User talk:Raymond arritt/Archive 2008

Archive 2005

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Outing

You know, following Ilena Rosenthal's ban from Wikipedia, she's engaged in Herculean efforts to "out" pretty much everyone she came into conflict with on Wikipedia. Her campaign to out User:Shot info is nearly Homeric in its scope. She has apparently identified me, in off-wiki fora, as one or another of her real-life adversaries. To say nothing of User:Fyslee. So while no one deserves to be outed simply for their connection to Ilena, it's worth considering these contextual items to hone one's sense of irony. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How about starting a movement ?

Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.

The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.

If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on.

--Filll (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather discuss first. There may be a more effective way to deal with the issue. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think both are fine. I put it on my user and talk page. Perhaps a link to the discussion should be included in the template.--Filll (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes

Defending the indefensible makes one say and do some strange things. Oh, and I noticed Mastcell commented on me. So far the count that Ilena has on me is two people. She madly tries out various editors, Mastcell, Fyslee, myself, Quackguru, Avb, Chroniegal amongst others. It's a laugh. If only she had a protective admin hey :-) Shot info (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is this "Ilena" that several people have mentioned? Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably not worth going into, but you could look at User:Ilena and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Briefly, she's an activist for a variety of "alternative" medical causes and a longtime USENET combatant on such issues. She was involved in a libel suit with Stephen Barrett (Barrett v. Rosenthal) which went all the way to the California Supreme Court and, as I understand it, is something of a landmark decision. Ilena then came to Wikipedia to edit pages related to the lawsuit and her opponent, Stephen Barrett. This fairly gargantuan conflict of interest eventually led to an ArbCom ban, after which I was notified that she was on an (amusingly misguided) quest to "out" her opponents off-wiki. MastCell ^Talk 06:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ilena is a prime example of how Wikipedia has a very hard time dealing with editors that work here in bad faith. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Some others to notify.

It might be a good idea to make a list of all the people who have been notified about the discussion, so that anybody who hasn't gotten word of it is notified.

For instance, have you told Adam Cuerden or have you tried to contact ScienceApologist? Then there's JzG, but we probably shouldn't bother him about this since his father just died. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just post the special notice:

Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.

The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.

If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)

on your talk and user pages. It will spread.--Filll (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I only notified one or two people. Don't want to be accused of "canvassing," you know. It's just spreading by word of mouth (or keyboard). Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Expertise

I found your discussion related to experts potentially leaving or striking, and so forth. First, let me say that I believe that Homeopathy is a pseudoscience, at least beyond the placebo effect. But, I am curious how you feel that expertise plays with regard to that topic or other pseudosciences. For example, if a particular editor's expertise is in information systems, mathematics, atmospheric sciences, or kitchen management, does that have any bearing in a discussion about homeopathy? Is the unrelated expertise relevant? It seems to me that modern medicine might apply, if we're talking about related expertise anyway. I'm not sure about the others, however. And I guess I might also wonder if unrelated expertise, and the aforementioned discussion about experts potentially leaving wikipedia, has any weight in the context of completely unrelated pseudosciences. Tparameter (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The question of specific disciplinary expertise is a second or third order issue compared with simply having a rational worldview. The frustration comes from continually dealing with aggressive purveyors of nonsense. And especially the continued protection and nurturing of said purveyors by influential members of the community, no matter the extent of disruption they cause. For example it doesn't require much disciplinary expertise to recognize the idea of communing with the dead through tape recorders as complete bollocks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll get in trouble for this, but maybe it's just a matter of loneliness... :) MastCell ^Talk 01:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That might explain some of it. The fact that many people don't like the side-effects of drugs, the high expense, the potential damage that long-term use can cause, the over 200,000 iatrogenic deaths caused by drugs, the dishonesty of some drug manufacturers, the FDA lack of effective oversight, ... Anthon01 (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

...makes them easy prey for whatever snake-oil salesman comes down the pike. Yup. I know people like that. But the shortcomings of conventional medicine do not legitimize quackery. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither I nor MastCell were trying to legitimize it. Just expanding on MastCells attempt to explain why. Anthon01 (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was making a general point. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't put it on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You were making a point that diverge 180 degrees from what I was saying. I just wanted to make sure you understood the point I was making. Anthon01 (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, whatever. We're obviously not connecting, so let's just drop it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I now see you point. You are correct. It's been a long day. Anthon01 (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: "for example it doesn't require disciplinary expertise to recognize the idea of ... as complete bullocks". I agree completely; but, I'm also wondering then, why was expertise brought up in the first place? If a renowned cobbler were leaving because of kooks wrecking the shoe articles, I'd be frustrated along with him. But, if he's straying from his expertise, then I can't really feel for losing an "expert" if he's editing outside of that expertise. Losing a good editor, however, is always bad. But, framing it as losing an expert in that context doesn't fit. Tparameter (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Expert" was the best shorthand term I could think of for "rational, well-informed person." Although most of the people who have raised issues do have expertise relevant to the topics in which they're editing, they're more than happy to work with well-intentioned novices. I'll gladly help people whose knowledge has some gaps but are coming at an issue in a constructive way (see for example this exchange). It's dealing with aggressive POV-pushers and Kozmik Kadetts who are convinced they have The Truth^TM that gives people fits. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I do believe that there is a big difference between the two. I have expertise in mathematics - but, I often defer to those with more, a PhD for example. However, often the elite experts are not necessarily rational, or well-informed. I suppose breadth and depth are key, and if you invoke expertise, then you imply depth in a particular topic, presumably the topic at hand. It turns out, that you seem to really be talking about breadth - in which case you should clarify in your other discussion IMO. Anyway, with your clarification, I find no disagreement between your beliefs and mine on this topic. Thanks for your reasonable replies. By the way, your example over at global warming illustrates exactly why experts are needed here, for whatever it's worth. Cheers. Tparameter (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said Tparameter, I am sure you do not get it. --Filll (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Tparameter, let's take another example, which is not exactly about "experts". Let's consider the abortion and pregnancy articles. Now we have a few doctors and nurses and choice and right to life advocates who are trying to construct an article or two that show all sides.

And one or two antiabortion editors come to the articles and unilaterally demand that the articles be written as they dictate, ignoring all sources that they dislike and deleting all material that they disagree with. And they are abusive and combative and uncivil and attack others repeatedly who are trying to have articles that include material from both the right to life and the right to choose sides of the argument, and from the medical perspective. They fight frantically to present the articles ONLY from the right to life view. When told about NPOV, they ignore it or twist the words tortuously to get their way. And many other editors give up and leave Wikipedia because it is too unpleasant to deal with these anti-abortion editors.

Then finally, RfCs and Arbcomm proceedings are started against the antiabortion editors. But they promise to do better, and get off and then act badly again, and the entire cycle repeats a half dozen times. Finally the anti-abortion editors are blocked, but then plead to come back and are allowed back, and start acting badly again. And more mainstream editors trying to operate within NPOV give up and leave. And to save one troublesome editor who is unwilling or unable to abide by NPOV, we drive off 5 or 10 others who are trying to abide by NPOV.

If there are experts in this picture, it is the doctors and nurses, who are discouraged from editing by these difficult editors. But the principles are the same as on many other articles.

This same behavior goes on over and over. My main concern and Raymond arritt's concern is on pseudoscience articles and science articles. Where one person claims that magic is real and the articles must be rewritten to include magic or else it is patently unfair. And they and their friends demand that science take a back seat in science articles to magic.

And our administrative structure of admins and arbcomm etc are unable or unwilling to do anything about this situation. And they get 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 10th, 20th, 50th, 100th chances to improve and they never improve. And just drive regular productive editors working within NPOV away, and these regular productive NPOV editors are given no 2nd chances as the disruptive trolls, sock puppets, meat puppets, POV warriors and tendentious disruptive editors are.

Is that clearer?--Filll (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your frustration, friend. And believe me, I've been there. My main point over at the other discussion is very simply that "dysfunction" does not necessarily "prevail" at wikipedia. My main point here is that "expertise" as it was originally framed was misleading, and most likely irrelevant. So, for clarification, I suggest that you guys frame the discussion more accurately, and then you will be more persuasive IMO. You're really talking about kooks establishing a foothold, and effectively twisting articles to suit their faith. I have a lot of observations on these topics - but, I'd rather not further pollute his talk page. Last, your first three responses weren't helpful at all. Your most recent reply, however, made up for the first three. In the future, I would suggest skipping the former and sticking to the latter. ;-] (sigh, if only I practiced what I preached) Tparameter (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Just most of the editors we are dealing with in the sciences are quite familiar with these issues already. You are right we need to be clearer for those who are not familiar with the situation.--Filll (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your discussion page

It is slowly generating discussion and a few good ideas even. What do you think?--Filll (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gents/Ladies, IMO, I starting to believe that there is no hope for the "paranormal/pseudoscience" type articles. Basically, Wikipedia has matured to a point where it’s modern bureaucratic nature doesn't allow for articles to be written, instead they descend into a pointless (and seemingly endless) war with the POV pushers. I for one, am going to abandon such articles to their fate. It's a vain hope and I doubt that it will be fixed, but I couldn’t be bothered with the Whigs of the world. Wiki wants itself to be taken seriously, but doesn't allow it's admins to police itself, in order to be taken seriously. So until this begins to happen, the project will be just a side issue out there in the "real world" (as it is at the moment). Hope is not lost, but it's time for certain admins to do some of the work rather than leaving it for long suffering editors. While I am not recommending you guys do the same, it would be beneficial to concentrate of “real” subjects in Wikipedia rather than those that attract wackjob POV pushers who think snakeoil is still a remedy... Shot info (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

you might want to consider

[1]--Filll (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Note at talk page

User talk:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal/Draft. Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Another example

[2]. Exactly because of the subject of the discussion page. It happens over and over.--Filll (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

I hope you accepted my apology on the homeopathy talk page. I was talking about the lead and you mentioned the whole article. I mistakenly, took it as hyperbole in an attempt to ridicule my suggestion. Anthon01 (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing comments

