| Revision as of 18:28, 21 November 2007 editKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 edits →WP:AGF: i'm starting to get rather tired of this...← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:20, 10 August 2014 edit undoGoRight (talk | contribs)6,435 edits May I use my talk page to discuss matters related to my ban? | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| __NOINDEX__ | |||
| ==]== | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| Save these for future reference: | |||
| {{{1|]}}} has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! {{{2|}}} <br /> Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. | |||
| * , | |||
| </div><!-- Template:smile --> | |||
| * | |||
| Wow, that talk page is a warzone :-P ] 23:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have a couple of questions for anyone who might notice them: | |||
| # Am I allowed to use my talk page to discuss matters related to my ban, civilly of course, or will that be used as justification to turn off my talk page privileges? | |||
| # May I request that all of the pages under my user space be deleted, except for my talk page which cannot be according to policy? | |||
| --] (]) 04:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi GoRight! As far as I can tell, you have either already violated Misplaced Pages's ], or are very close to a violation on ]. The rule is intended to limit unproductive reversions by restricting editors to no more than 3 reverts per article per 24 hours, where a "revert" is defined broadly as any edit that at least partially undoes another editors work. In particular, a revert for this rule does not have to restore an older version, and reverts that undo different edits still count towards the limit. If you did not already do so, please read this rule and abide by it - preferably in letter and in spirit. Thanks! --] 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:12 hours|a period of '''12 hours'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for violating the ] {{{{{subst|}}}#if:An Inconvenient Truth|at ]}}. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek ] rather than engaging in an ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{sig|}}}|''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> | |||
| You've made at least 4 reverts in the past few hours (, , , , and a partial revert which undid part of the prior edit). You express familiarity with ] . It should be clear that there is no consensus supporting your proposed changes; please discuss them on the talk page after the block expires rather than continuing to reinsert them. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=I do not believe that my edits constitute reverts in the sense intended by WP:3RR. In each case I actively provided commentary in the discussion page concerning my rational for the changes thus demonstrating my willingness to cooperate with the community. Also, a close inspection of my edits will reveal that I was, in fact, making alternate wordings in an attempt to accommodate the views of others while still presenting the material I feel was relevant to the article. In addition, all of my material was clearly sourced and as such should be allowed in the article. | |||
| If my interpretation above is incorrect, please clarify what actually constitutes a revert under WP:3R. Does changing the wording to accommodate the views of other editors also constitute a reversion? Is merely touching a given section of text considered a revert? For example, the item you list as a partial revert is did not restore any of the original content at all but was merely a new edit.|decline=The idea behind 3RR is to prevent people from repeated edits that make the same point or convey the same information. I have reviewed your edits and you repeatedly inserted references to anthropogenic leanings. Please be more careful and if you find yourself inserting or deleting similar language repeatedly, go to the talk page and discuss it there first.}} --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]|]|] </span>''' 05:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==The Zen Garden Award== | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="top" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I award this to ] for the infinite patience he has shown while attempting to improve the ] article and also for having to deal with the above ban because of his efforts. ] 23:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| You can move this award to your main user page or wherever else you like :-) ] 23:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks, I appreciate it. I haven't given up on the AIT page but have been focusing on other topics for a while. --] 01:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Smoke and some sort of fire == | |||
| There are traces of Singer's fire which others aren't willing to examine. I'm not in a hurry so it will take several days for the address of the info to reach me, then I'll probably have the search space reduced by 98%. (] 03:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| : It wasn't much of a find. The existing material had enough information for web searches to reveal a pointer to the correct date. Even without knowing the exact date, the transcripts.tv date search feature allows browsing through the episodes during the period when the fires began. The latter didn't occur to me until after I'd found the exact date, as I wasn't trying hard to find the stuff and the trail to the exact date was obvious. (] 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| ::Understood, but still a great effort to preserve a piece of history. --] 17:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| =wp:3rr again= | |||
