This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dave souza. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, Dave. I'm working on an essay how to help new editors get through their first steps in WP, from the viewpoint of a newbie. Someone who was one recently asked how newbies should deal with vandalism. I'd prefer for newbies to avoid reversion as it's a minefield for them. So whom should a newbie ask to dealt with vandalism? --Philcha (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Noobie question! Hey Dave, how goes it? just wondering what the numbers next to contributions mean? They seem really rewarding/addicting !! >_< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have dropped out of discussions here. But I have placed a proposed alternative to one section of the policy here - there have been some constructive suggestions by a couple of other editors and since posting it I have made some alterations to it in response to those comments. I hope you will have time to review the proposal and, if you think it is a step in the right direction, see if you can suggest any improvements - or of course if you don't like it register your view. Slrubenstein | Talk17:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, I'm a bit rushed at the present and while the principle of clarification is good, am a bit uncomfortable with the current proposal. Will review and come back on this, will try to make a placeholder statement in the interim. Your reminder about this is much appreciated, dave souza, talk20:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
James Hutton
Hi, Dave, I'm honored you answered my comment on greywacke and red sandstone, and appreciate the info about Inchbonny. I'm puzzled about what you said wrt geologists in Hutton's day disbelieving Ussher's dates. The American Museum of Natural History says, "In the late eighteenth century, when Hutton was carefully examining the rocks, it was generally believed that Earth had come into creation only around six thousand years earlier (on October 22, 4004 B.C., to be precise, according to the seventeenth century scholarly analysis of the Bible by Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland), and that fossils were the remains of animals that had perished during the Biblical flood." Hutton is called by some the "father of modern geology," and was born just 75 years after Ussher died. Anyway, I see my trivia question should more correctly ask where Hutton convinced his friends, not himself. Thank you and best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem, always interesting to discuss such topics. The AMNH is a bit misleading, they're right that most of the public held to a Biblical timing, but views of geologists had developed. A good source is Morus, Iwan Rhys; Bowler, Peter J. (2005). Making modern science: a historical survey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 105–122. ISBN0-226-06861-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) The early Church Fathers didn't take the creation story literally. Around 1650 James Ussher produced his famous chronology, but at that same time there was a new interest in mechanical explanations for such events, and Nicolas Steno found problems with a strict biblical chronology. In the early 1700s ideas of a shrinking ocean were popular (later called Neptunism) with Benoît de Maillet proposing vast amounts of time and no biblical flood. In 1749 Buffon proposed Earth cooling from a molten mass in a process he calculated as taking 70,000 years. The Neptunism of Abraham Gottlob Werner proposed a huge time span with no reference to biblical ideas, though some of his followers tried to reconcile it with Noah's flood. These concepts were already published when Hutton formed his own ideas in opposition to Neptunism, adopting concepts of Vulcanism or Plutonism to propose a perpetual mechanism maintaining the Earth, and Hutton's influence is often overstated. Must try to improve our coverage of these issues. . . dave souza, talk11:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Another very good source is Martin Rudwick's Bursting the Limits of Time: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Reform (2005). Besides the people mentioned by Dave, perhaps the biggest impact on the opinions of scientifically literate people at the time came from the work of some British antiquarians like William Hamilton (diplomat) and Patrick Brydone who investigated Italian volcanos like Vesuvius and Etna as part of their archeological work in the 1770s. Hamilton realized that the ruins he was excavating at Pompei had been built on top of layers of volcanic rock that had to have been produced by eruptions of Vesuvius thousands of years before the first recorded one that buried Pompei in 79 AD, which he realized meant that they had to all have preceded recorded history. Brydone and an Italian named Recupero estimated that it took at least 2,000 years to bulid up a signficant layer of soil on top of the lava flows produced by an eruption. Since they knew of a well dug near the base of Etna that had pierced 7 such layers of alternating soil and lava, they realized that the volcano must have been erupting for more than 14,000 years, and they were well aware that the well did not go all the way down through all the volcanic layers of produced by Etna. Hamilton and Bryodone both published widely read accounts of their travels and investigations. By the 1780s no one who was seriously interested in geology could take the traditional 6,000 yr figure seriously. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Rusty, that's interesting. The main article that seems to need improvement is history of geology which isn't at all clear on this issue, and gets into a muddle by putting an "Industrial Revolution" section before "17th century". Something todo.. dave souza, talk10:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks! It's a very interesting topic, and it was fun writing it. Guess I should think about putting it through the GA / FA hoops, but keep getting diverted. . . dave souza, talk22:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