Thanks for your response at WP:ANI#User removing comments from talk page. I was just wondering if you could please remove the referenced comments again from WT:SPOILER. I'm at my 3RR limit there, and User:ChazBeckett is now unresponsive. Thanks! PS: Someone seems to have closed the entire discussion with an archive template, but the comments really don't belong there at all and should be removed outright (in my opinion). Equazcion •✗/C • 11:39, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not as that could be seen as gaming 3RR. In the grand scheme of things it isn't all that important; just let it go this time. But the principle of removing off-topic bickering still stands. Raymond Arritt (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at WP:ANI#User removing comments from talk page. Just to be clear, I'm fine with the discussion on the spoiler talk page being closed. It certainly was generating more heat than light. It's the condoning of Equazacion's behavior that I find to beinappropriate. "Right thing" and "props" to a user edit warring and making personal attacks? That's the part I have a real problem with. Would you mind taking a closer look? Thanks. Chaz ^Beckett 12:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I did look closely to begin with. Here's the diff of the comments that were removed.[3] As I said before, this is just bickering: insults, counter-insults, counter-counter-insults, and so on. Reading the diff it's impossible even to know what article it applies to or what the locus of the dispute might be -- just unfocused oh-yeah-so's-your-mom level sniping. I also note that there are no comments by Equazacion in that diff, much less personal attacks as you state. If he made personal attacks elsewhere that's a separate issue which can be addressed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This [4] is the diff I'm referring to. "It takes a pretty low person to hide behind 3RR..." and "...eagerly await your response, if you do indeed have any idea what you're talking about." are borderline personal attacks, at the very least. Chaz ^Beckett 13:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That was in reference to your choice to revert me with no reasoning (your edit summary simply stated "rv removal of others' comments"), even after I pointed you to the policy page that defended the removal, and without responding to my comments at either of our talk pages. That did look a lot like you were taking advantage of the fact that I couldn't revert you anymore due to 3RR, and so you didn't need to address my concern. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:31, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning was that article talk comments aren't removed without good reason. You pointed to a section in an editing guideline (no specifics provided). 3RR had nothing to do with it. Quite honestly, I thought you stopped to end the edit war, not because of 3RR.Chaz ^Beckett 13:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I pointed to the specific section that outlines situations in which removal of comments by other users is warranted. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:37, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Disengage please, both of you. Chaz showed some diffs that Eq engaged in snippiness. And injunctions like "read it again, keep reading it until you understand" aren't a model of respectful commentary on Chaz's part.[5] Try to put this behind you and get on with editing constructively. I don't know if there's a history between the two of you, but if you continue escalating in this way then I fear things are likely not to end well. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What the heck do comments I made on other, unrelated talk pages have anything to do with my dispute with Equazacion? I mean seriously, Raymond, why would you consider it relevant to bring up comments I've made to other users in completely unrelated articles? Not to mention that the comment you referenced was rather appropriate in the context, which was a user refusing to read core policies WP:V and WP:OR. Chaz ^Beckett 13:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This started as a disagreement regarding deletion of certain talk page comments. You, yourself, brought in unrelated accusations of personal attacks. So I thought it prudent to check your own contribution history -- people who live in glass houses, and all that. I've asked you before to let this be, and you haven't, so I'm going to be a bit more blunt: think for yourself whether using an admin's talk page to tenaciously press a feud with another editor, even after having been asked to drop it, is a Good Thing To Do^TM. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me be blunt also, Raymond, you handled this situation horribly. You gave "props" to a user who edit warred and made personal attacks. When provided with a diff, you felt it necessary to examine my history instead of the user who actually made the attacks. The comment I made on the Terminator talk page was blunt, but in no way was a personal attack. I'm baffled by how you consider the personal attacks made by Equazacion to be "unrelated". They concerned the specific matter in dispute and were made during it. Unrelated? FFS! Anyway, I'm pissed off enough about the whole handling of this matter to leave. Thanks, Chaz ^Beckett 15:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Chaz doesn't seem interested in dropping this, which is the only reason I continued responding. But I hereby disengage. Thanks for your attention to this, Raymond. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:43, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

First, that section has 10 reasons different reason in it. At a minimum, you should have taken the time to point out specifically why you were removing the info. Second, there was obviously a disagreement that the comments met any of the guidelines for removal. Therefor, the comments should have remained on the page at least until a (preferably neutral) third party gave their opinion. Chaz ^Beckett 13:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hobbyist

Works for me. Shot info (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to annouce your boycott

Add your name to Homeopathy. Time to let the ASPOV argue between themselves. Shot info (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not put my name on a list. Also I've noticed that some who added their name have continued to post on the h. talk page. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

true, and I've just unwatched it. Time to leave it for those lambs.  :-) Shot info (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Now is the time for all rational folks to say: da hell wid'it.  :) •Jim62sch• 12:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I might have to walk away as well. Oh well.--Filll (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm assuming you're the person who started this 'scientific boycott' movement. If so, I just wanted to say thanks, and I mean that entirely honestly. I fully agree with the messages on your User page; Wikipedia has numerous problems, but in particular is a downright hostile environment for experts and scientifically-minded editors, and as a result many Wikipedia articles on scientific subjects are in an appalling state (or if not, are certainly heading that way). This has been known for some time, but no one has ever taken any significant action on it; hopefully, your boycott movement will be what it takes to finally cause a major paradigm shift in how Wikipedia treats its scientific articles and editors. Perhaps not; perhaps, like you suggest, the quality of such articles will continue to decline and any attempt to defend them will be ultimately futile. But even if that is the case, it's right to draw attention to it, rather than just closing our eyes and hoping the problem will go away.

I don't generally like barnstars, but you arguably deserve one for raising this serious issue. Here's hoping that this time, no one will be able to ignore it. Terraxos (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'd really rather not call it a boycott and that's not my intent, though it's the direction some people want to move toward. My original statement was phrased that way in order to provoke discussion. I had no idea that there were so many people upset by Wikipedia's bizarre "some say the earth is flat, others say it is round" version of neutrality, not just in the sciences but in other fields such as economics. Rather than a boycott, a more good-natured response is simply not to take the project seriously. Certainly the project doesn't take itself seriously in terms of accuracy and content. I've included some ideas from the discussion in a new template, {{hobbyist}}, which you may want to consider using. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Vere, amice, vere! "Certainly the project doesn't take itself seriously in terms of accuracy and content." •Jim62sch•^dissera! 10:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Hobbyist

Template:Hobbyist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Que será será. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Muy interesante. Quizás lo pondrias en el espacio usuario. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 10:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bonne idée, mais je ne sais pas faire une maquette dans l'espace utilisateur. Raymond Arritt (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ich protestiere gegen die Verwendung der geheimen Expertensprache. Englisch war gut genug für Jesus, und es ist gut genug für uns! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah Stephan, are you running for political office in the U.S. or something? MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I completely meshugga? I've ran for admin on Wikipedia, that's close enough for me ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's done - regardless of the outcome of the TfD, you can insert {{User:Raymond arritt/Hobbyist}} to transclude the template. If you want to get it out of your userspace, it's at User:Raymond arritt/Hobbyist - you can just delete it and then block me for vandalizing your userspace. MastCell ^Talk 19:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I would have no objections to your closing the TfD accordingly, unless that's out of process. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would do, except I commented there, so I'd undoubtedly be desysopped with extreme prejudice if I closed it. MastCell ^Talk 21:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, it's hard to tell whether that's a joke or not. :-p If any uninvolved admin (assuming such a thing exists any more) wants to close it, that's OK. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"uninvolved admin" wha's dat?  :)

Anyway, it was nice to see witty "foreign" language use. You guys rock! •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Expert withdrawal

Hi, I am thinking of writing a Signpost article about the expert withdrawal discussion. As one of the originators of this discussion, I wonder if you could tell me in a few words what you think the end result should be, e.g., what actions you think should be taken by the bureaucracy. Thanks, --Zvika (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Could you weigh in on this? Raul654 (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like William has responded already. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You made a comment

That you deleted on the talk homeopathy page. I generally agree with you that the lead is getting worse. Consider that excesses on both sides are leading to a lack of consensus and a degradation of the article. Anthon01 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

This Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be reviewed through the above link. Further to the relevant findings of fact, Waterboarding and all closely-related pages are subject to article probation (full remedy); editors working on Waterboarding, or closely related pages, may be subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, whereby any edits by that editor which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may result in a block. (full remedy).

Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year (full enforcement). Before such restrictions are enacted on an editor, he or she must be issued with a warning containing a link to the decision.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Following the ArbCom having come to a conclusion in this case, and having instated remedies, I'd like to ask you to unprotect the waterboarding article, since you appear to have been the one who protected it over a month ago. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Support, if you could, Raymond. Admins will have a free hand now to deal with the idiots, trolls, and various formulations of BryanFromPalatine. Lawrence § t/e 16:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. FWIW I don't regularly edit Wikipedia any more so you might want to call on other admins in the future. Any admin can do stuff like this. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you really escaping from the asylum? MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't blame anyone from wanting to take a step back from the insanity. I get tired of fighting with jokers and I escape back to some of the friendly dark corners of Wikipedia where I can just delight in learning things and producing interesting articles without interference from the legions of anti-intellectuals.--Filll (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've taken my own advice and become a Wikisloth. I check in once in a while and make an edit or two when the mood arises. As for this place in general -- sane editors please, please take the high road when dealing with fringers and their ilk. Be civil even when the other side doesn't deserve it. No, be civil especially when the other side doesn't deserve it. Insults don't do anything except harden the opposition and make us look bad to outside observers. In short, letting the loonies turn civility against us is dumb. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert Randall

Hi. I was about to create an article on "Robert Randall" (the pseudonym used by Robert Silverberg and Randall Garrett), but I saw a note saying that you had deleted an article by this name last September. I can't find any log showing what the old article contained, so I'm going to have to guess that the page you deleted said essentially what I had been about to say myself.

I do believe some sort of mention of "Robert Randall" is appropriate, even if only to redirect readers to Silverberg and Garrett. I could make "Robert Randall" a redirect to Silverberg, but one could argue just as strongly that the pseudonym ought to redirect to Garrett (and a simple redirect obviously can't point to both).

What do you think? Richwales (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't delete pages any more so it's not something that I would act on as an administrator. Go ahead and do whatever you think best. Sorry but I don't have any way to know if someone else would object. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. As it turns out, there's another Robert Randall — an early medical marijuana advocate — so I should be able to get away with creating a "Robert Randall" disambiguation page. Richwales (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

GW

If Bugsy has made blockable violations, then it should be raised in an appropriate forum. Don't worry, I haven't misplaced my troll radar and he probably is trolling. I have met people around here who simply don't "get it"—particulary, our definition of OR—and I'm willing to waste a post or two. (Paul from Michigan on Talk:Apex predator is my favourite personal example—he drives me nuts but he's just a well-meaning fellow who simply cannot grasp the concept of OR.) Marskell (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I've raised this once before but only got a couple of comments: we really should change "recent decades" to something that identifies the industrial era. "Recent" should be avoided in leads, and it would also help with the problem the Bugsy is illustrating now. Is it possible this decade will be cooler than the last one? Of course. We don't want to leave the article open to the suggestion that this disproves anthropogenic heating. Marskell (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been saying that for quite some time now, with opposition from William M. Connolley or simply being ignored. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Industrial era" is wrong, because attributable warming didn't begin until, well, recent decades. This is because over half of the anthropogenic CO2 has been added since 1970. See IPCC Working Group I, chapter 9. They use the phrasing "last half century". If you'd rather say "last half century" to avoid the word "decades" that's fine, but "industrial era" isn't an option. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thinking back now, my dispute was effect of natural variations of "pre-industrial" until 1950. Most of 1950 onward can be attributed to human actions. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that appreciable warming is a matter of recent decades. But causally, it's not wrong to identify the industrial era. We would need to get the wording down properly. "Recent decades" is terribly vague, and the use of "decade" invites comments of just the sort Bugsy is posting. Marskell (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should side on correctness rather an casualness. Recent decades is rather vague (though correct), perhaps "1950," "mid-twentieth century," or "last half century," as Dr. Arritt suggests, would be better, since common usage implies human influence. But this is perhaps a discussion better suited for talk:global warming. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, start a talk thread; I was going to, but posted to Raymond directly because my last talk thread got few comments. There's a bit of misnomer at work, which creates problems with determining "correctness". "Global warming", as a label, conflates mechanisms (anthropogenic factors that tend toward heating) with observations (it's been a lot warmer in "recent decades"). If we take it strictly in the latter sense, the trolls have a point: if there's a cooler decade, you can't say the globe is warming. The first sentence should be based on the former sense—human activities contribute to a warmer planet. "Industrial era" makes that clear. Marskell (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Many thanks for the Barnstar, it's much appreciated. I'm also glad to see someone else putting common-sense before political correctness. It's nice to know I'm not on my own. --WebHamster 18:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No consequence

Please accept my apology over my false statement made regarding a surmised block (I had the two editors confused while doing a Google query). To try to answer your statement (since I hate exaggerating it out at RfA) at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion, I feel that I have not been as strict in regards to the process. A usual MC will feature opening statements, arguments, my contributions to the discussion, then a vote, where essentially the majority rules out and the case is solved. With Cold Fusion, I attempted something more... hands on, by actually opening the dialogue to any interested party (sought via e-mail), and by creating sections where the Lead and History section was transposed and open game for editing and discussion. I've been actually active in the editing of the sections myself, essentially rewriting the text for clarity while maintaining the content within, and requesting sources where needed; that itself has not been disputed, and it has provoked discussion and further edits by other parties -- the intended effect.