| looks like you close to breaking the rule again if you not done so already so watch it on the article An Inconvenient Truth] 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks for the heads up. I have been careful about which sections I am touching. I am done for now anyway. --] 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks again, a second look on my part indicated that I had erred so I self-reverted. --] 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If I may... it seems there's an ongoing problem here. It was good of you to self-revert, but the underlying issue appears to be that you're making changes without consensus and thus being reverted by a number of different users. The point of ] is not to ; it's to discuss these changes on the talk page before repeatedly re-inserting them. You will find peope willing to engage in dialog; if you hit a roadblock, you can always ask for a ], ], or ]. But please consider holding off on repeatedly reverting without gaining some sort of consensus for your proposed changes, which appear quite controversial. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I understand your point, however there are frequently some users who simply refuse to acknowledge valid points and thus use the discussion pages as a means of stonewalling any changes. If you actually take the time to read my comments on AIT I do try to compromise. I do attempt alternatives. But if even one user is determined not to let my change in I am totally blocked, and unfairly so. | |||
| :::I am following the rules. I am providing valid references from legitimate sources. Now given the subject matter sure there are people who won't agree with my perspective, in some cases you even seem to be one given your comment above. This is fine. We worked through the Singer page updates, right? But I had my comment on the ] regarding the Newsweek source for quite some time before I made my changes to force some action. I think that I would still be waiting for a reply on that point if I had not "boldly made the changes". How am I supposed to know that consensus has been reached when I get stonewalling silence in return to my points on the talk pages? | |||
| :::You were adamant that the Newsweek and Monbiot quotes were properly source and thus should not be deleted. No consensus had been reached there. I had not agreed. So now let us consider the edit that I self reverted. It has been discussed days ago. I have outstanding commentary in the talk page. The quote is from a notable commentator on Fox News. I was respecting the previous complaints of undue weight by replacing the AAAS quote (which was my addition in the first place) as well as a previous complaint regarding the AAAS article requiring a (free) subscription to read. | |||
| :::But after a couple of days of discussion and with other users supporting me my change is still stonewalled off the page with you talking about I need to reach consensus like I never even tried to do so. In my interaction with you you simply reverted my edits without so much as a howdy and I didn't feel we had a consensus over on the ] page. You simply instituted your favored option, but somehow I am at fault for doing the same? Will you now argue as fervently that properly attributed criticism should be allowed in on the AIT page as you did on the Singer page? | |||
| :::The quote itself should not even be that controversial. The only reason they object is because it is from someone they don't like. It is being censored not because it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion but because they don't like the person who wrote it. Do I get that same veto power? No. So why do they? | |||
| :::I have a real problem with the way RealClimate is being used in this context. It is like wikipedia is their personal soapbox which allows them to use their scientific credentials to vanquish dissent on anything GW related, even on things that are NOT related to the science involved like their speculating on the ExxonMobil funding. They have no more credibility to speak about what funding arrangements ExxonMobil had with NSTA that the man in the moon. Yet they are climate scientists so we must all bow before them? I don't think so. | |||
| :::As you are no doubt aware (since you seem to be "watching" over me) I have taken that particular case to ]. Is this not exactly what you are suggesting? Getting independent help on the issue? Am I being beligerent in this respect? No. Go read my post there. I make it quite clear that I don't want to take sides and I don't want to single any specific group out, but that I have some concerns and here are some real world examples. Go read William Connolley's page and my discussion there. There may be a pointy stick or two but the substantive parts are very reasonable and well intentioned as I discuss there. | |||
| :::If I sound like I am venting it is because I am. Don't take it as an attack. I appreciate your taking the time to offer advice. | |||
| :::--] 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I totally agree with the above. I also fought a long battle to change 1 word in that article a while back. The change wouldn't have really been a big deal, it only would have corrected a portion of the article to sound more NPOV and less like an attack on a group of people. I was stonewalled from the get go on that change without anyone providing a valid reason against the change. All reasons given fell along the lines of "I just don't like it". After some back and forth the change just kept getting reverted without any comment or discussion. I complained and was basically told that if i propose a change on a talk page and no one comments on it after 2 weeks that it's still not acceptable to make the change because "no consensus" was given for the change. Basicallly it's gotten to the point where if you ] and just make an edit it will be reverted. What is worse is if you try to propose the