User talk:Raymond arritt

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

Greenwich

May 2024

13

Monday

11:09 pm UTC

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

Care of the cow brings good fortune.

---

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

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

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

Tone

You guys are all losers

bitches

That's not very nice. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

CIV

Much better, thanks. I also agree that the bit about being dumb doesn't belong in the civility policy, but I'd argue that dense people and the things they say and do can stress others as well. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 23:17, April 8, 2008

Our friend again?

[1]. New paper, but same modus operandi. BTW, I looked at the paper, and cannot reconcile the byline with the summary - any opinion by an expert would be welcome... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul already got him. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

5:1 odds for. I prefer bottles of wine, but if you take it, I'm reasonably flexible about the fluid. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Zot. Two bottles of Thunderbird for Stephan. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You overestimate my flexibility - or my reasonableness? Anyways, glad you agree. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

GW disinformation and Wikipedia

Re:your comment here - you're one of the few people here who's really competent to debunk the disinformation that Wikipedia's deniers constantly try to get included in our articles. Your non-participation makes it harder for the rest of us, as well as hurting the cause in general (of keeping Wikipedia's articles free of denier misinformation). I ask you to reconsider. Raul654 (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I'll keep reverting junk, but won't engage Ron on talk pages because I don't see the point in subjecting myself to condescending abuse. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming and related articles

Raymond, I've noticed that you do a good job of helping keep the Global Warming and related articles NPOV, balanced, and complete. I've seen some complaints both on and off-wiki that those articles are supposedly a walled garden protected by a group of POV pushers. But seeing as how you're actively involved with them, I know that can't be the case and that I don't need to involve myself. Please keep up the great work. Cla68 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To paraphrase JzG, we should perhaps post a notice that "this article accurately reflects the scientific literature on the topic, and my goodness do some people hate that." Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Accurately reflecting the scientific literature on a topic" is so Web 1.0. It's two-double-oh-eight, my friend. If you don't like what the World Health Organization has to say about a topic, just follow up their opinion with an article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons which rebuts them. MastCell ^Talk 05:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to discuss with you what I feel are unjustified editorial 'qualifications' within a specific section of the Global warming controversy. Specifically,

Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,[25] but his attempted refutation is disputed.[26][27][28] Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism, also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."[27]

The idea that he 'claimed' to have found flaws, when he did in fact find flaws in the methods used to determine consensus, is disingenuous. It's not an argument as to whether there is or is not a consensus, it's whether or not Oreskes' work could be used to prove or disprove that consensus exists. The answer to that is no it cannnot. While the fact that many of the 928 articles she cites 'agree' is certainly evidence, it's hardly a scientifically accurate sample of the available data. Especially since, as Peiser explained, many of the articles used in her 'study' have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change as an anthropogenic effect. Also, any refutation could be described as 'attempted', and in this case it amounts to an editorially biased commentary on the quality or effect of his findings. Please read Keiser's Response to inquiry regarding his published findings--Kasmel (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Peiser claims that Peiser did it right (or partly right). The truth is that almost none of Peiser's abstracts had anything at all to do with global warming, much less disputing the consensus. Peiser is an anthropologist and was clearly out of his depth when trying to assess the scientific literature. See Tim Lambert's critique, among others. "Claimed" and "attempted" are in fact generous; one can make a strong case for "embarrasingly inaccurate," but we'll go with the softer wording. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Um. Again, you have decided to look at Peiser's work as an attempt to discredit the idea that there is a consensus. That is not the case, as he has clearly stated. He was simply pointing out that Oreskes made bare assumptions of a consensus based on a non-scientific approach to inquiry, which he proved purely on the basis of the description of given search parameters used by Oreskes herself. I agree that there is more or less a consensus, in that the majority of climatologists, and other scientific experts in supporting or corollary fields, agree that to a greater or lessor extent there is an anthropogenic aspect to global climate change. The debate isn't, again, regarding whether or not this is the case, it's regarding whether or not Oreskes' findings represent a conclusive and scientifically viable study of the consensus itself. Again, the very simple and straight forward answer to this is no, her study was poorly structured and ill conceived from beginning to end. So the editorially charged 'qualifications' or Peiser's rebuttal are not only unnecessary, but are a direct attempt to legitimize Oreskes' study which in fact can only be used to discredit the idea that there is a consensus.--Kasmel (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What Peiser tried to do was worth doing, but he botched it abysmally. If we add Peiser's unpublished debunking of Oreskes, we have to add the numerous unpublished debunkings of Peiser. So in the end the article will gain nothing but excess verbiage, and we'll unnecessarily add to Peiser's embarrassment. And we don't need to beat the "consensus" dead horse anyway since the national science academies of major industrialized nations have said there's a consensus. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to add either study. But I think that if we're going to qualify Peiser's study, we should have the good sense to qualify Oreskes' as well. Something along the lines of, 'A statistically questionable 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.' would be sufficient to end this discussion. It's a matter of the pot and the kettle. If we call shenanigans on one poorly structured study, and not another, that smacks of bias and can unecessessarily color the discussion.--Kasmel (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oreskes' study was published in Nature and has stood up well to criticism. A sample size of 928 is indeed sufficient for statistical purposes - as an example, it is about the size used for many opinion polls in the US. Do you have any source for "statistically questionable"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From Oreskes' own words. BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. The first three categories do not directly coincide. Evaluation of impact, and mitigation proposals can be authored without having a distinct stance on whether or not climate change is largely anthropogenic. She also doesn't break up the, 75% into the distinct categories leading one to believe that they all are a direct 'endorsement of the consensus position'. Not too mention her use of 'implicit' could very well be subjective. Saying that since a portion of 75% of one type of paper regarding climate change were a direct endorsement of consensus, and that none of remaining 25% were a direct contradiction of it means that there is a general consensus is questionable. It's like taking that political survey, and saying that the undecideds will unquestionably agree with one side or the other. Once more, it's not a question of whether or not there is a consensus, it's a matter of whether or not her survey can be used as a accurate proof of it's existence. I do not believe that it can. It has worth to be sure, but the conclusions drawn, whether true or not, cannot be drawn purely from the evidence of her study.--Kasmel (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