It's become quite an extended stay, so to speak, and has so far taken much longer than most typical cases to resolve -- which we are not close to yet. But I feel that this method will produce an article that is not only agreeable to most of the involved editors, but will produce an article that is close to or at GA-status -- which it was near not that long ago (and before that, it was a FA). Thanks for your comments, though -- it's always welcome to hear departing comments and I will take those into consideration. seicer | talk | contribs 02:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary; it was a simple mistake. I should point out that I've become hypersensitive to the fact that bullshit artists are hijacking Wikipedia to promote their fringe or "paranormal" or "alternative" views (whatever they're called). They've learned that as long as they follow the letter (rather than the spirit) of policy they're free to press the idea that people can communicate with the dead using tape recorders or any other crazy thing. In short, our policies -- and especially, our obsession with so-called "civility" -- are being turned against us. Thanks for not taking it personally; I meant it when I wrote that you're a good guy and are well intended. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Way

Raymond, you need to go to the blackboard and write 100 times, "I will not encourage the unfortunate misconception among some editors that support for civility and quality content need be mutually exclusive." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I already know that. I think I write quality content, and I do my best to be civil. What's your point? Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It was meant to be a not-too-subtle comment on your message to Randy Blackamoor. Frankly, I probably agree with his outlook on homeopathy, but I sometimes find it embarrassing to be on the 'same side' as he is because of his too-frequent descents into flat-out insults and rudeness. I was concerned that your message gave the impression that civility isn't important when the 'other side' is, for lack of a better term, wrong.

Having angry, frustrated, namecalling 'allies' in a content dispute is a very trying thing. The personal attacks and interpersonal conflicts confuse and conceal the legitimate content concerns. New arrivals on the talk page are scared off almost immediately by the angry invective, pretty much ensuring that short of Arbitration no resolution ever happens. Venting one's personal feelings about a topic might feel good, but it doesn't build the encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mostly agree with your second paragraph. I'm not bothered at all when someone is "uncivil" toward me though I get really upset when people misrepresent sources, distort the facts, and so on. To be honest I think the "he called me a bad name" complaints that we see so often are immature; one expects that on a playground and not in a project to build an encyclopedia. But I recognize that my view is opposite to that of the community, which values civility above WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and all other policies. So I follow the community's norms, realizing that I can't change those norms, and I try to get other reality-based editors to follow them as well. That means I have to speak to them in terms that they understand. The flowers-and-butterflies, hold hands and dance around the maypole Wikilove stuff won't work with most editors who have a scientific bent; we just roll our eyes at that. Instead I tell them that although I disagree with placing civility above content, that's just how things work around here and we can't change it. People who have an agenda have learned that they can score points by getting their opposite number in trouble for real or imagined incivility. My note to Randy was meant to convey that reality-based editors need to learn to be "civil" because that's how the game is played here and ceding the "civility" bludgeon to the fringers does us no good. I put "civil" in scare quotes here because what Wikipedia counts as "civility" often looks more like unctuous ingratiation, and what Wikipedia counts as "incivility" often looks more like forthright commentary. This person put it well. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Complaints about name calling might be immature, but then again so is name calling. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Did anybody say it wasn't? Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that was prerequisite. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, you're right. The stolen painting is in the house next door. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well-put, Raymond, well-put. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I misinterpreted a statement you made on the homeopathy talk page and immediately apologized for it on that page and, later, on your talk page as well. On his talk page, Randy's comments were You (Anthon01) and the rest of the pro-homeopathy crusaders simply pretended that the sources and the people advocating them did not exist, and went on asking "where are the citations?". This is yet another example of the dishonesty and gamesmanship that you(Anthon01) and the other pro-homeopaths have brought to that article. is uncivil. He directly accused me of simply pretended, dishonesty and gamesmanship, and you responded, without exception, by supporting his statement. You said Apparently it is. I wouldn't consider Randy's comments uncivil, but simply an honest and forthright appraisal of the situation. In this case I don't see how I have not AGF? Please clarify. I also told you that you were encouraging him. [6] Anthon01 (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother...--Filll (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll: Who is this addressed to? Anthon01 (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being blocked for my comments here, I must say that you have missed the point of my comment to User talk:Randy Blackamoor. My comment was, in fact, on content. I asked for advice at [7] and the first response was from him: "You are an "active researcher" on the topic of whether ghosts live in my tape recorder? I guess we'd better do what you say! Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)" Since that was essentially a sarcastic remark that added nothing to the discussion, I felt it would be productive to ask him to stop to his face. As it turned out, the other commenting editors basically agree with him, so I suppose I need to find an admin for advice. Do you agree with him as well? Tom Butler (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom B: Who is this addressed to? Anthon01 (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's sarcasm; is that a bad thing? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

All of us have to remember what the goals of WP are; NPOV is not neutral and not sympathetic and not uncritical. NPOV is not unbiased. WP:FRINGE is a reasonable policy and so is WP:NPOV and WP:RS. People fighting against these are just wasting everyone's time.--Filll (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

I saw your note of concern at a talk page and wanted to ask for you to take a look at events that occurred at the article Amy Winehouse and Talk:Amy Winehouse. Actions were taken and except for a one sentence comment about logic, the editor in question has not responded to our request for him to discuss the action he took, or objections to specific things. My note about the events is on the talk page. I don't honestly know what to do next, since this editor has been online all day and has ignored the request for discussion. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick review of the talk page shows that controversial material was deleted more or less in accordance with WP:BLP. My understanding is that to avoid lawsuits Wikipedia has to be very circumspect about anything remotely critical with regard to living people. This is not an area where I have much experience, so it would be better to ask another admin. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Elias/Boodles

Not with that post. I'm just being my frank, honest self. I don't see why trolls who call others Nazis deserve sympathy themselves - AGF is not a suicide pact. Will ^(talk) 10:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not convinced that calling someone a Nazi is a worse offense than actually holding and promoting virulently anti-semitic views, but that seems to be the way things work these days. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, what?

Why did you feel the need to remind me of this? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This edit indicated you were unaware of it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: the above. It looks like I was leaving a note for Cobaltbluetony at the same time you were asking on my talk page. I do intend to stick by my warning; if Cobaltbluetony or Anthon01 leave any further 'helpful' warnings or suggestions while Randy is blocked or afterward, drop me a note and I'll block them for goading. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Incidentally, I'm not the original individual with whom he had an issue. I was just dumb enough to stick my neck in. Randy appears too agitated to have a logical discussion, at least at this time and/or on this issue. Your own comments suggest you feel as I do regarding the editing practices of some of the others involved; it would be so much easier if we could just have a concensus on the policies involved, and not a debate as to whether homeopathy was a scientifically sound practice. (I so don't care!) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Now a prod?

[8] Are we not allowed to have sandbox articles associated with articles? Should I move it to a sandbox associated with my account? What the heck is this?--Filll (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, stuff like this should be in your user space. Just move the article to something like User:Fill/Evolution draft and work on it there. The Spencer guy was technically correct but it was needlessly confusing because he prodded the article as a test instead of just asking you to userfy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

block of 89.108.143.2

Thanks! мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Now being directly challenged at AN/I

But it is too dangerous to correct the falsehoods and reply. So I will not.--Filll (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Expert Withdrawal in Signpost?

FYI, User talk:Zvika#Expert Withdrawal Jay*Jay (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Tag bombing essay

Tag bombing may also be used as a tool to harass another editor. But, more often it may be a direct outcome of mindless tagging (a bit overdone). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you know?

I'm now welcoming submissions for my userpage-specific version of "Did you know?" MastCell ^Talk 00:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Careful what you say

Your slip is showing. Anthon01 (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

¿Que? Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the reply....I'm wondering if it will be Please assume good faith or I'm offended by your edit. Shot info (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This was in response to RA's edit of Randy's talk page[9] where he suggests some tag-team going on between Dana and I against Randy Blackamoor. He and/or you could probably build a convincing circumstantial argument to support that if you could find diffs to support it. That would be a more scientific way to justify the "unhelpful post" (as per Jehochman) he had made. Why not take the time and try to prove the tag-team with diffs? Short of that, RA's statement is an ad hominem attack.

I said this before, I was trying to stop the constant insult wars on the H talk page that were largely fueled by Randy.[10] and wasn't trying to win anything.[11] Since I started posting warnings on Randy's talk page the page has been civil. I believe the diffs will support that.

Please assume good faith and I was not offended by the edit, but disturbed by RA's continued assumptions of bad faith. Jehochman removed the thread which he saw as an "unhelpful post that appeared likely to elicit a negative response," a thread that Raymond help create.[12] My post said another way would be "maybe RA is projecting." "Slip" is a play on words, as the classical understanding of the expression "your slip is showing" and "slip of the tongue."

I am not a homeopath. I don't play tag-team with Dana. I am actually pro-science, but not at the exclusions of other forms of knowledge. I agree that the scientific POV is paramount in scientific matters. Consider that other editors, like David D. and MastCell, who are not considered "fringe POV pushers," agree with me that the writing is heavy handed. Who cares whether it is or not? Well an encyclopedia needs to be readable as opposed to a flashing red-sign against alt-med. What's the point of all this work if readers are turned off and won't read it? How could these non-fringe editors agree with me in this regard? Could it be that I am right and/or perhaps been mislabeled? Eventually you folks will figure out that my agenda is the encyclopedia, resolving the NPOV dispute, and an encyclopedic treatment of alt-med. Until then, you may find or suspect my statements to be part of some vast fringe-wing conspiracy. Spinning wheels. Anthon01 (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the reply was "Please assume good faith", typical... Shot info (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. There was no assumption of bad faith or accusation of tag-teaming, just an observation that as soon as one person stopped needling another started. This is what, the third time that you've made an empty accusation against me? Personally I'm not bothered by such things, but I do find it ironic that you're incessantly demanding good faith while refusing to extend the same courtesy to others. If nothing else please consider how that reflects on you. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Jehochman saw fit to remove your comment. If I'm mistaken, its ok. People make mistakes. "Refusing to extend the same courtesy to others?" Who? Diffs please. Consider how your broad (diffless) generalization reflects on you. Consider how your inflammatory comment on Randy's talk reflects on you. I will continue to incessantly demand good faith of others even if I make occasional mistakes. Anthon01 (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, I don't think the accusation was empty. Your Not saying that the paranormal/fringe crowd are coordinating the baiting of their opponents or anything, just... interesting clearly implies it. Why imply it? Anthon01 (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. I wasn't needling Randy. You are mischaracterizing what happened there. Anthon01 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You just keep digging Anthon01. And see how deep you can get.--Filll (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll: No idea what your talking about. Although I suspect you intentions are good yet misguided.