[citation needed] ;-) I've made some suggestions at the page's talk page, bit beyond my field but have suggested asking at wikiprojects where experts may be able to help. . dave souza, talk11:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
What I used as a primary reference was an old text book of my mother. Unfortunately its front cover is missing so I have no idea who its author or publisher is. But anyway thanks for the advice.--EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, tricky. Try searching in Google (or Google books) for a string of text from the book, and see if that shows up the original. Best to find newer sources to supplement it, anyway. Good luck, dave souza, talk11:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The book must definitely be copyrighted and is an old one so I doubt it will be on web. I couldn't get any hint about it from a web search. Anyway thanks for help. I asked for help in Wikiproject Evolutionary biology. --EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hope it works for both of you! An improvement in civility and politeness from you two would greatly improve the editing atmosphere surrounding AGW articles and CC sanctions, but I'm only too aware that it's hard to change one's conversational style. Note that I'm not saying that one or the other has been equally rude, but it does seem to me that admins acting in that capacity have to try to set a good example. Anyway, thanks for your comment, . . dave souza, talk10:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I need to do better at noting positive things. But you may well want to start thinking about who actually is ruder and taking the appropriate level of action instead of demurring from taking a stance. ++Lar: t/c15:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Life's a bit short to take a fully considered stance everywhere I might like to. On the topic under discussion, my view is that you need to do better at showing an even handed approach to resolution of applications for sanctions, and this is damaged by pointed snark or repetition of unsupported broad allegations. In an uninvolved position, there's a need to rise above criticism, and while you may feel it's ok to appear to give an ill-tempered response when you feel you're being baited, it's best to try to avoid ill-considered responses and damaging to defend them rather than accepting that they were out of order. As for WMC, there's usually a degree of latitude about comments from ordinary editors but he needs to keep within those bounds, and would do better to be more polite. I certainly don't defend him when my view is that he's gone over that line, but there hasn't been a shortage of editors going on the attack against him in these circumstances. He's not always right, but brings useful expertise which should be taken for what it is, and examined critically as always. The attacks on him are a distraction from getting due weight and proper sourcing on articles in a difficult area, where there's a discrepancy between many published views and the clear majority views in scientific publications. Which is a whole new topic, but appears to me to be the underlying source of the dispute. . dave souza, talk17:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, good to see you in action again! Off the cuff I can't remember where the guidelines are, will have a look later. From memory, each link should be providing useful info specific to the article, links can be repeated in new sections but not too often. Thus, in Album cover it's probably overlinking to repeat the link to Lynyrd Skynyrd who've already been linked twice, in the Track listing section I'd only link the (songwriter?) names once, then repeat the names unlinked – i.e. Gary Rossington and Ronnie Van Zant would be linked at track 1 but not afterwards, Allen Collins would be linked on track 2 but not afterwards, and so on. However, I'd link the names again in the Personnel section for people who skip to that section and don't want to look for them in the track listing bit. Hope that's ok, will try to find a guideline later! . . dave souza, talk18:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jim. Happy to see you back. I think the rules on linking have evolved over the last year towards even less linking. No dates. And don't link common terms. WP:OVERLINK is the relevant bit of the guideline. Guettarda (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Please revert if this is the wrong place to ask. I've seen several footnotes bunched into one but have been unable to figure out how to do it. How is it done? Wouldn't that be a partial answer to over-linking? I consult WP much more often than I edit it, and find a plethora of superscript numbers most unaesthetic and distracting. In a word, annoying, although being the detail nut I am I do greatly appreciate sourcing. Yopienso (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Citation overkill. I'm not sure I agree with the essay, not entirely, but it does have one way to group citations. Another way is to go:
You can find the "•" character if you select "Symbols" from the drop-down menu under the [Save page] button. Guettarda (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone, particularly Guettarda for pointing out the guidelines. On grouping references, it only works if all the references are being used together – if only some of the references are being cited multiple times using the ref name= tag, then it can be best to leave them out of the grouping. As always, there are probably many ways round it. . dave souza, talk07:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. After a rather unpleasant, grueling experience with I B Wright (and what currently seems to be his alter ego, 86.182.66.217) on my talk page and elsewhere, I decided to take a look at the history of histalk page and and wasn't too surprised to find that he clashed with many other users in the past, you among them.
