A Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs) →Warning about WP:BLP violation: BTW, you're an experienced editor. You have no excuse for edits like that. |
A Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs) →New section: RfE notification |
||
Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That%3F&action=historysubmit&diff=382912702&oldid=382885615] You added contentious material about a living person without even bothering to cite any sources. Do not do this again. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 19:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC) |
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That%3F&action=historysubmit&diff=382912702&oldid=382885615] You added contentious material about a living person without even bothering to cite any sources. Do not do this again. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 19:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
:BTW, you're an experienced editor. You have no excuse for edits like that. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 19:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC) |
:BTW, you're an experienced editor. You have no excuse for edits like that. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 19:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
== RfE notification == |
|||
I have filed a RfE against you.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=382927039] However, if you will self-revert, I will withdraw my RfE. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 20:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:08, 4 September 2010
I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:
- You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
- You will need to be abundantly clear as to how the exact wording is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
- Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not a necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")
- Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.
Mediation Case
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
Enjoy.
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/824
WUWT
Your use of blog posts and twitter in this edit shocks me, [1] please do not use such sources again, thank you mark nutley (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- SA: ArbCom has asked us to take a break from editing CC articles. Many of us have been abiding by this request for 3 weeks now. I think you should give it a break. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate the advice, but I'm of the opinion that improving the encyclopedia should be done first. Arbcom never asked me personally to stop editing, and if they really believed we should stop editing, they could have protected the lot of articles, right? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
New sanction for Climate Change articles
In regards to this edit, I would like to alert you to this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! I did not know about that. Feel free to remove the template, it doesn't matter to me one way or another. I explained why I tagged it in this edit. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Block free ?
Was wondering if you would explain what you think the phrase "block free" means, as used in the "NoBlocksFemale" user box that you display at the top of this page ? Thanks Gandalf61 (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- As I understand, no one has ever defined it. In my opinion, it means that I'm not currently blocked. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Notice
[2] You were mentioned on Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement Minor4th 18:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate the notification. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
While we disagree on the status of the article, I appreciate you clarifying and hatting the matter of who wrote the article. Thanks and regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- To be clear, I think your GA review was fine from a procedural standpoint. I just disagreed with one (and only one) of the passes you gave it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
ANI
Pleas make your case for what requires admin action, if you want it open. Please add your claim that " a bit theatrical." and request your desired punishment Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Another user has again closed your report, please feel free to reopen and state your case. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I have commented that for such reports as yours users should be blocked. I hope you understand that, thanks. Feel free to reply. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me twice. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Aw, its been closed again by someone else, feel fee to re open, Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see here thanks Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
NB
Please be aware that I have left you two questions on ANI to which I would appreciate answers. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 07:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion to just let the entire matter drop. You can take that any way you want to. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- So you accused me of being snippy and refused to provide any evidence or substantiation of that. I'll take that the way any normal person would. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 13:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Watts as a Denialist
HI there. I was alerted to this edit of yours, where you claim that among others, Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1260/0958-305X.21.3.301, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1260/0958-305X.21.3.301
instead. labels Watts as a denialist. I did a search through the article, and I could not find evidence of that. Could you please clarify? Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's an ongoing discussion on the talk page. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am not editing the articles or getting involved in the talkpage whilst the the arbcase remains open but I must say to you I have access to all three of the sources and none of them directly states that Watts is a "denier" and none of the particular statements with regard to Watts can be regarded as peer-reviewed, even if some of the journals do publish peer reviewed articles. Polargeo (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I never said that any of them "direct stated that Watts is a 'denier'". This is a strawman that was invented by others. I'm not sure what you mean by "none of the particular statements with regard to Watts can be regarded as peer-reviewed." What do you mean by that? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- You might want to look here, where you added that Watts was " one of the foremost internet global warming denialists" and your edit summary stated "he's one of the foremost internet gw denialists according to three peer-reviewed articles." The problem is that the articles aren't peer reviewed and none of them stated he was a global warming denialist. You appear to be wikilawyering, on what you stated. I'm willing to discuss this, but time is getting short. GregJackP Boomer! 14:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that didn't answer my question. Polargeo thinks that these journal articles in particular are not peer-reviewed. I'd like to know how he came by that conclusion. We've discussed before, GregJackP, how it is reasonable to conclude from those sources that Anthony Watts is in the denialist camp. If you think, on your close reading, that Wikipedia shouldn't be saying that on the basis of those sources, that's another matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- You might want to look here, where you added that Watts was " one of the foremost internet global warming denialists" and your edit summary stated "he's one of the foremost internet gw denialists according to three peer-reviewed articles." The problem is that the articles aren't peer reviewed and none of them stated he was a global warming denialist. You appear to be wikilawyering, on what you stated. I'm willing to discuss this, but time is getting short. GregJackP Boomer! 14:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I never said that any of them "direct stated that Watts is a 'denier'". This is a strawman that was invented by others. I'm not sure what you mean by "none of the particular statements with regard to Watts can be regarded as peer-reviewed." What do you mean by that? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am not editing the articles or getting involved in the talkpage whilst the the arbcase remains open but I must say to you I have access to all three of the sources and none of them directly states that Watts is a "denier" and none of the particular statements with regard to Watts can be regarded as peer-reviewed, even if some of the journals do publish peer reviewed articles. Polargeo (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- This RFE case being prepared against you may also be of interest. Polargeo (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not being party to the mess that is GW cases, what can I expect from this sort of thing? What's expected of me? I think the case is pretty thin, what do you think? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Polargeo, I advised SA on the Watts talkpage that if he continued down this path, I would seek sanctions. Should he wish to accept what 3 other editors and 2 admins have now told him/questioned him on, I'm willing to consider other options besides an RFE. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Notice to GregJackP and ScienceApologist -- both of you have been mentioned on User talk:NuclearWarfare Minor4th 19:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Peer-reviewed article in Virology Journal
Not sure if you happened to see anything on Virology Journal#Bible influenza controversy. It was just so bizarre. I thought you might be interested. NW (Talk) 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I had read about it. Very Sternberg peer review controversy. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- "In a November, 2005 National Public Radio report on the affair Sternberg stated "I'm not an evangelical, I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm not a young earth creationist, I'm not a theistic evolutionist". Sternberg said McVay "related to me, 'the Smithsonian Institution's reaction to your publishing the Meyer article was far worse than you imagined'." Barbara Bradley Hagerty, NPR's religion reporter, said Sternberg himself believes intelligent design is "fatally flawed."[38]" That's rather bizarre. Why is he even trying to defend himself on that matter? NW (Talk) 02:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Notification of Request for Amendment - Fringe Science
You have been mentioned in a Request for Amendment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Fringe science in which you are involved as a party. Please feel free to read and comment on this request at that location. GregJackP Boomer! 13:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, ScienceApologist! Your recent nomination for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Koltz, was closed as "no consensus". But in fact there were two !votes for "delete," mine plus yours as nominator, and there were no other !votes to keep or merge or do anything other than delete. I don't believe that "no consensus, default to keep" was the appropriate outcome for that discussion, and I'd encourage you to relist it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I see you have already protested this on the administrator's talk page. He did the same thing with another discussion I was following. I will comment on his talk page also. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Shakespeare authorship question request for mediation
I have filed a request for arbitration on this question, naming you as one of the interested parties. Would you please sign your acceptance? Otherwise, let me know and I’ll remove your name from the request. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Persecution by another editor
I wonder if you could look into the behavior of another editor towards me. He seems to be deluded, following me around, calling me a "vandal" and a "sock" and gratuitously deleting my posts deletions! He's even deleted my post on a mediation page [3] where I'm entitled to express a point of view even though he doesn't agree! I've only been posting a few days and I find this behavior quite bullying. RewlandUmmer (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe it! Just noticed he's deleted this edit of mine for the second time [4] which cites a scholarly source, even though another editor restored it after the first deletion! This guy's out of control! RewlandUmmer (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- If Smatprt's actions and suspicions are not grounded, then I suggest you take this elsewhere, and certainly not to the mediation page, or to editors or administrators listed there. If I am not mistaken, you should make a complaint to the ANI/Incidents (Administrative Noticeboard Incidents page. Smatprt should take his evidence to the same page, and provide arguments justifying the intervention of a checkuser to check your account. (With apologies to SA for intervening on his page, but you sound like you need an urgent reply, and he may not be here) Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Climate change denial and U.S. politics?
Looking at your current problems at arbitration I can only say this: it may get much worse.
It seems that climate change has become a partisan issue in United States politics. Users engaging in Wikipedia edit wars on the issue are no longer scientist or science enthusiasts, but POV-pushers driven by their political affiliation. Looking at the Tea Party movement I wouldn't be surprised if we soon had some kind of WP:CAMERA pushing for an unscientific denialist point-of-view. Wikipedia can handle Israel–Palestine issues, as those directly involved are few in numbers or do not speak English. With the overwhelming number of Wikipedia editors participating or taking sides in United States politics, I do not know if Wikipedia can handle this. Scientific consensus will have to yield to political consensus. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that analysis is interesting, but there are nuances which seem to be unique to this case. There is an argument being floated that somehow editors who have the best records editing articles on science are ill-equipped to edit articles on the biographies of scientists and pundits, and editors who have demonstrated a consistent inability to appropriately edit articles on science are somehow better. There's a concerted group of administrators who have adopted this idealization as dogma. I'm not too concerned, though. Their ability to source articles ends at the level of the internet. As soon as people start moving in with reliable secondary sources published in the literature (as in, as soon as histories of this part of the conflict get written by serious academics) we'll find their advocacy rings very hollow. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Time for tea?. . . dave souza, talk 18:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Jane Mayer is certainly a better journalist than a lot who try to pass for it these days. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Time for tea?. . . dave souza, talk 18:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that analysis is interesting, but there are nuances which seem to be unique to this case. There is an argument being floated that somehow editors who have the best records editing articles on science are ill-equipped to edit articles on the biographies of scientists and pundits, and editors who have demonstrated a consistent inability to appropriately edit articles on science are somehow better. There's a concerted group of administrators who have adopted this idealization as dogma. I'm not too concerned, though. Their ability to source articles ends at the level of the internet. As soon as people start moving in with reliable secondary sources published in the literature (as in, as soon as histories of this part of the conflict get written by serious academics) we'll find their advocacy rings very hollow. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
See
Here mark nutley (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Request for mediation accepted
The request for mediation concerning Shakespeare authorship question, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee, AGK 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.
Warning about WP:BLP violation
[5] You added contentious material about a living person without even bothering to cite any sources. Do not do this again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, you're an experienced editor. You have no excuse for edits like that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
RfE notification
I have filed a RfE against you.[6] However, if you will self-revert, I will withdraw my RfE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)