Raymond: I posted on Randy's page when he 1)posted ad hominem attacks on other editors. 2)I also commented when he would place comments on my talk page. That's it. One time on his page I placed a comment about 30 days ago that was needling him. It was after he threatened to report me to AN or AN/i and I told he was wasting his time. He did anyway and it went nowhere. When another editor pointed out that I was needling him, I immediately strike that comment out. OTOH, Randy is constantly psoting uncivil comments on the H talk page. His comments would lead to insult wars. I was trying to stop it. I suceeded.

Raymond. If I misunderstood than I apologize. You are not bothered by such things, and that's great. Generally I'm not bothered by them either; my problem is with the uncivil comments is that they are often based on wrong assumptions or used as smoke screens, and lead to a great waste of my time. Anthon01 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, I think that you've woefully misunderstood the effects of your actions. The reasons why Randy's conduct has improved are

• I warned, then blocked, him for his gross and grievous violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV, and he is aware that I will do so again should it be necessary; and
• I warned you (and some other editors) to stay off his talk page and stop needling him—which was what provoked at least some of Randy's overreaction in the first place.

Right here and now, I'll further advise you that if you consider 'I warned my enemies over and over again until they snapped at me and got blocked' a 'success', you're gravely mistaken. Should you – as a party to a dispute – attempt to use WP:CIV as a bludgeon in the future, it will not be looked on kindly. Don't template the regulars. Assume that editors who have been around for a while are familiar with basic Wikipedia policies. If they violate those policies to the extent that admin intervention is required, don't place 'helpful' warnings, go to AN/I. 'Warnings' from a staunch opponent are just seen as threats—and they don't help.

Please don't mention WP:AGF to me here, either. First, it would be extremely patronising to do so, and second, were I not assuming good faith I wouldn't be bothering to try to explain why your comments were harmful, and how your approach is unhelpful here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To Raymond—it's entirely possible that Anthon – in this instance – was an unwitting pawn rather than an active conspirator. He doesn't control Dana's actions, and it's unwise to offer unsupported speculation about his motives or strategy. However, to be absolutely certain that everyone is clear where we all stand, I've advised Anthon that his 'warnings' do no good, and usually serve to inflame and generate unnecessary wikidrama. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So I got that. You don't want me to place warning messages on a staunch opponents talk page. There will be no more warning on his talk page. I didn't seem him as an opponent. Your block certainly played a major role. But I think that you've misunderstood the effects of my actions. You would need to look at the history of my warnings and his response of a period from January 11th till now. I warned my enemies over and over again until they snapped at me and got blocked is not something I ever said or intended. Honestly I didn't think he would 'snap.' On the contrary I thought he would stop and was surprised when he wouldn't. The goal of the warnings was to get him to stop, and not to get him blocked. On most occasions, I warn him and he would complain briefly and then stop for days maybe weeks without any further warnings or block. Anthon01 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Peace offering

Anthon01, while I don't get upset over unmerited allegations per se it's draining to have to respond to them continually, and I think my time could be better spent. So how about an agreement: I'll self-impose a topic ban on alternative medicine and pseudoscience/paranormal topics, broadly defined. In turn I request that you stop badgering me, broadly defined. This seems like a win-win situation: you'll benefit because I'll stop doing whatever it is that you object to, and in return I can spend my time more productively. Breaches of this agreement will be assessed by a mutually agreeable administrator and I will accept without challenge any sanction that the admin feels necessary. As a starting point for discussion I nominate Jehochman as the admin. How about it? Thanks - Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you really see this as a peace offering? If you do then you have no understanding of who I am. However I am happy to discuss a mutual acceptable peace if you'd like. Anthon01 (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What am I missing? I'm promising to stay away from areas where you see problems in my behavior. Tell me what you want and I'll reconsider. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is hilarious and really speaks to what sort of editor Anthon01 is and how he is wired. Amazing.-Filll (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll and others, please, allow Anthon01 and me to negotiate this without external commentary. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Win-win negotiating requires that we both get something. What do I get if you stop participating in alt-med? I don't see that as a win for me. On homeopathy I suggested the elimination of the echos. [13] You responded OK, let's find every paragraph that uses "homeopathy" more than once and eliminate the excess usage of that word. I was surprise that you so quickly agreed without any reservations, that I thought you were being sarcastic. I frankly have rarely seen this kind of reasonableness at that talk page and as a result, took it the wrong way. With that kind of reasonableness I have every reason to want you involved on those pages. I have no interest in badgering you. I'm sorry if you feel that way. In this instance I was in the wrong.

If there is a problem with your editing, I haven't seen. I don't remember seeing a problem. I have a problem with the comment on several comments you made on Randy's page.[14]On the face of it, it looks like you agreed with Randy. The comment you made that lead to this section calls into question whether Dana and I are coordinating. Anthon01 (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Recall that my offer included alt med "broadly defined." That means I wouldn't comment on others' talk pages regarding discussions related to alt med. I'm not trying to pull a fast one; I just want to stop having to respond to your continuing allegations. How about it? Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I say you were trying to pull a fast one? Well I didn't. Anyway, this doesn't seem like a win-win peace offering to me. You peace offer is I will stop editing in X and you stop badgering meYou(RA) will stop editing in alt-med and I(me) stop badgering me, when if fact you have been partially at fault in two of three instances. Do you see what I mean? Anthon01 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the whole point. I'm tired of arguing over whether I'm 57% "at fault" and you're 43%, or whatever. I'm tired of being called to account for the tiniest of real or perceived infractions, and I'm tired of having to walk on eggshells all the time lest my comments somehow be taken as uncivil or in bad faith when they weren't meant that way. So how about a deal? You won't have to continually deal with comments to which you object, and I won't have to continually face accusations of doing something that I never intended. Again, that sounds like a win-win. Deal? And if not, please make a counter-proposal instead of just saying no. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll think of a counter offer. Anthon01 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

??? continually face accusations of doing something that I never intended." When Randy says that I "pretend, dishonesty and gamemanship" and you reply, "I wouldn't consider Randy's comments uncivil, but simply an honest and forthright appraisal of the situation" what is it that you were intending? You may want to rethink or reword your offer. Or just unilaterally remove yourself from the alt-med pages. Tell you what, Just keep your comments to the content and not the editor and I'll promise to do the same. We should be fine. How that for a deal? Anthon01 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is when I do comment on the content and not on the editor (for example when I suggested removing all the redundant instances of the word "homeopathy") you still accuse me of stuff, so I don't see what your offer solves. I may eventually take up your recommendation to unilaterally remove myself from alt-med pages but I'm concerned that the problem would persist even if I did so. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but your concern isn't adding up to me. You see, you are left with one example. Editors make mistakes. So what is the problem? Anthon01 (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So Ray, how's your brain going after all that? Shot info (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I give up. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You and me both. Your peace offering started with I will avoid your topic of interest if you agree to stop being bad,(paraphrased) IMO, a poor choice of words for a peace offerings. Anthon01 (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? I read it as I will stop annoying you if you will stop annoying me. In other words, disengagement. But that's just my view from the peanut gallery. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade can get you blocked

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

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

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

Singer

Apropos these comments [15], regarding edits on Climate Change Science Program, it seems that this indeed was S. Fred [16]. Doesn't look like he got help... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Ping ping

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

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

Tanthalas39's RfA

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

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

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

Global warming

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

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

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

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

RfA - Discospinster

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

Hi

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

An edit summary of "revert to harmonize with cited source"[17], is combative? You really must have a thin skin. FYI Raymond and JoshuaZ weren't the only ones that conflicted in reverting - i failed along with JoshuaZ[18], because Raymond was faster.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

notability for academics

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

==Re Float upstream==

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

Now I've seen everything

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

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

Re: Ray's Rules

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

Provocation

I wasn't provocating him [19] . I simply replied to what he had to say. [20] . It would've been nice for him to be able to read what I wrote, but I'm done. All the best. Uconnstud (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bait

Beautiful. We've needed this essay for a while. See also Number 66. Funny, just a few days ago, in response to this I was just a single twitch of my index finger from telling someone, very publicly, to "fuck off." Glad I didn't. Btw, I've also made a personal vow as an admin, never to block an established, good editor for a "civility" violation. In four years here I've never seen such a block do anything but harm. Nice essay! Antandrus (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC draft

I've started a draft user conduct RfC here. Cla68 (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to really enjoy doing these. Am I on your list? Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What list? If you want to see the main impetus for this one, review the recent Mantanmoreland ArbCom case, especially the evidence page. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppeteer killing magic wand

I think I have found a "magic wand" capable of killing sockpuppeeters (or at least making them substantially go away). As of tonight, I'm using it on Scibaby and Tile Join. Let's see what happens. Raul654 (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Magic wand"? Sounds almost... paranormal... MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it appears Raul has unleashed himself from the Forces of Darkness that have too long suppressed The Truth^TM about how our world is one with the planet Cephalexin. Everything you "know" is wrong.[21] Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Covering note on GW

Hi Raymond. Thanks for changing "recent decades;" it had gotten under my skin.

What do you think of a covering note to accompany it? "The anthropogenic (human caused) factors that are the primary cause of global warming date to the beginning of the industrial era but became noticable in temperature records around the middle of the twentieth century. The term global warming is not typically applied to short-term weather patterns; the trend has been identified in multi-year and decadal records, rather than from month-to-month or from one single year to the next."