And while I think it was wrong of some of you to threaten him with being blocked (for tendentious editing, personal attacks, harassment or whatever), he's really damaging Wikipedia, putting falsehoods in article after article (I'm still not sure as to why he does what he does: Is he really serious, or is this all some kind of a very bad joke? Or maybe he's got some, um, "other issues" to deal with?). Isn't there anything that can be done short of revoking his editing rights (which already had been tried once before)? Couldn't it be arranged that his changes must be approved by someone higher up before they are applied? Oh, well, that's probably not feasible, still, it's comforting to see that I'm not the only one who's had a close encounter of the third kind with this unnerving guy... Thanks!
By the way, did you ever read the self-description on his user page?
"[...]he has a wide ranging knowledge on some often surprising subjects.
Note: I B Wright is not his real name, but an apposite if modest description."
It doesn't get much more disconnected from reality than that.
Thanks for the heads-up, rather short of time at the mo to give this the detailed examination it probably needs, will try to look in later to see if you've had joy with your other enquiries, dave souza, talk22:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:
The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
"Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
"Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
"Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
"Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)
Dave, maybe you were hasty in concluding Expelled doesn't imitate Gore and Moore. See my comment on the talk page. I didn't revert your revert because what 96.10.255.46 wrote had other problems. A quick google turned up references to Gore and Moore. Not sure how important it is to include that tidbit, either. But your reason (edit summary) for reverting wasn't spot on. Regards, --Yopienso (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, it imitates them, but it isn't a satire on them. At best, it tries to follow Moore's formula of satirising his subjects. Have relied in detail on the talk page. . dave souza, talk08:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory(u • t • c)20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Culture of withholding information
Dave, I was about to post this on the Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy page but realized that might be giving poor AQFK more tobacco for his bitter pipe. It doesn't really help the article, anyway, but clears up a talk page misunderstanding that possibly only I care about. :-)
You said it's the norm "in most areas of science" for scientists to withhold information until they've published. Trouble is, the CRU has published. Bigger trouble is, the Guardian article cited does not say it's the norm "in most areas of science," but "among the climate science community," and "strongly criticised" them for it. You seem to be defending a practice that militates against the scientific method and weakens the integrity of the scientific community.
This is from the Guardian article cited at what is presently footnote #8:
MPs today strongly criticised the University of East Anglia for not tackling a "culture of withholding information" among the climate change scientists whose private emails caused a furore after being leaked online in November.
The parliamentary science and technology select committee was scathing about the "standard practice" among the climate science community of not routinely releasing all its raw data and computer codes – something the committee's chair, Phil Willis MP, described as "reprehensible". He added: "That practice needs to change and it needs to change quickly."
Granted, now, these were politicians, not scientists, speaking. We still must accurately report what they said.
The WP article on documentation according to the scientific method agrees with my own understanding: Archiving
As a result, researchers are expected to practice scientific data archiving in compliance with the policies of government funding agencies and scientific journals. Detailed records of their experimental procedures, raw data, statistical analyses and source code are preserved in order to provide evidence of the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure and assist in reproduction. These procedural records may also assist in the conception of new experiments to test the hypothesis, and may prove useful to engineers who might examine the potential practical applications of a discovery.
