Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Hyams (talk | contribs) at 17:35, 9 January 2010 (→Michael Cremo photo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1 12/2008 01/2009 02/2009 03/2009 04/2009 05/2009 06/2009 07/2009 09/2009 10/2009 11/2009 12/2009 cfwar 01/2010 02/2010 03/2010 04/2010 05/2010 06/2010 07/2010 08/2010 09/2010 10/2010 11/2010 12/2010 02/2011 03/2011 04/2011 05/2011 09/2011 10/2011 11/2011 12/2011 01/2012 02/2012 03/2012 04/2012 05/2012 06/2012 07/2012 08/2012 09/2012 10/2012 11/2012 12/2012 01/2013 02/2013 03/2013 04/2013 05/2013 06/2013 01/2014 02/2014 04/2014 05/2014 06/2014 GGsockfarms 12/2014 01/2015 02/2015 03/2015 04/2015 07/2015 11/2015 01/2016 11/2016 02/2017 10/2017 12/2017 11/2018 08/2020 11/2020 04/2021 05/2021 06/2021 07/2021 08/2021 09/2021 10/2021 11/2021 12/2021 01/2022 02/2022 03/2022 04/2022 05/2022 06/2022 07/2022 08/2022 09/2022 10/2022 11/2022 12/2022 01/2023 02/2023 03/2023 04/2023 05/2023 06/2023 07/2023 08/2023 09/2023 11/2023 05/2024 Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Tabula rasa on the "theft" issue

This is a hot issue within the blogosphere and op-eds. The AGW skeptics want to portray the hacker as a brave whisteblower and the AGW proponents want to portray him as a dishonest thief. Both sides seems to be emotionally invested in how to frame the hacker. But to be honest, this is one of the more lamer disputes. I wouldn't waste my time trying to resolve this. The average reader probably doesn't care one way or the other. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's well put. But the article currently invests a lot in demonising the heroic whistleblower! If he was being hailed as a saint I would also be saying hang on a minute, this might be a criminal hack or theft. But I am here for another reason... Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and specious reasoning

...you may be aware of the refusal of ChrisO to allow McIntyre's view, as reported by the Daily Mail and others, on the "trick" and "hiding the decline" to be reported in the article. He is acting as a gatekeeper on this issue, in my opinion, and I would like review or arbitration of this issue as I think an impasse has been reached. Given that the article is under probation, what is the next step I should take? Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You should discuss your proposed changes to the article on the talk page and seek consensus. Hipocrite (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I wasn't expecting a sympathetic ear, but a wise one. What if a consensus cannot be reached? Or, what if I think that someone is unreasonably blocking consensus? Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you discussed your proposed change on the talk page and reached consensus? If you have, then follow consensus. If you can not reach consensus, then seek additional ears by listing your content at RFC or other content noticeboards. Hipocrite (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had thought there was a consensus but not unanimity. I acted on that, and I was reverted. So it's RfC time, I guess, to test just how reasonable I have been. Thanks. And so, procedurally, it's all the same, probation or not. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you were reverted, you either didn't have consensus, or you are dealing with a problem editor. Are you sure that there wasn't a long section in the talk page discussing how to include your content that came to a conclusion that your proposed addition was not as fullsome as one that mentioned an interview on a CNN program and also cited a paper from 1997? It's not clear there was consensus on that version, but it's certain everyone preferred it to yours. Hipocrite (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that others and I have gone to extraordinary lengths to show which of your two options is correct. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right except I did not put that version in, I simply reverted its removal. Now I could have improved it, and would have liked the opportunity, but my replacement was reverted quickly, not improved. The person who is removing rather than improving would benefit from your good advice. There is gatekeeping going on here and it is most distasteful. It reflects badly upon WP. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are making an edit to a controversial article and you know that others object to the edit you are making, and further you and they have reached agreement, or are closer to agreement on a modified form of your edit, it seems that making your initial edit as opposed to enacting the possible talk page consensus is the mistake being made here. If you had referenced the CNN interview and the 1997 paper as appeared to be a possible agreement, I might have some time for your "gatekeeper" argument. However, it appears that you agree with the broader group that your edit is less than optimal. Don't make less than optimal edits to a controversial article. Hipocrite (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

outdent. As I said: Someone else put the sub-optimal version back in. It was reverted by someone, not improved to the better version. There an opportunity was lost. Only then did I become involved to undo that removal, but it was reverted again, not removed. I am anxious not to be seen to be edit warring otherwise I would take your advice to be a prompt from you to now insert the better version. Please feel free to do so. Thanks for all your good advice. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Double negative

Hi Hipocrite. You've used a double negative in this statement which makes your meaning a little unclear. Cheers, Jayjg 20:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Boldfacepalm

I don't regard "Climategate" as a credible synonym of the title, and so I think the bold face is unnecessary. Someone else can revert if they disagree. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

False Accusations

Un-f'n-believable. You lecture me about civility and then come to my talk page and make another false accusation against me? For the record, I have had exactly one account on WP, and you are way out of line to suggest otherwise. Jpat34721 (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on this at User talk:Jpat34721#Civility, my view is that asking if a user has any other accounts is in order, but care should be taken to avoid phrasing it as an accusation. Hope that helps in future, dave souza, talk 18:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert

You reversed an addition to the "Climategate" article with this revert. It obviously happened pretty fast, and I wonder if you would reconsider? The version we're left with is disputed in this section of the talk page. If you'd prefer we discussed this on the talk page itself that's fine, but I figured that as you were the reverting editor it'd be just as well to discuss it with you directly. Happy editing!--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Cremo photo

Why do you want to delete this photo? It is a legitimate screen capture from Youtube and it is used under fair use. No copyrights are infringed. John Hyams (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Review our non free content criteria - WP:NFC#UUI, section 12. Hipocrite (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell after reading it, the specific picture adheres to the criteria. In the text have found no reason to remove it, unless you can quote where it says a screen capture from Youtube is not regarded as fair use in this specific case (Michael Cremo). John Hyams (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear admin reading this:

Indefinite semi for my user page, please. Not talk, yet. Hipocrite (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not commonly done. You need a good reason for the request. Viridae 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

persistant targeted damaging vandalism from proxies. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Guettarda (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)