← My goodness. I was being somewhat flippant above, but clearly we're in a post-irony Wikipedia. Oreskes' article was published in Nature. Peiser's rebuttal was published... well... nowhere in the scientific literature, and is sourced to an op-ed column by Peiser in the National Post. The day that a paper in Nature can be scientifically "rebutted" by an op-ed column in a fairly partisan newspaper is a sad day for Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: It is a sad day for Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 03:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, It is obvious that the person with the quickest revert button has control and I have no interest in such. (My second post was because I thought that I must have exited too quickly with the first; then I checked the history.) The reality of greenhouse gasses will not go away. I will revisit occasionally just to follow the development. I am particularly interested in what happens as people become more knowledgable about optical spectroscopy and its relevance to AGW. Dan Pangburn (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to promote original research that has never been published in a medium with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (more at WP:V). For a scientific topic, that would ordinarily mean a peer-reviewed journal that is listed in the ISI Science Citation Index. Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia follows rather than leads the scientific literature (more at WP:CRYSTAL). You're welcome to try again after your work has been published in an academic journal and has made an impact on the field. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your participation requested

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes... about time. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy

Hi Raymond,

It came to my attention that you had some concerns here and here and have made a suggesting that I had been reverting to questionable practices. I'd like to note a few things and feel free to respond either here or on my talk page, whichever your prefer.

• Although we might have gotten off on the wrong foot, I don't see any need to potentially hold a grudge. I didn't agree with your actions previously, but won't hold it against you personally. I would hope that this could be reciprocated as well
• Considering the fact that I happen to be a new wikipedian who has really had to learn the ropes quite quickly here due to my involvement at Chiropractic I would appreciate that rather you take more of a mentoring role as opposed to, what I perceive, to be an attempt to drum up some kind of conspiracy.
• I have learned many lessons so far here, including some wikipedia policies and definitely the politics here. Again, a pro-active constructive approach would be much appreciated if I deviate from standard protocol here
• It's not uncommon for someone wanting a fresh start hence the name change which also reflects a new found maturity or at the very least, a new perspective on how to contribute effectively here at Wikipedia. That's the one and only reason I changed my name and I went through all the proper protocols to do so
• It seems as though a third party has some serious issues and a fixation on me, and I understand, based on a quick look at the histories, that you're on friendly terms. That need not mean that you and I cannot collaborate together nor strike up a similar entente cordiale.

Anyways, I wanted to nip this in the bud and I do appreciate your comments and feedback so we can move forward in our mutual goal of increasing the quality and experience here at Wikipedia. CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Attack page

I guess someone is being a bit two-faced with you. See User:CorticoSpinal/notes. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I proudly confess to his accusation that I am a rouge admin, but... yeah. I don't care myself (it only makes him look bad), but if you want to report it to WP:ANI it would likely get deleted as an attack page. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather save my energy for the racists and other low lifes. CorticoSpinal is just an anti-science, POV-pusher with an inappropriate attack page. He'll just get indefinitely blocked again soon. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