Data sharing
When additional information is needed before a study can be reproduced, the author of the study is expected to provide it promptly - although a small charge may apply. If the author refuses to share data, appeals can be made to the journal editors who published the study or to the institution which funded the research.
I fully support WP:TRUTH and WP:OR, but although I do my diligence to keep it out of WP, can't help but hold the personal opinion that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. All I need is a map to discover if Denmark lies entirely within East Anglia! ;-) You seem to be injecting your opinions wrt to AGW and what you believe to be the unwarranted accusations against the CRU into the talk page. You do not seem to insert them into the article itself, but imho are perhaps over-zealous in defending them. The only reason this could matter would be if it creates controversy with other editors.
You may or may not care to read my comments to AQFK.
Sorry to say, I can no longer assume good faith with ChrisO. He never corrected or apologized for or even acknowledged my protest at his overt twisting of some words of mine some time back, and today was caught using quotation marks around paraphrased words, something I can't imagine he didn't know was unacceptable.
I do not understand this in the least, but the highlighted portions on the last few pages of the newly report of the investigation of Michael Mann substantiate your point of view that these guys aren't expected to share info very freely. Mann, in fact, was chided for sharing too much. !!! Science does not operate like they tell you in school! (What does?)
No problem, it's good to enquire. From memory, there's been discussion about the degree of sharing info and methods in various fields of science, and over the last few decades climate science has become one of the most open. The basic requirement is to give enough info for other scientists to be able to do the same experiments or investigations, including sufficient description of methods for another expert in the field. Mann was faced with demands from the Senate for all the "raw" data he'd used, not just the data he'd produced after processing, and for all his computer code, not just sufficient description for another climatologist to replicate the results. He was backed up by the national academy in not giving out so much, but decided to do that anyway. Similarly CRU and HAD have become increasingly open, but the skeptics always demand more so that complete amateurs can "audit" the numbers rather than replicating the science. I was trying to briefly summarise this in discussion without sources to hand. The same probably happened with ChrisO, my assumption is that he was summarising things in a rush, and hope he remembers to avoid adding quote marks when going from memory, easily done but causes misunderstandings. Both Chris and AQFK are writing in good faith, but sometimes nuances get lost in discussions where everyone's trying to put across concepts as quickly as possible. Not to worry, dave souza, talk04:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Just playing like a kid there, absurdly proud of figuring out how to do it! My sister likes Bauhaus; her mother-in-law, a Disney Imagineer, took her to NYC last fall to see the Kandinsky show at the Guggenheim. (I had to get even by visiting the Art Institute of Chicago in April. I like Vermeer, J.M.W. Turner, Winslow Homer, Rousseau....anything I find either pretty or arresting, Bauhaus qualifying as the latter.) --Yopienso (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Your evidence
...includes some very good points but seems a bit wordy. Remember, the arbs will have a ton of stuff to plow through and aren't going to spend much time parsing each person's evidence. Try to write so that your main points will be apparent to someone who is quickly skimming the page. You might consider using bullet points or short, to-the-point paragraphs instead of blocks of text. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks like I've stepped in a little doo-doo again. Here.
SCjessey seems fine with my striking.
Viriditas was unhappy with me but has dialogued civilly with me on my talk page.
My question is if it's wrong to copy from the archives and paste into an on-going discussion. It seemed logical and fair to me, but was offensive to Viriditas. I can't find a rule on it. My common sense tells me it's OK, but I may have a blind spot here. I understand why s/he felt I was singling him/her out for criticism, although I wasn't. Do you think it came across that way to others?