Something like that. The pessimistic argument is that any new words create new arguments. The optimistic argument is that the next time someone says "this January was really cold" we would already have a note covering the concern. Marskell (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The "it was cold last week in Wagga Wagga" argument already is covered in the FAQ.[22] I'm a little wary about giving one more basis for contention. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding block vs. ban

Yes, it's true, I don't know the difference between a block and a ban (diff). I've read WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN several times, and yet I still don't understand it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The basic difference is that a ban is a social construct, while a block is the use of a software tool that prohibits an editor from an editing. So we can decide to ban someone, but then the ban needs to be enforced with a block. Conversely, an editor who is blocked is not necessarily banned -- we haven't said as a community "we don't want this person around," but an admin has decided to prevent someone's editing in order to avoid damage to wikipedia. The difference is subtle but essential. It's not a good sign when someone wants to be an admin so badly that they've gone through five (5) RfA yet they don't understand this important distinction. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me. Like I said in the RfA, I've just never dealt with banning before. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to weigh in at

This place--Filll (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

No, thanks for the heads up. I've been trying to help/keep him in line at the expelled page. He agrees with me alot, but he can get a little inflamatory. He reminds me of myself when I started editing controversial articles. Just wondering, are you watching his page or something? I'm suprised that edit got noticed so fast. (about 2 minutes). Saksjn (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Martijn Hoekstra

Hello Raymond. Regarding your comment on this RfA: I believe you should actually look into this in depth. As I noted in my support comment, I believe Martijn has actually done a perfectly decent job in that area. (See also my conversation with Regents Park.) I'm particularly concerned because, although you're not actually opposing the candidate, your comment does imply that Martijn's edits to articles (and debates) related to paedophilia are a cause for concern. Of course if they were, I'd oppose his RfA myself. But since they're not (and I honestly believe that if you review his work, you'll come to the same conclusion), giving credence to hurtful and unsupported accusations is unfair. I particularly sympathize with Martijn because I was also the target of SqueakBox's accusations a while back (see User_talk:SqueakBox/Archivehistory#NAMBLA_article for one of many instances). Though he did at some point sort of say that perhaps, yes, I wasn't a supported of paedophiles (!!), I never did get an apology. As an admin, I do get mud thrown my way every now and then (as I'm sure you do) and I've come to expect it. But being flimsily accused of "playing into the hands of pro pedophile activists" is way beyond what I ever expected. I use my real name on-wiki so I'm not exactly thrilled about this being forever linked to my name because of a benign speedy-close. The end-result is that I've stopped trying to resolve any dispute even remotely related to WP:PAW (until a few days ago when, looking into Martijn's history, I ended up commenting at Talk:Pro-pedophile activism). I suspect this is what happens with many editors: if you do get involved, chances are you'll face these accusations at some point unless you agree with SqueakBox. I should note that he placed a similar oppose during Haemo's RfA (diff) without a shred of evidence. As a matter of fact, he later retracted the oppose from the RfA but, as far as I know, never offered any sort of apology to Haemo. In all fairness to Martijn, I think it would be nice of you to try and figure out whether or not his involvement in PAW-related articles is indeed a "deal-breaker" because I think your current comment reads like "I'm not confident that Martijn isn't supporting pro-paedophile activists on Wikipedia". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a sensitive subject and yes I too am sometimes concerned that SB goes overboard. I've added an explanatory note which I hope clears things up. There are some instances where our well-meaning fairness and attempt to compromise is not merited. I find it deeply ironic that the community blocks people for saying naughty words but welcomes editing by PPAs. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The community does not welcome edits by pro-paedophile activists. They are blocked, as they should be, and then just reappear as sockpuppets, there ain't much we can do about that. You speak about "well-meaning fairness and attempt to compromise" but that's not what this is about. Martijn isn't advocating compromise with paedophile activists and to interpret his involvement in that way is absurd. He's advocating treating these articles like we treat all articles: with a deep belief that neutrality in tone is essential to a good encyclopedia. Now it so happens that pro-paedophile activists tend to argue that adding "sexual relations with children is morally abhorrent" every other sentence is a bad idea and argue as such because it goes against their agenda. I think it's a bad idea because, for no apparent benefit other than denying the bad guys any sense of satisfaction, it fundamentally skews the article with a moral judgement that the readers are smart enough to make themselves. So, yes, in these cases I'm siding with them. Not because I'm a paedophile activist, not because I'm making a well-meaning attempt at compromise. Because I believe that facts speak for themselves and because I don't condescend to the readers of Wikipedia. I don't care what the paedophile activists think (and from what I remember from my previous involvement in those debates, they're easy enough to spot and just ignore) but this kind of "you're either with us or you're against us" and "oh but if we don't add this, then the paedophiles have won" attitude just poisons any attempt to work productively on these articles. Ironically, any time I say something like that, I can just feel SqueakBox, Guy, El_C putting me on their mental list of "people not to trust because their judgement is clouded by their well-meaning fairness and desire to compromise". Sorry for the rant but it's just so frustrating to see this bunch of "neutrals" on Martijn's RfA when nobody is actually trying to dig through his work or to get in touch with SqueakBox and ask him exactly what the problem with Martijn's edits is. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I struck my neutral. This is obviously so sensitive a topic that any comment can be misconstrued. I've purposefully stayed the hell away from anything even remotely related to that topic, and our exchange here convinces me that's the only rational course. You can rest assured that I'll never, ever say a single word on any thread where the topic comes into play. It's just not worth the aggravation. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah rats... Now I feel like crap. I have to agree that it's not worth the aggravation. On the other hand, the last thing we need is cool-headed people avoiding these pages. (Which is basically what I now do and what you're now planning to do.) I once asked ArbCom (through its mailing list) to just protect all these articles and let competent academics take over. I got a "thank you for your opinion". Sigh... Wikipedia has yet to figure out a way to deal with super-sensitive articles. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just sent you email, so problem solved! Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider appearing

At an audio discussion (or you could participate by IM as well) here. We have had some big cheeses on from the Foundation. And I have appeared twice; it is sort of fun. Come join us! (you can do it by regular phone too if you are in Canada or the US).--Filll (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Careful... if you allow Skype to record your voice, it can steal your soul. According to my belief system. MastCell ^Talk 05:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, is that what is wrong with me? I wondered.--Filll (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

EBDCM Request for unblock

Hello, I'd like to ask you to take a look at this request for unblock - I'm not completely familiar with the situation behind this one, and so don't feel comfortable dealing with it without consulting someone who is. As it's sat there for two days now, I assume many others feel the same. Thanks for your time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching it. I'm not going to unblock, but I think he deserves a fair chance at an appeal, so I've been helping him with the technicalities. The ANI thread on which I based the block is [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive388#EBDCM]. Given the extensive discussion and the fact that the block already has been reviewed by others, it would help avoid the potential for drama if you check with other admins before unblocking. For my own part I'll not object to any well-considered decision to unblock. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be important to also consult Thatcher, who ran the CU. -- Fyslee / talk 21:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should we unblock a POV-warrior, who treats those of us who did not agree with him like garbage, who used anonymous socks to help out his edit-warring, and who refused to comply with any number of Wiki-rules? Why do we spend so much time helping out these anti-science POV warriors? Why don't we just write a well-written and neutral encyclopedia, and if you want to play along, good, if you don't, go to the Anti-Science-pedia, of which there are several, including Conservapedia? What a waste of bandwidth. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

POV-warrior? That is hardly WP:CIVIL. The sockpuppet arguments were not backed up by the CU, and should be dropped. Personally, I believe the 'anti-scientific' comments should be dropped too. EBDCM has been contributing peer-reviewed sources towards the chiropractic article - you can't get much more scientific than peer reviewed scientific articles. DigitalC (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I will comment on only one aspect of what is written above. I wouldn't classify EBDCM as "anti-scientific", especially in comparison to most (definitely not all) of the other chiropractic editors. He's just a relatively new and inexperienced chiro who is somewhat confused about his identity and doesn't understand some of the controversies that have plagued the profession. That's not a condemnation, just an observation. -- Fyslee / talk 05:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, please see WP:ANI#User talk:EBDCM unblock review. Mangojuice^talk 06:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Commented there. Note there's more to the story than just the sockpuppet case; the putative sockpuppetry was sort of the final straw. (I also note that his fellow partisan User:DigitalC is playing the WP:CIVIL card, which powers up my radar.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility test case

Given the abuse of WP:CIV we have seen, I have refrained from taking this to ANI. Still, I think we could use this as an example for what is beyond acceptable... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(pardon me for eavesdropping) -- Definitely: it's a good example of something no reasonable person would think is within the bounds of our civility policy; and the threat that preceded it was even worse. I had a block tab open on that one for a minute, then thought ... eh. See what he does next. There's already cause enough to block, but he'll probably just dig a deeper hole with his next edit and make it even easier to do. Posting abuse to Raul's talk page is almost as good as posting to ANI; lots of people have it watchlisted. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Argh... no more test cases! Although this does contain a canonical example of incivility ("I dont mean to be insulting, but...") MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Somehow the community goes bananas when JzG writes a naughty word but gives lots of rope to people involved in stuff like racism and nazi accusations. That's gotta stop. Not a test case, just doing what I think is right. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a good observation. People can spew racist and NeoNazi stuff and so on, with impunity. And someone says "that sounds like a boneheaded argument" and they are blocked for 72 hours. I mean, where is our sense of proportion here? And the difference is, of course, that the person describing an argument as "boneheaded" is an established editor, but those who love to go on racist, antisemitic, etc rants are newbies, so we have to WP:AGF and pay attention to WP:BITE. There is something rotten in Denmark...--Filll (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed: our established editors, those who write the encyclopedia, are its most valuable asset, as both Raul and I have noted on our "laws" and "observations" pages; in my (easily disregarded) opinion we are a meritocracy, like it or not, and people who've been around for a while and done a lot of good work deserve some extra slack. That's not a popular point of view around here. It's only human to tell the worst of these newbie POV-pushers, who immediately come to your talk page and fill it with invective, to go fuck off. Not sure how to fix this problem. Today is my four-year anniversary as a Wikipedian, and I'll tell you my temper is a whole lot shorter with nationalists, trolls, conspiracy nuts, fringe-POV-pushers, sockpuppets, racists, and other troublemakers than it's ever been before. Sometimes you just have to use the flyswatter and ignore the drama that follows. Antandrus (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This has repeatedly been noted by numerous people. However, the "pc crowd" (emboldened by the Wiki God King) seem to think that this is not so. Well, I wonder...--Filll (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Posting abuse to Raul's talk page is almost as good as posting to ANI; lots of people have it watchlisted. - Teehee :) Raul654 (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to clarify

Howdy. I recently posted to User:ScienceApologist's Talk page, saying more or less, "Yo, dude -- be careful or you're going to get banned." You posted a reply referencing Wikipedia:Don't take the bait which I take to mean "Don't respond to attempts at trolling."
I'm unclear as to whether this was meant to imply that I appeared to be trolling. If it was so meant, I assure you that I was not trolling and do not do so (I consider such behavior to be both unconstructive and undignified.) Obviously, I'd say the same thing if I was trolling, but if you are interested, I think a look at my edit history will illuminate matters.
If you think that anything I posted looks like trolling, please let me know on my Talk page what it was, as I'd like to avoid repeating such a mistake in the future.
Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

SA gets a lot of people trying to prod him into going off the handle, and your post seemed like the sort of thing that might get him going. So I was trying to keep him from responding negatively. Looking back it's clear you were not deliberately trying to provoke and I see that my choice of words implied that you were. I apologize for that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

R&I article

I think your warning was premature. --Jagz (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A look at the revision history for race and intelligence indicates otherwise. Please back off. If you're blocked at some point, don't say you weren't warned. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'm about the one only doing anything for the article other than filling up the Talk page. Maybe if I did nothing for the article like everyone else, I wouldn't get in trouble. --Jagz (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Racialist POV? Must be a word to clean up the negativity of "racist." Oh well. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The word can take several meanings, one being a synonym for "racist." It's never certain which meaning is intended. In some cases the ambiguity may well be deliberate, given that direct and straightforward communication can get one into trouble around here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm most experienced in that field. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

