous view in reliable secondary sources that Chile's declaration of war on 5th April was a response to a state of war that already existed and was formally declared first by Bolivia. Whether Bolivia declared that on 1st March or 14th March or 18th March or even on an unknown date is beside the point. Probably we should avoid giving the dates at all while it seems there is confusion in the reliable sources. Now if you feel that it's not true and that Bolivia declared war then you need a non Peruvian, non Bolivian historian to say precisely this. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Alex. The date is not beside the point. It's not enough to say "Bolivia declared war first" and end the story. The controversy is regarding Daza's decree of March 1, and whether it was or wasn't a declaration of war. I have primary sources from historians, and secondary sources from historians which both argue that the March 1 decree was not a declaration of war. My sources don't talk about any other date than March 1.

If Bolivia declared war at some other point, then that's a completely different argument. Now do you understand my point?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well yes but then the problem becomes that nowhere does our article mention that Bolivia declared war on 14th or 18th March but instead it says, "Acknowledging the alliance, Chile responded by breaking diplomatic ties and formally declaring war on both countries on April 5, 1879. On April 6, Peru acknowledged casus foederis[26][33]". Alex Harvey (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bolivia's declaration of war on the 14th/18th is a minority view. The majority of historians discuss the March 1st date. I took the time to split both my sources and Keysanger's into each category. Arguing the March 1st decree: My sources (6) and Keysanger's sources (4). March 18: 3 of Keysanger's. March 14: 3 of Keysanger's. Which one is in the minority? Also, as I mentioned in the article's talk page, one of Keysanger's own sources explains what happened on March 18. According to that source, March 18 is when Chile "found out" about the March 1st decree, which they attributed as a declaration of war. I hope this fully clears up why I keep whining about the dates. Nonetheless, I apologize for my whining. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Pro March 1 BDoW: 4 Sources

"Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March) country-data.com and globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1', ... "Kleine Geschichte Lateinamerikas", by Hans-Joachim König, Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 2009, ISBN 978-3-315-017062-5, page 479: Chilenische Einheiten besetzten die bolivianischen Hafenstadt Antofagasta, in der nur 5% der Bevölkerung bolivianisch waren. Daraufhin erklärte Bolivian am 1. März 1879 den Krieg an. José Antonio Lavalle, "Mi mision en Chile en 1879", Edición, prólogo y notas por Félix Denegri Luna , Lima, Peru, 1979, Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú. (José Antonio Lavalle was the Peruvian envoy to Chile to mediate during the crisis and Félix Denegri Luna was a well known Peruvian historian [43]) In the Prolog to the book of the Peruvian envoy to Chile to "mediate" during the crisis, Félix Denegri Luna explains in aprox. 65 pages the situation of the three countries. He wrote in: page XLIII El 1° de marzo Bolivia entró en guerra con Chile page LVIII La declaración esta fechada en La Paz el 1° de Marzo. page LXII Lavalle se indignó cuando se enteró que Daza había declarado la guerra a Chile. La noticia llegada a Santiago dos semanas después ... The text of envoy Lavalle is a primary source, but allow me a transgression of this important rule of Wikipedia only in order to get a vivid view of the situation at that time. Lavalle says in page 84: En la mañana del 18 recibí una carta verbal* del señor ministro Fierro [Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs] pidiéndome que le viese a las 12 del día siguiente, para tener una conferencia relativa al objeto de mi mision, y pocos momentos después llegó a mis manos un suplemento del "Diario Oficial", en el que se anunciaba que el ministro de relaciones exteriores había recibido desde Tacna, por medio de correos, y desde Caldera por el telegráfo, el decreto expedido por el presidente de Bolivia en 1° del mes de marzo, que seguía, en el cual establecíase por parte de esa nación el "casus belli" con Chile, con todos sus efectos y consequencias

Anti March 1 BDoW (Only Historians): 6 Sources

Ramiro Prudencio Lizon (Historian and Diplomat) [44]: "In order for Chile to be able to advance further north an official war declaration was necessary. And it wasn't this country but rather Bolivia the one who sent an internal decree which was afterwards interpreted as a true declaration of war. [...] Obviously, Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy." Atilio Sivirichi, "Historia del Perú" (1932), page 193: "[Daza's decree] was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the [Bolivian coast]." William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", pages 61-62 ([45]): "[Daza's decree], as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of [Bolivian territory] by [Chile], and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner." Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán, "Narracion Historica de la Guerra de Chile contra el Peru y Bolivia". On Page 80 he presents the Bolivian March 1st declaration and explains its nature (at no point describing it as a declaration of war). On Page 86 makes first mention of a declaration of war, this coming from Chile to both Peru and Bolivia. Text from Page 86 ([46]): "War having been declared by Chile, it needed to justify its conduct upon the neutral nations and, at a loss of good reasons founded in law and corroborated by deeds, opted for falsity, presenting a series of situations under a distortion of reality, and others completely false. [Chile] said among other things that Peru did not gesture Bolivia in time to lead it towards a good path and procede with fewer recklesness and violence in its determinations." Valentín Abecia Baldivieso, "The History of Bolivia in International Relations. Vol 2.," page 73: "But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree (Hilarión Daza's decree) to which this characteristic [of declaring war] is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory", stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that [Chile] has promoted upon Bolivia." He later states that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because under the international law of the time, it was not. The steps taken were for security because Chile had taken Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press."

Pro March 18 BDoW: 3 Sources

William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", states: page 28 Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. page 39 Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile page 129 Pinto refused, perhaps believing that Daza would accept a return to the "status quo ante". But Daza did not: two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, Bolivia declared war "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..." Jorge Basadre, "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile"

Pro March 14 BDoW: 3 sources

Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, page 69: On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 March 1879 ... "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879

Concerning your July 25/26, 2011 comments on the WP:NPOV Noticeboard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Red_Eye_w.2F_Greg_Gutfeld

The one thing I have sadly learned about Wikipedia is that political ideology knows no borders. Sockpuppet Jackjit/118IP is a liberal New Zealander who vandalizes USA Republican/conservative type articles constantly, including the article in question. So claiming you are an Australian doesn't prove you are any less biased than me or anyone else when it comes to NPOV on USA related articles, or any Wiki articles for that matter. Also, before you make false, uninformed and misleading accusations such as "Generally, there are a lot of footnotes (10 or 6) 'proving' various bits of wording in that article", please take the time (and have the respect for those who work hard to add reliable footnotes) to first go read the footnotes at the bottom of the article and then go read the cited material. Your false, uninformed and misleading statements prove you never did go read the footnotes or the cited sources. You never did deny this obvious fact. It is always best Wiki policy to go read the footnoted/cited material BEFORE making major changes and deletions to an article's section that is well-sourced. It is also Wiki best policy/courtesy to have/move discussion to the 'talk page' of the article before you go off unilaterally making major changes to the article, especially when major changes are being made citing NPOV issues which are always debatable/contentious. Good day, mate. PS: And yes, you did receive a factual response (call it strong-as you did-if you like) from me when you engaged in the above cited misleading/uninformed behavior which concerned my contributions to the Wiki article in question. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I was being polite. Your response was way over the top, as is pursuing the matter at my talk page. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I didn't read it that way and ditto. As to posting here, I just wanted to be sure you had heard what I said above and how I did not appreciate it. You have my full permission to delete this entire section immediately if you want to. Let's both hope for happier future editing and leave it at that. Good day. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)