Happy notes: I'm pleased with the outcome of Stated or found? on that same page. Also with a compromise reached with William M. Connolley on his talk page.
sorry to hear that you intent to continue violating NPOV, you are strongly urged to cease this disruptive behaviour
Actually, I think he honestly believes in a version of the NPOV policy that is at odds with most interpretations. Try talking to him about it and you'll find out for yourself. He hangs out on the RS noticeboard as a regular, yet he takes a contrarian approach (IMO) to the use of sources. In that particular case, he seems to enjoy playing around with the fuzzy nature of the definition of "reliablity". I've tried to address this problem in the past few years by attempting to tighten up the source evaluation side of things, only to find myself attacked on all sides by a swarm of editors. If you're interested, that's precisely where the answer to the problem remains to this day. Anyone willing to undergo the challenge of addressing the evaluation issue, will fix the RS and NPOV loophole in one fell swoop. I think certain parties know this, which is why they will attack anyone who attempts it. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
It was a bit of a play on him (or her?) apparently using the royal "we" for those allegedly violating NPOV. Cla is also tendentiously trying to evade sourcing policy, it's an issue that needs to be developed at the arbcom workshop. Will try to find time for that in the next day or so. . . dave souza, talk08:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
AQFK, the "attacks" had nothing to do with NPOV, but with how to evaluate sources, and the person whom I had the most disagreement with on this issue was eventually indefinitely blocked for other reasons, but at the time, had support from his friends. I'm afraid you're mistaken yet again. Viriditas (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
As far as sourcing goes, reliability is not a binary 0/1 switch. Reliability is heavily dependent upon context. A source can be reliable for one statement but not reliable for another. Further, a source can be appropriate in one article, but not another article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I believe I've informed you of that fact several times. It's good to know you finally learned something. However, what you have not yet learned, is that within the appropriate context, such as science, a source that represents the established, mainstream view is favored over a source that represents the fringe view. Additionally, a source that is based on rumor, hyperbole, or has a reputation for propaganda or false claims, is generally not considered reliable. This means a science journalist covering a topic with a minimum degree of competence, in an article that an average editor can determine is reliable, neutral, accurate and timely, is favored over a reporter that isn't known for science journalism, or the opinion/editorial piece from a source that isn't authoritative, or known for fact-checking, neutrality, or accuracy. For some reason, you aren't able to wrap your mind around this. In your head, on the topic of global warming, for example, an article in the journal Nature is equivalent to an article in Fox News or an op/ed in the Wall Street Journal, and that simply isn't true. Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd add that A Quest For Knowledge has shown a properly nuanced understanding of the reliability issue in the WP:RSN discussion on The Hockey Stick Illusion as a potential source for the article. Agree with A Quest For Knowledge's paragraph above on that topic, not so clear about the comments made on NPOV. We are not supposed to introduce bias to counter the bias of reliable sources, we are supposed to show views from reliable sources in a way that gives due weight to majority views, and need not show tiny minority view. Note that's a tiny minority among experts in the subject area, regardless of the numbers of ill informed zealots. . . dave souza, talk19:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
A tiny-minority view is one held by a tiny minority of reliable sources, not a tiny minority of experts. That's the core of this entire issue right there. We don't have scientific point of view, or scholarly point of view, or expert point of view, on Wikipedia. We have neutral point of view among reliable published sources. All majority and significant-minority views in reliable published sources are eligible for inclusion. Once a view is regularly hitting The New York Times, it's no longer tiny-minority, no matter how much some experts may dislike it. SlimVirgintalk|contribs19:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a demand for acknowledgement of creationist views in all evolution articles, and flood geology in all geological articles. No matter how much some experts may dislike it. Roll on more coverage for Hayekist scientists! . . dave souza, talk20:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
And, most importantly, we evaluate reliable sources for accuracy and currency. There's no good reason for us to continue to use outdated articles as sources. If suspect X is accused of crime Y by source Z, we're not going to continue to claim Y and emphasize Z when new sources exonerate suspect X, cast doubt on the previous claims Y, and make us wonder why Z hasn't issued an update, correction, or retraction. Historically, the reliability of a source can change. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hockey stick
I have a question about this post: "More recently, Marknutley (talk · contribs) and Tillman (talk · contribs) have been arguing for inclusion in the biography of a scientist of a link to the article on The Hockey Stick Illusion, a barely notable book promoting fringe views and attacking the scientist's work, which has been ignored by the mainstream.[665]". The graph shows temps going up which would seem to support the AGW theory, yet your post calls it a fringe theory I don't get it. Can you enlighten me? Pls answer on my talk page. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
See the article talk page and also note WP:V requires "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Michaels has made a false claim about a third party, not something suitable for Wikipedia and not very notable unless another reliable source picks it up. If you've an argument for inclusion, put it there. Thanks, dave souza, talk22:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
It says: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy..." In this case, the WSJ must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not Michaels.