change on the talk page your proposal will be flat ignored. After several weeks have been given for comments and suggestions to be made and you decide to make the edit because there is the appearance that no one cares or disagrees with the proposed change it just gets reverted without discussion. What it boils down to is that in a lot of articles (and ] is a prime example of this) there are groups of entrenched editors that have taken up ownership of articles and basically now have a pocket veto power over any proposed changes that they don't like or go against any preconceived notions that they may have. Given that the above is happening I would love for someone to come up with a way to get around this. Perhaps ] has a suggestion? ] 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not watching over you, but your talk page is still on my watchlist from the 3RR block and I noticed the above discussion. I'm happy to remove your page from my watchlist and not comment further if you don't feel it's likely to be productive, though - I'm not trying to harass you. I think you're editing in good faith, or I wouldn't even bother to mention it. I don't think you've ever been "belligerent"; in fact, I've been impressed with your civility, given how contentious global-warming articles can be. | |||
| ::::I understand your concern about the fact that one stubborn user can stall change on an article. In fact, I've run up against this myself. But from an (admittedly somewhat cursory) glance at the page history at '']'', it appeared you were not being reverted by one stubborn user, but by a number of users with real, good-faith concerns about your edits. | |||
| ::::I think you're right to be bold and make a change first - no one needs to get, or give, proactive "approval" to make an edit. It's hard to know, in most cases, whether anyone will disagree with an edit until you make it. However, if the edit is reverted, ''then'' it starts to become incumbent to get some kind of discussion going and try to achieve consensus. This is summed up in ], which is an essay but a pretty useful one. Mind you, I don't claim to be perfect in this regard - but I got the sense that even after being reverted by several users, you were a) engaging in discussion, which is great, and b) continuing to revert to your preferred version, which is not so great. That's all. If I've oversimplified the situation, then I apologize. | |||
| ::::I don't feel that I simply instated "my favored version" of the Singer page - there were real BLP concerns which were addressed, including those of ]. There was a feeling that ExxonSecrets was not a useful source from a BLP perspective, which I don't fully agree with in this context but can accept. There was a request for more and better sources, and we used the ''Newsweek'' article, which seemed more satisfactory to everyone than the prior sourcing. It seemed to me that ]'s concerns were addressed, and it seemed at least initially that yours had been as well, though apparently I was mistaken there. | |||
| ::::How, and whether, to cite RealClimate or Steven Milloy at ''AIT'' is a thorny issue and one which I don't feel like getting involved in at the moment. I do think, however, that edit-warring over the material is a mistake and in the end is not going to accomplish what you want it to. That was the point of my note above, to steer you in other directions - again, based on a fairly quick skim of the page history at AIT, so apologies if I've misinterpreted. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I was venting as I mentioned above, so no problem. I don't mind your offering advice, it is appreciated (even if it doesn't sound like it from the vent above). I don't blame you for avoiding the RC/Milloy discussions. Maybe I am more partisan that I think, but I honestly am only seeking to have both sides fairly represented in this debate. Cheers. --] 21:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::While I hate to prolong a discussion like this on a user talk page, I feel it's worth noting that GoRight is being railroaded here. Some Pro-AGW editors (I don't want to name names) simply revert edits they don't like but refuse to discuss their reasoning on talk pages. AIT is a perfect example of this. So what seems like a number of editors relying on consensus is actually at times a handful of editors refusing to listen to the other side and just attempting to bully the edits away. I can reinstate GoRight's edits at times but I choose not to get in edit wars and rather I discuss things on the talk page. The fact that a few people are reverting his edits rather than one doesn't mean those few are in the right. ] 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No, of course it doesn't. But it ''does'' mean that continuing to reinsert the material isn't going to be effective. That's all I was getting at. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Reinserting it won't be effective but continually reverting it will be effective. Yeah, that's balanced... ] 02:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Pielke jr. and sr. == | |||