Hey thanx, its a real shame, Dr Kings 40th anniversary was only the other day, how much has changed ?Realist2 (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Meta civility

I like this change of yours; the previous version had meta-problems: It reminded me of a teacher that I had years ago who, in listing for my class the words we should never say, taught me 2 or 3 new epithets. Antelan^talk 05:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia suffers from a lack of conciseness, which is natural in a collaborative project -- everybody wants to add their two cents. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You should be desysopped

Apparently, you are not taking the whole RfA process with the appropriate level of seriousness per this edit. I think we should consider a semi-deletion of all edits made by Raymond arritt. All in favor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Great question

Hi RA, great question. . .really made me think. Can't believe I hadn't run across that page before :-) And it really goes to show. . .I should click on the "What links here" option a lot more. R. Baley (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

RE Disappointed

I apologise, it wasn't meant to come over that way. I've struck parts of my comment accordingly. My oppose stands, however, solely on the grounds of the use of the phrase "time to blockyblocky" and the concerns raised by Shalom. Please note that I did explicitly state that I don't doubt R. Baley's good faith or his commitment to the project. Walton^One 16:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, God Save the South (talk · contribs) needs to go

I'm pissed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to do. But I'm shaking with anger when I read "Jew anything." You do realize that Nazis, during the 1930's, would call Jewish professionals, Jew this and Jew that. It's more offensive than hearing a car dealer tell me, "you're trying to Jew me down on price." We would block an editor who called someone "a nigger." Well this is similar. And I'm reading what other editors are writing in the AN/I. It is sad that so many editors think civility matters in the face of unfettered hatred and racism. Why should I be nice to a person who, in another era, would be sending me to Treblinka or Sobibor? Why should I be nice to a person who denies being a Neo-Nazi but basically admits to being a KKK-member (marginal difference, if any), who lynched blacks, Jews, Catholics, and anyone who didn't have pure Aryan blood? I put up with a lot of crap on this project. I realize a homeopathic potion promoter is annoying, but a racist is purely evil. We shouldn't wait. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% but we also have to take into account the dysfunctional nature of the Wikipedia environment. My goal is to keep bigots out of the project. It would be counterproductive to give these folks a chance to play the victim and appeal to a softhearted (or softheaded) admin. It's virtually certain that he will screw up again and when he does there will be rock-solid justification for a block. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Patience isn't one of my strong characteristics. Bet you didn't notice.  :) BTW, see User talk:Hersfold. I'm taking Xanax to stay away from it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Naomi Oreskes

Can you take a look. It seems that my reversions there, may have caused media attention. I'm off for the day, taking my children to a play-land. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Good for you. I noticed he didn't even get your gender right! So much for the fact-checking standards of the National Post. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Expert Withdrawal Pages

Should these be at least be partly archived so there is room for more? We should write the summary document.

Also, what about appearing on Not The Wikipedia Weekly?--Filll (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been going on and on and on, to the point where I don't regularly follow it any more. I'll look into putting one of those auto-archive thingies on it. Writing up an essay that summarizes the main points would be a good idea. I've been replaying the NTWW stuff occasionally but my schedule is such that it's difficult for me to commit to participating at a given place and time. Raymond Arritt (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up

While updating instances of Image:Barnstar2.png on fully-protected pages, I updated the image on User talk:Raymond arritt/Archive 1. To do that, though, I had to remove a link that had been placed on the blacklist (even editing just that section won' t bypass a blacklisted instance).

While ultimately this isn't a big deal (and I can't imagine you'd be terribly upset), I still thought I should let you know that I had to make an actual content change to your archives. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Horrors! How could you? (Thanks for letting me know.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You bored

How about checking out the cute 3RR tag thrown on me for going 1RR. I'm loving this place.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Response at User talk:Hopping. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

See this. I don't think he gets it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And see this. What is with this guy? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, as several people had tried to clarify the situation. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see your block when I added this to Hopping's talk page. He had called a couple of us "liars". I guess that his DO education didn't include being calm and not pushing it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could withdraw your comment at Hopping's page. Kicking somebody when they're down and all that. (Yes, I know that wasn't what you intended, but that's what the exchange might look like to outsiders.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OM, you've stood up for DOs every time I've seen you mention them; no need to besmirch your baby's-bottom-smooth rep for this. Antelan^talk 01:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Baby's-bottom-smooth rep? Good one.  :) I thought the comment was withdrawn by someone else, but I see someone reverted and commented further. Oh well. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

<RI>Instead of creating a whole new section, please see this. Although technically not the third revert, it is adding back language that was not agreed to by any editor (well, except for Levine2112, which speaks for itself). Hopping (talk · contribs) was recently blocked by you for similar tendentious editing. He's back. I don't think he's getting the point. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I really feel like these two are crossing a WP:NPA line here. The tone is getting nasty. [23] [24] Bryan Hopping ^T 01:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary states: "I'm not a nutjob." Well, then prove it. So far your sole mission has been to promote the single word allopathic, and get it inserted whereever you can. Oddly, you failed to identify your school as an Osteopathic school, even after repeated mentions and encouragements to do so. I finally did it myself. Then, again rather oddly, considering your affection for placing the derogatory "allopathic" word all over medical articles, you recently removed it. For someone who claims to not be a "nutjob", your behavior is rather odd. Why the fascination with labelling MDs as "allopaths" (a very misleading term created by Hahnemann), and yet you shrug off identifying your true alma mater. -- Fyslee / talk 07:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he's not lying, and it's hard to tell, he says he's been accepted to Touro School of Medicine in NJ. I went to the website, here, and interestingly, it does not use the word "Allopathic" to describe itself, even though the University owns two Schools of Osteopathy. So, if his "medical school" is a medical school, then what's with the allopathy POV? Moreover, I swear he said he was in Osteopathic school. Story seems to be variable, depending on the discussion? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the time I'm talking about he was enrolled at the Touro University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Vallejo, California. If he really has transferred, he's transferred to a school that hasn't opened yet, and which identifies itself as an allopathic medical school [25]. -- Fyslee / talk 15:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And despite all of the blowback due to this behavior over the last few days, Hopping's only mainspace edit today was to add allopathic back into Doctor of Medicine. Antelan^talk 06:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange sequence of events

I'm a bit concerned as to your intent when you nominated my user name as being inappropriate. Or rather the way it was done. I realize discussing this might be considered pointless since you could easily just dismiss me as being paranoid, and hopefully thats all it is. Still it makes me feel uneasy, so I might just as well say something. Well, at first it looked like a simple mistake by a new admin, not taking proper precautions before blocking. And thankfully the block was quickly removed. However, I later noticed that you frequent the talk page of the person I had an edit conflict with at the moment, and you two appear to be on a friendly basis. It strikes me as odd that you would complain about my user name at that same time. But what is even stranger is that you, an experienced administrator (as far as I can tell), wouldn't simply discuss any concerns first with me? Well I think the whole incident and the edit conflict was rather unpleasant and this have somewhat disheartened me. Hopefully you can alleviate any suspicions. Regards --Apis 19:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I first saw your username at WP:ANI if memory serves. The offensive connotation immediately jumped out at me. Since these things can be a matter of judgment I referred it to WP:UAA for a third party to look into the matter. I was very surprised when he blocked your account -- at most, I though that the person reviewing the UAA report might ask you to change your username. Had I known that it would work out this way I'd never have made the report. Just out of curiosity, what is the origin of your username? (Please don't respond if it would reveal personal information or otherwise make you uncomfortable.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok :), It's just uncomfortable to suddenly be "attacked" (and blocked!) from all sides the same day, after several years of peacefull editing.

Well, I usually use only apis, which originally was the name of a toy monkey I had when I was a kid (apis as in ape). I've been on the internet since I was 14 or something so it has just stuck with me since then. Although it also has other meanings like Latin for honey bee, etc. However, apis was already taken of course, so I had to come up with something else. Being tired of always trying to come up with new names (and not wanting to use my real one, which contains non english characters anyway) I appended o-tang, which simply is short for orangutang (swedish spelling, thus the g).

I was rather surprised that someone found it offensive, perhaps silly (or biased!) :) but I certainly had never heard of tang meaning that.

Hmm, the other user:apis account doesn't appear to be active! How long does it take until the username becomes available again? :) --Apis 23:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You must have seen it somewhere else though, since I had never posted on that page at that time. --Apis 13:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. What a mess. Again, I'm really sorry but hope you will accept that it was an honest mistake. Maybe your user name could be considered as sort of a Rorschach test (hmmm, wonder what my response says about me). I've not heard of recycling user names but will look into it. BTW who was the person you were in a dispute with? There are lots of people here with whom I am on a "friendly basis" (including, I hope, you). Raymond Arritt (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do, as I said, I just felt uneasy about the whole thing. It's not fun to think that a group of people have ganged up on you. I'm sorry if it felt like an accusation, I just needed a confirmation so as to feel a little bit better about it. I guess I'm a bit sensitive about such things. Regarding who, Id prefer not to say, it's not really relevant and I don't want to "point a finger" (I certainly didn't behave exemplary either then). I hadn't edited on any of the politically charged articles before and that was a entirely new experience for me so I got a bit emotional which is never helpful I guess, (particularly for one self)! =) --Apis 23:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be an honour

Thank you, and I'd be honoured to be blocked by you. I will send you a list of my worst offences in the unlikely event that anyone challenges it — along the lines of Borges: "Any time something is written against me, I not only share the sentiment but feel I could do the job far better myself." :-) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 09:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it was The Undertow you wanted to block. Back to my dreams, then. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 09:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was on your talk page, and you didn't delete it, so you're equally culpable. Or something like that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your statements. Claiming someone is "culpable" can be read as a personal attack, and your whole attitude appear to be dismissive to a degree that is close to incivil. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a hilariously out of place warning. If you read both threads, it is clear that the_undertow and Raymond_arritt were joking with one another. Antelan^talk 17:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but WHOOSH!  ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pappy with the khaki sweatband, bowed goat potbellied barnyard that only he noticed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I WP:FAILed to get it! OK, you may each place one (1) civility warning tag on my page as your reward for trouncing me in the 'who's gonna fall for it' game. Antelan^talk 17:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can't do. See WP:DTTR. Of course, instigating such an act may be actionable... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

GijsvdL

Raymond, user has been harassing me for over six months now on nl:Wikipedia. He has just discovered that I am a user here, and has already placed defamatory remarks and false accusations on a dozen or so pages. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For your information: NL.wiki arbcom has taken severe measures against Guido den Broeder for self promotion. We have invented the unimportance of his work. He's also blocked at NL.wiki at the moment. GijsvdL (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Q.E.D. (check with nl:Arbcom). Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Our friend again?