The WP policy is called WP:Verifiability, not truth. It should be obvious that your argument, which consists in pointing out that "Michaels has made a false claim about a third party," is in direct conflict with that policy. As for notability, notability states, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." That disposes of your second argument, that the WSJ article is not notable.
Can you understand how your arguments conflict with wikipedia policy? If so, do you mind reverting yourself to put the WSJ article back into the article? If not, could you provide another argument for its exclusion?--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, take your arguments up on the article talk page. Notability applies to the extent to which you've not established the significance of this one article, which is a primary source of the questionable views of Michaels and the WSJ but not a reliable third party secondary source on the overall reporting. Note that WP:SOURCES specifically describes the author as a source affecting reliability as well as the publisher, and WP:WEIGHT requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, not insignificant and erroneous comments by one questionable author. . . dave souza, talk06:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Robert Watson article incident
A Quest for Knowledge and I compiled relevant diffs into a sortable table to make it easier for reviewers. The information is contained here
I am notifying those who made reference to the incident on the evidence page, specifically, SBHB, Minor4th, GregJackP, mark nutley, WMC, dave souza and Hipocrite. (You may well be aware of this now, but I'm following my self-imposed rule of notifying anyone who adds evidence related to this incident) Did I miss anyone?--SPhilbrickT13:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, I noticed the table and it seemed pretty reasonable. It doesn't go into all the sub-details, but covers the main points as far as I noticed. . . dave souza, talk13:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
My comment at Hockey Stick re referencing conventions
I may be confused about nomenclature - when I said I didn't like Harvard referencing, I mean the parenthetical referencing referred to as "Harvard style" of parenthetical referencing in Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. I was under the impression that references to Harvard referencing meant parenthetical referencing - it appears I may be mistaken.
I like the approach used in Fertilisation of Orchids. Unless I'm missing something, it is structurally the same as what I proposed based on the usage in Hazel Walker, with the minor difference, that I was usually a non-online book, so I couldn't add url's to the page numbers.
Thanks, it confused me too at first as the parenthetical method always looked awkward in print. The difference in Hazel Walker is that it doesn't use the harvnb template, so you don't have the automatic link from the author name in the "notes" section down to the book description in "references", and that's very nice when you've got a lot of citations and references. As you'll see in Orchids, there are no urls used in referring to print books or online versions without sub-links, but it works well when we can link to individual pages. Glad to agree that we're on the same page! . . dave souza, talk18:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I didn't catch the autolink feature. That might be overkill in Walker, where all the footnotes and the references easily fit on a single screen, but I can see how helpful it is in Orchids. I think I'll switch over Walker, if only for practice. BTW, I'm a fan of the WP:LDR citation style—it looks like LDR and harvnb can co-exist; will find out soon.--SPhilbrickT20:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
AQFK, I'm serious about this. Your edit appeared unsatisfactory to me, but I chose to follow Risker's advice and ignored it. Now you're trying to push Yopienso into restoring the more dubious aspects of your edit, which in my view is rather irritating, if not exactly inflammatory. Best to leave this area alone for a bit, in my view. . dave souza, talk21:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If you're serious about this, then why are you only asking me after I asked Yopienso? I'm not trying to inflame this at all. That's why I'm asking politely and civily. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I left things alone, but by asking Yopienso to revert to your version you were using Risker's request to push for your own edit which you made after Risker had requested us all, including myself, to leave things alone. Asymmetric. Anyway, I'm leaving that subject area alone, at least until tomorrow, and leave it with you. . . dave souza, talk21:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that paragraph about the UEA and the FoIA.