GSTS, Again

I think this edit qualifies as breaking your "final warning" to the KKK-loving Neo-Nazi. Calling me a fascist is over the top. And I didn't even have to bait him. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw, but I just got back last night from an overseas trip and have some things to straighten out at home (I do have a life outside Wikipedia, despite appearances). Indef block likely to follow. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raymond, I was thinking of issuing OrangeMarlin with some sort of warning for the following edits, but thought that may seem inflammatory coming from me, given our past interactions. Could you please check out these diffs, and let me know what you think? [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] He is clearly and deliberately disrupting the talkpage of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed with a seemingly anti-Christian agenda. I don't personally like to use the term 'POV', it seems incivil but OrangeMarlin is continually throwing it around at anyone who dares disagree with him. This was the basis of my fascist comment, as it seems somewhat hypocritical of OrangeMarlin to be so sensitive about his Judaism, yet so willing to dismiss another's religion, this being Christianity. --God Save the South (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note, the problem is also often in his edit summaries, perhaps he needs reminded that civility does indeed cross over onto Edit summaries, not just talkspace. --God Save the South (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Another example of this incivility on OrangeMarlin's behalf is evident here, first there was a civil request from an editor for OM to read WP:CIV, [7], followed by OM dismissing this as a personal attack here [8]. I feel that OrangeMarlin is a well educated individual who I am sure could be very valuable to the encyclopedia, but something needs done about his continual incivility, it is creating a rather hostile environment. --God Save the South (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

unCIVIL huh? You know that accusing people of spurious CIVIL and NPA violations is itself a sanctionable offense. Good grief.--Filll (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that comment is directed at me, I am quite aware of the consequences and am hoping that someone neutral (in OM's eyes) will tell OrangeMarlin that very fact so he ceases his constant barrage of spurious accusations. --God Save the South (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally unsure what you hoped to accomplish with going back to OM's page. In fact I'm unsure about what you hope to accomplish at Wikipedia in general. Outside of a few vandalism reverts, I've seen little activity from you that is helping improve the encyclopedia. I've seen provocative user boxes made, provocative edits to KKK related articles, and wikilawyering and personal attacks. Apparently you take issue with use of the term neo-Nazi. OM you shouldn't call him a neo-Nazi. Do you deny that you are if not a KKK member than at least a KKK supporter? With affiliations with that group, isn't racist a statement of fact rather than a personal attack? AniMate 01:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Thanks AniMate, I was wondering the same thing, but I don't want to bait the SPA. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Expert advice?

Hi, I've been looking at your expert withdrawal page and put an idea in there, not that I think I can figure out something in half an hour that noone else has figured out before, I believe it has, I just don't know if it's been actually tried. I am a newbie editor, but I feel loath at giving of my way way way too limited time to this project if it runs like it does now, so that's why I'm interested in helping fix things.--AkselGerner (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actionable intelligence

So if calling someone a "POV-pusher" is "actionable" incivility, then isn't calling someone "uncivil" also itself an uncivil act? Aren't group denigrations (e.g. "a bunch of uncivil editors") uncivil? I think the reductio ad absurdem of this recent trend is to declare that it is uncivil to call anyone uncivil. I think I'm going to start enforcing actionable breaches of WP:CIV now. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My brain hurts. T.F. Gumby (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No pain, no gain. Or as the Marines say, "Pain is weakness leaving the body." I like your sockfarm, by the way. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi RA, could you take a look. . .

Hi Raymond, I was wondering if you could check over a recent block I made. I just want to make sure I didn't miss anything. If you have a bit of time I'd appreciate it. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, lots of background there. I'll try to have a look this evening when I have more time to go into it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, I guess there is a lot to read. If you don't get time to look at the overall merits, that's ok. OTOH, if you notice anything technically lacking on my part (I've left a notice with a link to an unblock request template, which I think is all I have to do) with regard to following the blocking protocol -that's something I would want to know, and would be a little quicker to check (I hope). R. Baley (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

My apologies, it was poorly worded. I meant that we need to watch that the editor doesn't break 3RR again, as he's done so in the past and has ignored warnings to stop. Grsz^talk 03:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your omission

I'd kindly suggest you explain your conduct which I consider to constitute deliberate omission of unacceptable behavior by user Aude. While you're revaluating your own decision try to answer the following question:

Did user Aude followed any of the principles stated by the Arbcom?

Also, please remind yourself of the remedies proposed by the committee.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

I'd suggest that user Aude, who failed to follow every point made above take advice of Arbcom and restricts its editing to other topics. I'm asking for revision of the article, so it may take the form in which it stood before user Aude took the liberty of enforcing its own POV. Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where Aude violated any of the provisions of the arbcom decision. Regarding your proposal for the article, the arbcom remedies refer solely to editor to conduct and do not provide for revisions to article text. You can view the arbcom remedies here.[9] Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)