[26]. 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)

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? [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] 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, [32], followed by OM dismissing this as a personal attack here [33]. 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)

You guys are all losers

bitches

That's not very nice. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:20, 25 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 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.[34] Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Aude violated NPOV policy while reinserting its own POV without any discussion, which leads us to the violation of the editorial process which clearly states that we should seek consensus for any radical change in the articles. I've read the policy which, apparently, forced you into swift decision to archive the issue brought on noticeboard, and while I'll restrain from calling user Aude a vandal, I'll state clearly that he/she acted in extremely bad faith. It has been brought to my attention that we are dealing with long established user, which, unfortunately as it may sound doesn’t make this case lighter in anyway. It might be that I've reacted vigorously on this issue, but consensus for that section was reached and I find disregard which Aude showed utterly unacceptable. I'll try to fix the damage done there, with hope that we wont have this sort of disruption again. Regards. Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 Redflag Tachyonbursts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has ignored your warning[35] and also made a legal threat.[36] Some banning and blocking is needed. Jehochman ^Talk 19:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I see East has already taken care of things. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That was an effective thread. Five troublemakers were banned from the locus of dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 23:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My comments to ScienceApologist

I did not make a personal attack on ScienceApologist, I merely pointed out the incorrectness of his comment on *my* talk page. This is a matter between ScienceApologist and myself, how is it you have entered the fray? Please reference the following text from the wp:npa page:

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character

I noted the *errors* in his comment to me, used civil language, used the word "please" and made no comments about the person's character. Please re-read the wp:npa policy before you make remarks on my talk page thusly. Thank you. Supertheman (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the policy; referring to other editors as "arrogant" and the like violates it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am also familiar with the policy, and with my comments. I did not refer to anyone as "arrogant", I referred to the twisting of truth as "arrogant". I'm afraid, however, that you haven't addressed my contention with you interfering with a discussion I am having with another contributor to Wiki. Please address this, thank you. Supertheman (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because Raymond is an administrator and can stick his nose into anything he wants to keep people from going crazy? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't give him the right to make false accusations. Also, we all might refrain from going crazy if other members would refrain from poking their nose into a discussion that doesn't concern them *cough Orangemarlin*. Thanks Supertheman (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your post above is precisely the sort of thing that I was concerned about. There's more to personal attacks and incivility than using swear words. Wikipedia is a cooperative project and it's one of our fundamental principles that everyone has the right to poke their nose wherever they see fit (see e.g., [WP:OWN]] for the most obvious example). That doesn't mean badgering or so-called "wikistalking" is tolerated. But if someone sees an issue of concern they have every right to address the matter whether they were part of the original exchange or not. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you interpret civility to include my objection to inserting yourself into a discussion not yours, but not to your unkind and unneeded intrusion into same. I took issue with your intrusion because it would escalate the matter, a quick look at your talk page and mine bears this fact out. No less than *five* different persons have intruded into this matter that we speak of, yet none of them have directed their concern to *his* page, even though he threatened me on my talk page on two occasions.

Clearly since you have not taken the time to chide him on his breaches of incivility, but have quickly and vehemently chastised me, it is apparent that your concern is *hardly* for the "cooperative project" and otherwise concerned with protecting your friend.

I consider the matter closed, but repeat my previous objection and appeal to your civility to please not intrude in a personal discussion that doesn't concern you. Thank you. Supertheman (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am satisfied to let your words speak for themselves. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to go take a look at my talk page, once again ScienceAplogist has started *yet another* topic on my talk page and this time called me an advocate of lies. User_talk:Supertheman#Warning_regarding_the_advocacy_of_lies

Would you call his behavior "baiting". Haha, I bet not. I wonder if you who have been chiding me for my civility will have anything to say about his. ah... yeah, right. Supertheman (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

LPS

Have you considered writing an essay on WP:LPS? While my first association for the acronym is lipopolysaccharide and sepsis, I think that an essay on Lousy Partisan Sources^TM is long overdue. MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a whirl. Ideas welcome. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Scibaby

Hey, I saw you blocked User:Etribs as a scibaby sock, so, I blocked the user that created it, as well as the other user it had created (User talk:Illi Racor and User:Pongo the Friendly Dragon) you may want to tag 'em as well. SQL^{Query me!} 07:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Contest

I'd like to contest decision you've just made. Please be kind and show me how I may do that. Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Already replied at the WP:AE thread. There are several avenues for appeal, as I explained there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware that my conduct was not appropriate, I'm somewhat certain that you're a person which is able to take more than one perspective upon the recent discussion. I'm honestly not sure what misconduct I've done today to deserve a ban? If you could clarify it for me, I'd appreciate it and most certainly avoid it in future. Thanks. Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, please be kind and clarify, what have I done today that forced you into making your decision? Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ray, you've made a very serious decision, are you sure you don't wont to invalidate it? Tachyonbursts (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

But it's been so cold this winter...

[37]: It should also help the public and policy makers understand that a cool phase does not mean the overall theory of human-driven warming is flawed, Dr. Trenberth said. “Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year,” Dr. Trenberth said. “It does not happen that way.” Do you think we could have the developers make this show up in flashing letters every time someone goes to save an edit on global warming controversy? MastCell ^Talk 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I know this will shock and disappoint you both, but it turns out that the list of scientists who deny global warming was artificially inflated. Antelan^talk 03:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Next you'll be telling me that the lists of "HIV skeptics" on AIDS denialist wesbites name many people who have long since accepted that HIV causes AIDS. The kicker is that somehow the self-published, scientifically illiterate denialist websites are always reliable enough to cite, but self-published sites pointing out such errors are not. WP:PARITY? MastCell ^Talk 05:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows that AIDS occurs when you have an inadequate blood-level of garlic. Antelan^talk 06:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hypogarlicemia is a dangerous thing. I honestly cannot imagine what it would be like to be a physician treating HIV/AIDS in South Africa and contending with a government that passive-aggressively embraces AIDS denialism. For all the Constant Gardener BS, the drug companies have made cheaper, generic antiretrovirals to give away, but the government drags its feet and abets people like Matthias Rath - in a country where 16–18% of the adult population is HIV-positive. I'd go nuts. MastCell ^Talk 06:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm now on a roll. Why is the article named AIDS reappraisal. We all use AIDS denialism, which is what it should be called. BTW, garlic works because no one would want to be near you, hence reducing the probability of an exchange of bodily fluids. One more thing, while I'm still on this roll. Why are we called "skeptics" by these denialists. I'm not a skeptic of anything, merely I like good science. The anti-science crowd (whether global warming or AIDS denialists) are the skeptics of real science. We need to use the right terms. The right wing always sets the tone with names that stick. But I'm preaching to the choir. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hell, you're preaching to the preachers! Antelan^talk 00:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OM raises a good point. A search shows that "AIDS reappraisal" is almost exclusively an in-universe (and in-Wikipedia!) term, while "AIDS denialism" is attested in multiple reliable sources. Why isn't the article just called "AIDS denialism"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Does an admin have to move the article to the right name? Or can I be bold? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Anybody can move an unprotected article. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Watch the article please, in case it gets a little crazy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

AIDS denialism already exists. It says only a fine admin such as yourself can do that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

<RI>Done and Bradstreet. Cute. We have another issue with [[Category:AIDS reappraisal]]. I have no clue how to rename that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:AIDS reappraisal, that is. Creating a category under the not in-universe name, and brute force updating five pages is perfectly feasible, but inelegant. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 07:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing left pointing there now is this userpage. I've updated the rest to point to :Cat:AIDS denialism. Antelan^talk 16:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm, why is this page the only link in [[Category:AIDS reappraisal]]? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Because just trying to wikilink a category puts it in the category instead. Put a colon before the word Category and it will just display instead. I put nowiki tags on your two comments, I think that that should fix it. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Continuing on AIDS denialism

I've been fixing wikilinks, categories, and such on as many AIDS denialists that I could find. And here's what just floored me. AIDS denialists= Global Warming denialists= Evolution denialists (i.e. Creationists, ID blowhards, and the such). Maybe I should have known that, but it's clear when they became anti-science in one area, it showed them the way to be anti-science in all areas. That just scared the crap out of me. Think about it. Alternative medicine is an anti-science, and does that belief set then begin to undermine scientific medicine? AIDS denialists think that a couple of drops of this or that will cure AIDS. It's just plain scary. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In defense of alt-med, some of the groups are legitimately moving towards an evidence-based practice. The concern for some, of course, is that evidence will show no efficacy whatsoever. Antelan^talk 16:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as long as we're not called allopaths.  :) Anyways, I don't doubt that some alternative medicines will prove useful. The vast majority won't. I was editing Alzheimer's disease, and there were paragraphs on Gingko. I read many of the articles, and the ones the CAM's were using said essentially, "no effect." The point is that CAM works on the presumption it works, so try to prove them wrong. That's not scientific. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed. We should just Call a spade a spade (which, incidentally, I've reverted back to a version that actually discusses calling a spade a spade, instead of just spitting WP:CIV back at you. There is a lot of resistance to that... Go figure.) Antelan^talk 16:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Tachyonburst

The old user ignored your topic ban. Can I get him blocked? -- VegitaU (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ray, do say, what have I done on that day? What was the reason, if any? You've imposed that sanction, few days had past, yet I have to wonder/ponder upon your decision. You might be someone I know; then again, I might be wrong. I'll ask you before any other, will you withdraw your decision and make another? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachyonbursts (talk • contribs) 23:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reblocked with a better message, btw. Black Kite 07:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, sir (AIDS Reappraisal)

You created a mess of broken links at the talk page with this edit [38]

Please fix it (see red links).

IMHO the change of name is objectively incorrect, but I shall deal with that issue later. There´s gigantic backlog of issues to deal with on that page.

Thank you for your attention Randroide (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed myself the red links (mostly). Please take a look at the box above the page "This article has had a scientific peer review which has now been archived. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article."...that red link is the one I can not fix. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

RSMT

File:Meatpuppet.gif

This user is a member of RSMT - the "rational skepticism meatpuppet team".[39]

Bah. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the RSMT anything like the RCMP? Do we get to wear those red jackets and spiffy hats? Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Rouge jackets for sure. I just hope we don't have to have a Canadian accent, eh? As an American from the Deep South, I don't think I could pull it off. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dub-tee-eff??

What in the world is that thing on your user page?? LOL --InDeBiz1 (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

HAHA Apparently we were posting on each other's talk pages at the same time there... Wow... whatever it is, sloth or otherwise, MAN is it ugly!?!? Cheers! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugly? Certainly not. Look at its face -- such an expression of contentment and peaceful obliviousness. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I can't say too much considering that I find these to be cute animals and I bought one of these for my girlfriend, right? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Chins are cute. My dog thinks they would make good snacks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dankal naveen

With respect to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Would_someone_delete_this_junk, I disagree that this is an obvious sockpuppet of User:W.GUGLINSKI rather to the contrary he really seems to be a different guy.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're more familiar with those guys you can unblock or handle it however you like. I saw the same subject matter, similar writing style, similar tendencies for displays of typographical exuberance and so on. But maybe I was wrong. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've unblocked. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: RfA

No, it's indeed an oppose comment - I personally find the strong support or medium-rare neutral, leaning oppose stuff to be silly. I think some confusion may have arisen from the munged formatting, which I've fixed now. east.718 at 03:47, May 13, 2008

Medium rare neutral? I think think that should codified for future use. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Greenhouse effect

Sorry, didn't notice you had moved the topic to the bottom of the page. I removed duplicate entries.
— Apis (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. You’re right, I’ve not been afraid to step into controversy in the past, but it has always been with the intention of helping our community come to the best result. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto

Raymond arritt/Archive 2008, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What?