Can you give me a clue on what I did to so rile Guettarda way down on this page? Comment of 16:35, 31 July 2010 and earlier. Because of an edit conflict, he, and presumably Tarc, didn't realize my post was directed at Tarc. I do appreciate that he engaged and gave an answer, but I don't understand his indignation nor why he thinks I'm being untruthful. --Yopienso (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Not Tarc, Tony. There are several places there but I don't have time to look them up right now. Off to supper! --Yopienso (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
It's hard to keep track of all this, so I'm not sure. However, you do seem to be bumbling a bit about the FOI Act, in plain language the depute ICO gave a dodgy Sunday Times journalist a statement which was twisted into looking like official confirmation that CRU had been refusing to give out data. Deleting info that's been requested could lead to prosecution under Section 77 with an unlimited fine of an organisation or up to £5000 fine on an individual, but that's time barred and hasn't been investigated. Holland had been requesting private emails, the ICO finding is that the uni hadn't dealt properly with these requests and told the uni to pull its socks up. Job done. . dave souza, talk07:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm stepping back a bit both because I realize I've been "hammering"--a no-no--and because of real life business.
Your (and ChrisO's) objections epitomize what some of us perceive as POV at CRUec.
While it is technically true that "no determination was ever made," your defense of the CRU fails to acknowledge that a breach of the FoIA did, in fact, occur. That they were not held accountable for it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Contrariwise, you have no scruples about declaring the emails were "stolen" even though that has not been "determined." (ChrisO was POV about it here. An editor changed "stolen" to "released," which was illogical English. In an effort to compromise, I changed it to "obtained," which seems to be the most factual and grammatical and neutral word. ChrisO swiftly restored it to "stolen," clearly a POV edit that does not agree with the legal "determinations" at present. For the record, I have no scruples about saying they were stolen, either.
The reason I provided those particular secondary sources is because those are the ones linked to from the tertiary source, which WP says "is considered one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals." (We should be using academic third party sources as a basis rather than the MSM which has been shown to give poor coverage to this issue, jumping on the exciting soundbites at the outset then neglecting the considered reports on it. . . dave souza, talk 17:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC))
Here's the official, if not formal, statement from Graham Smith to Jonathan Leake:
“The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requests for information. Mr Holland’s FOI requests were submitted in 2007/8, but it has only recently come to light that they were not dealt with in accordance with the Act. The legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place, so by the time the action taken came to light the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone.”
"...were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation" means the handling of Holland's requests did not comply with the law, which is a nice way of saying the CRU broke the law. The UEA requested a retraction, and Smith refused. Here are links to their correspondence.
The Oxburgh report tiptoed around this issue: "A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context."
From Section 10.5 #32 of the Russell review: "The Review found an ethos of minimal compliance (and at times non-compliance) by the CRU with both the letter and the spirit of the FoIA and EIR." Again, "non-compliance" means they didn't keep the law, which means they broke it. It wasn't a criminal law and Jones is not a criminal. Had he been tried and convicted he would not be a criminal. He broke the rule, though.