| Hi GR! I get the impression that you are not aware about the difference between ] (sr), who is an accomplished meterologist with a nuanced opinion about climate change (roughly "CO2 is a major part of global warming, but there are other aspects, we don't understand all the processes, and anyways, local effects are much more important and much or influenced by other anthropogenic factors") and ], his son, a political scientists who mostly agrees with the science of the IPCC, but is sceptical about mitigation. --] 19:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the clarification. I was aware that there was a jr. and a sr. but I never had occasion to dig further than that. I was mostly familiar with Pielke Jr. from the CIRES website. Now that you point out the distinction and rereading the description for the CIRES website, my faux pas on the AIT talk page is obvious. I assume that when WC was arguing to keep Pielke off the list of skeptics he was actually discussing sr? Would that be correct? --] 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, so far we have always been discussing the older Pielke on "List of scientists...". The younger one never came up, and I'm not certain he passes the "paper in the natural sciences" criterion. --] 21:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Looking again, he might pass (for his hurricane paper), but he does not seem to disagree with the core IPCC statements. --] 21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| =The whole "Controversial" thing on the ] article= | |||
| I saw you tried to add the controversial line back to the intro of the article. Of course ] has swiftly reverted your edit... There was a very lengthy discussion about this not to long ago. The conversation is in the talk page archives at this point. Take a look at it. Basically the issue came to an end because we didn't have enough support at the time to keep it in there even though we more then proved that this was true. The same players that are involved with keeping the Milloy quote out were the ones leading the rally to keep the controversial line out as well. They're way to into protecting the reputation of the film at this point so good luck :-) This all just goes back to my point about a few editors and admins feeling like they own that article... ] 21:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, that sounds familiar. I am not surprised and it is not just the AIT page that they try to systematically dilute the skeptics on. I see you noticed their little rebellion against having to actually vote. The way I look at it though, we have 3 for, 0 against, and 4-5 who abstain! Not that the vote carries any weight. I can't understand why they don't want to be tagged as having a position, how whimpy is that? Well, after a few more days we'll close the vote and then any of the fors will have to decide to either drop it or take it to mediation. How do you feel about mediation? --] 21:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be honest with you I don't think it's that they don't want to be tagged as having a position. I think it's more along the lines of they see our position as fringe and they see themselves as the mainstream view so why even bother taking us seriously. They're of the opinion that they run the article and are the articles "protectors" so they do not have to participate in the vote since in there eyes there is nothing really to vote on. Know what I'm saying? As for mediation I think it's good idea at this point and probably the only way left to resolve this. Were you thinking about doing an ] first and then going from there? I'll definitely participate in any mediation. Count me in :-) ] 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm just thinking of following the usual escalation process, so if RFC would be most appropriate then that would be next. Yes, I understand your point and agree that is clearly part of it. To some extent if they are the "majority" they may have some case for it but I think that they go overboard in cutting criticism. Especially in a case like this when the quote isn't even criticism for the most part. They just don't like Milloy. And heaven forbid that the commoners want to have a say. Just my opinion though. --] 22:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Will you please start adhering to this one? Your latest comments, accusing me of wanting "it both ways" with RC and your harp about ExxonMobil, must be addressing someone other than me - because i'm not using RC for anything You are getting things mixed up. --] (]) 17:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmmm. Possibly. Where do you actually stand on these points? Is RC qualified to comment on the NSTA situation regarding ExxonMobil funding given that they clearly are NOT experts on the funding arrangements of the NSTA nor do they have first hand knowledge of that arrangement? Do you consider RC to be ] simply because they have relevant publications or would you argue that they should not be afforded such consideration? | |||
| :As for adhering to ], I do. Where have I not? However, I believe that my requesting the same of you would be equally appropriate under the circumstances. --] (]) 17:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm starting to get tired of this.. Let me quote from ]: | |||
| :::Avoid excessive markup: It undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force through Italic text, Bolded text, and especially CAPITAL LETTERS, which are considered SHOUTING, and RANTING!!!!! Italics, however, can be usefully employed for a key word, to distinguish quoted text from new text and, of course, book titles etc. | |||
| ::Some of us are old users of the internet - and bold face is excessive markup. It jumps out of the page, and distracts from your point. Just as shouting does. Italics on the other hand, both emphasises the part that you want to turn attention to, and at the same time is calm to read. | |||
| ::Had your comments been one-time occurances, then i'd overlook it - but its not (for instance - where you are definitely not assuming good faith). --] (]) 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:20, 10 August 2014
Save these for future reference:
I have a couple of questions for anyone who might notice them:
- Am I allowed to use my talk page to discuss matters related to my ban, civilly of course, or will that be used as justification to turn off my talk page privileges?
- May I request that all of the pages under my user space be deleted, except for my talk page which cannot be according to policy?