"GTBacchus continually tells us that he has ideas for addressing the problems we've been trying to discuss (to the extent he will agree that there's a problem), but he continually declines to let us know what those ideas are."

Excuse me for thinking aloud. Excuse me for not yet being certain where I'm headed. Excuse me for not showing up with complete answers. Excuse me for trying to lay out an argument in order. Here's the best I've got so far:

I think we should start taking a scientific approach to the way we resolve disputes on Wikipedia. I think we need a group of people to start consciously applying specific strategies, and keeping careful notes on what works and what doesn't. I think we need to get serious about discovering effective methods of keeping articles neutral and stable, rather than relying on everybody's hunches about what probably works, or just what they feel like doing.

Does that sound like a bad idea? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

GT, I know this was not directed to me but I have to agree with you. One of the issues I think would help is if editors discussed on the Talk page what the outline of the article should be. By discussing the outline, we could decide what areas of the discussion deserve the most space. I believe our attempts to edit articles are entirely too piece-meal. We spend time fighting over words and commas when we ought to be spending time deciding on what topics need to be covered in the article. RonCram (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUE

I like your proposal at User_talk:Raul654/Civil_POV_pushing#A_tangential_thought. Are you interested in suggesting it at WP:DUE? If you don't feel like it, would you mind if I did? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply but I've had to think about this for a while. OK, I'll give it a whirl despite my extremely negative experiences in editing policy pages. Note it was really MastCell's idea to give credit where it's due. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye

I was already editing it when you sent that message. It's calmer now.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Subjectivity

You disagreed strongly with my statement that notability and weight are subjective, saying that there are objective standards. Yes, this is true, but those standards are not comprehensive. Every situation is different, and many cases are open to interpretation with respect to notability and weight, would you not agree? It's not a matter of feeding a topic into a "notability calculator" and waiting for the result. Remember, we're talking about the hard cases here, the ones where there may be no precedent and/or policy that provides definitive guidance. In those cases, consensus building is key, and consensus building cannot happen if editors are hurling insults at each other. That's the point I was making. ATren (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

But this isn't the case with "civil POV pushing" -- it applies to people who are obviously trashing the policies. Your "everything is subjective" approach is an open invitation to gaming, wikilawyering, and the whole gamut of dodgy tactics. Obviously you didn't mean it that way, but I see a danger in the words you suggest. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. Perhaps I was too strong. GTB has reworded, I think it's better, but you may still think it too strong. BTW, I have concerns that mirror yours - I'm worried that the term "civil POV pushing" will be abused, another way of labelling an opposing editor in a content dispute in order to get the upper hand. I also happen to believe that including the word "civil" complicates matters by implying that civility is part of the problem. The problem is persistent POV pushing; civility has nothing to do with it other than the fact that it the lack of incivility may make it more difficult to document the problem. ATren (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we disagree on some pretty fundamental points (first and foremost "civility has nothing to do with it"). But I'll take your page off my watchlist and give you and GTB latitude to edit it however you see fit, and will try not to interfere further. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, Raymond. I highly respect your input. I think, fundamentally, we agree more than we disagree, but we're coming at it from different angles, that's all. ATren (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that civility in itself is bad. The problem is that as long as you are civil it doesn't matter if you are a self confessed member of the KKK and spend your entire day whitewashing and spreading racist propaganda, because noone is going to do anything about it unless you outright call someone a nigger.
— Apis (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Or a Jew Comedian. But it took an ANI, complaining, and standing up to admins who prefer civility over stopping racism to get him indefinitely blocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:15, 20 May 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, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the GCMs

Raymond, because we are discussing GCMs, I thought you might be interested in the paper by David Douglass and co-authors published in 2007. They looked at an ensemble of 22 GCMs and found they do not match observations in the tropical troposphere. An essential point of AGW theory is that the troposphere will warm more quickly than the surface, especially in the tropics. The GCMs match the theory well. However, neither match the observations. [40] The Douglass paper was criticized by RealClimate for applying the wrong test to the data (even though it was the test recommended by the IPCC). RealClimate claimed if the correct test had been applied, the GCMs would have passed. Cliff Huston decided to apply the more robust t-test and it showed exactly where the problems lie with the GCMs. See his comment here. [41] RonCram (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It furthers one to have somewhere to go. Thus the superior man acquaints himself with many sayings of antiquity, and many deeds of the past, in order to strengthen his character thereby. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Do not complain about this truth; Enjoy the good fortune you still possess." Okay, so that is a quote out of context - but it is a positive word for you. But to return to the topic at hand - did you see the t-test? RonCram (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is The T-Test a spinoff of House? I just saw the last episode of House, which I had taped because I was tied up last Monday. I can't wait to find out what happens with Amber. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

C'mon Raymond, I am sure you clicked on the link I provided. You have an inquisitive mind. If nothing else, you want to know what I know. Why not discuss it? What are you afraid of? RonCram (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know I want to know what you know? What do you know? I know that I don't know, but I don't know if I do know that I want to know what you know. As for what I'm afraid of -- heights; possums (it's a long story); terrorist attacks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you want to know what I know only because you are constantly asking me what I know about different topics. If you did click on the link I provided, you would have also seen a link to a free t-test calculator. It is an interesting tool and might be helpful to you in the future. BTW, I also enjoy watching House although I rarely get to. I also find Monk fascinating. I also fear terrorist attacks but have made my peace with possums (my Dad taught me how to distract them with a stick and grab them by the tail) and I actually like heights and flying. But enough about me. I will let this issue go as you are quite good at avoiding the subject. Best wishes to you, Raymond.RonCram (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. What's a t-test? Why should I want access to a t-test calculator? Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do is click on the ClimateAudit link I provide above and it will show you the results of the t-test comparing the ensemble of GCMs to the observations of the tropical troposphere. You will see exactly where the GCMs fail. You could use the t-test calculator anytime you want to compare the means of two groups, up to 2000 rows of data. It is a robust test and very simple tool to use. RonCram (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ron, but I'd still appreciate an answer my basic question: What's a t-test? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I answered the question, but I will try again. A t-test is a statistical method used to test a hypothesis. It evaluates the difference in means between two datasets. Because it is robust, it can be used even when the sample size is small. In the instance of testing the GCMs, it is interesting because it can test for a match between the GCMs and observations at all of the different elevation/pressures. The GCMs do fine at the surface but they do increasingly poorly at higher elevations. If you click on the link, it will become clear to you exactly what a t-test is and how you can use it. I played with the website a little and learned it actually has a number of other statistical calculators. Some of them I have not heard of. The site is focused on the statistics needed for clinical studies, but several of these may be useful to you.RonCram (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. You say that the t-test is a robust method. Can it be applied to all data sets, or are there certain situations where it would or wouldn't be appropriate? Does it just give a simple answer, like "the hypothesis is rejected"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There are situations when it would not be appropriate, but I am not enough of a statistician to explain all of them. I think the biggest reason it might not be appropriate is if the data varied widely from the mean. Regarding the answer, let's say your null hypothesis was that the GCMs matched the observations at all atmospheric pressures. You feed in all of the datasets and the answers come back for all the atmospheric pressures measured in these categories: "Not significantly different," "Significantly different," "Very significantly different" and "Extremely significantly different." From 700 hPa and above, all of the results came back in the final two categories. I just came across a paper that reportedly details how model outputs should be compared to climate observations and they recommend the t-test. I have not read the paper, but I thought you might be interested. [42] RonCram (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in these two papers.[43][44] Note that neither of them are written by wicked money-grubbing climatologists. ;-) Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not a statistician, so I am not offended. I have always been somewhat skeptical of significance tests and very skeptical of spurious error bars. You know what they say about untruths... lies, damned lies and statistics. Actually, I think this is why I like the t-test. The answer comes back not in "yes" or "no," but in four levels: "maybe," "no," "heck no" and "you have got to be joking!" RonCram (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, the Student's t is a statistical hypothesis test. It returns a p value, which is typically the likelihood that a finding has occurred by chance alone. While one can assign whatever external qualifiers one would like to certain p-value thresholds, the Student's t test itself most certainly does not return one of 4 "levels" of certainty. On a more abstract level, statistical methodology is complex. Trusting someone to provide a valid statistical analysis is like trusting them to fly a 747 or bypass your left main coronary artery. In other words, they need to know what they're doing, or they'll rapidly get themselves into a pickle. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess the t test is shorthand for Student's t test, but Welch's t test is somewhat different and more rarely used. I understand what you are saying. I am sure the four levels depend on some level of p value and this calculator assigns the thresholds automatically. The user has to know something about statistics to know he is applying the correct test.RonCram (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(disindentify) One of a half dozen or so books that greatly shaped my life is "How to Lie With Statistics" by Huff. I first read it in elementary school and it has stayed with me ever since. If you haven't read it -- run, do not walk, to amazon.com and order a copy.[45] Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Required reading for anyone in clinical research. :) Especially since most physicians are not particularly statistically literate, they're fertile soil for such legerdermain. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(drive by informed comments) 1) The t-test is not that robust. Welch helps somewhat, but only for a very specific issue. The two flavors of Wilcoxon's tests (here and here) further help somewhat. 2) Good book. Also recommend Lady Luck and Innumeracy. 3) Just FYI, one of my favorite quotes is from Frederick Mosteller, who said "It is easy to lie with statistics; it is easier to lie without them", although I admit my taste for this may be partially informed by professional prejudice. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Another favorite quote is from an old prof of mine, Bill Gray. His criterion for statistical significance was when a relation was so significant that you didn't need statistics to prove it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Along the same lines, Einstein (or Planck?) famously said that if you need a statistician to interpret your results, then you should really design a better experiment. MastCell ^Talk 16:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, did you look at the website we have been talking about? RonCram (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Which one is that again? MastCell ^Talk 23:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that it's somewhere on his ShorDurPerSav's website. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what ShorDurPerSav is but if you click this [46], it will take you to the results of the t test comparing the GCMs to the observations. This will show you what the output of the calculator looks like. At the bottom of the comment is another link which will take you to the t test calculator. Once there, you can click around and find other useful calculators. RonCram (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My guess was correct. ;-) Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I googled ShorDurPerSav. ClimateAudit is not my SDPS. And you shouldn't have had to guess, since I told you above that I learned about the calculator there. RonCram (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I was about to mention the Cult of the Sub-Genius in another context on-wiki recently, and I decided against it because I thought the reference was too obscure. I'm glad to see I was wrong. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We need an alt med article on 'Frop. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Given a climate model that makes correct predictions regarding the average temperature increase, what is the probability that a global warming skeptic can find a small discrepancy in the model and a statistical test that says that this discrepancy is statistically significant? Count Iblis (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Count, this is hardly a minor issue. Tropical troposphere warming faster than the surface is supposed to be the fingerprint of AGW. The GCMs are consistent with the theory but the observations are not. RonCram (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Who told you this? And are you aware that Douglass et al paper uses superseded data for the radiosondes and that there are various different interpretations of the satellite data (of which they pick the most conservative one)? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just curious!

Hi! Thanks for the Support !vote. I'm curious as to what makes you hesitant about my answers. Not disagreeing, would like to learn from it. Thanks _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

already thanked you above, but this is your official !thankspam :) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)