According to the Russell review, the CRU scientists felt besieged by an orchestrated campaign, albeit organized in response to their own initial unhelpfulness. While I sympathize with Jones, et al, on a human level, in our encyclopedia we should not minimize their errors nor the ensuing consequences. Humility is rare and perhaps not advisable in a career that depends upon self-promotion to garner funding, and a cavalier attitude toward critics and toward new and irksome regulations the UEA didn't fully acquaint them with is understandable. So, personally, I'm glad they were not subjected to further humiliation or disruption. Perhaps an unjust price was exacted from them at this watershed moment in the history of the ethics of science. --Yopienso (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Yopienso. It's a bit difficult to follow the twists of all this, but what happened was that the Deputy ICO, Smith, made an "informal" statement to the dodgy Sunday Times journalist, who twisted it and published it in a way that was widely reported, including in Science. The ICO read the emails as giving enough evidence of proposals to destroy emails to investigate further and take the case to trial, but didn't investigate further as it was too late for the magistrates court. Jones would probably have been happier if it had gone to trial, the act doesn't make it a crime unless emails were actually destroyed after they'd been requested with intent to evade the FOIA – the hacked emails showed intent, but there's been no evidence that emails were wrongly destroyed. Even if the magistrate found against Jones, it would be a £5,000 maximum fine, which isn't such a big deal. The finding that the university didn't deal properly with requests is a different part of the legislation, which means that the uni would have to do what the ICO decided was required to release the info. The ICO decided no action was needed, but improvements were needed and agreed in consultation to stop it happening again. Hope that clarifies things a bit more. Science has been changed by FOIA acts, so that anyone can now demand data, computer programs, interim calculations, emails, and so on. Further expense for researchers, and as Muir Russell found, any competent person could reproduce the results from info already available. Open info is an nice ideal, but the implementation is too open to vexatious misuse. . .dave souza, talk22:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Bud Neill's Magic!.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bud Neill's Magic!.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
On August 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Kincaid, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Dave, can you link to the case where the expert is possibly going to be topic banned? That is indeed interesting. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I suspect it's probably a done deal, but I worry about the implications of it. You can bet that the likes of Solomon and Watts will publicise it heavily. It will likely lead to headlines elsewhere along the lines of "climate science banned from Wikipedia", which will reinforce the concerns expressed by Sanger et al - that experts aren't welcome on Wikipedia. I wouldn't be surprised if the long delay in the decision was due to the Arbs trying to work out a way to avoid exactly this scenario. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
What a mess. Are you saying that WMC is going to get topic banned most likely? I sure hope not. Climate science is one of those areas that unfortunately suffers from a lot of garbage ideas floating around in mass culture because they serve political ends. The encyclopedia could clearly use better protections against the effects of these kinds of cultural politics.Griswaldo (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately a topic ban looks quite likely. Arbcom has taken a "ban them all" approach in the past and I suspect this will be one of those cases. I have to admit WMC has not helped his own case much, but the way he's been baited and attacked on and off-wiki would be enough to try the patience of a saint. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Ideally editors like WMC would be better protected from that kind of baiting. Of course if someone were to annoy one of us into committing a crime I doubt the judge would decide to absolve us entirely of our crime because of it so I guess I understand why something were forthcoming if, as you say, he hasn't helped himself (I'm assuming behaviorally). On the other hand if a group of POV pushers can eliminate bona fide scientists from editing articles in their area of expertise by goading them on like this and making them misbehave then there is something systemically wrong with Wikipedia.Griswaldo (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This - completely out of the blue in a discussion WMC isn't even involved in - is a case in point. The unfortunate fact is that for a section of the blog-reading populace, WMC has become a hate figure. Drive-by trolling and personal attacks of this sort appear to have become commonplace. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Freakshownerd seems to exemplify the sort of fringe pov pushing over multiple topics that's relatively obvious and easy to deal with. As for the current case, I've no comment until the fat lady sings, if that's not too mangled a metaphor. Relapses into slumber. . . . dave souza, talk21:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
(od)I mentioned the WMC situation a long time ago (though not by name) when I just became interested in CC and wrote an essay on the subject. I agree that topic banning WMC would create an immense s--t storm, and would result in negative publicity in the press. I'm not clear if such considerations would impact on the arb. committee. I agree that topic banning WMC would be a mistake, but also that he has tended to inflame things by his comments. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
These issues of publicity and the press wouldn't be my concerns, in my view the main issue is that WMC should continue to make valuable contributions which are nearly always well backed by science. On several occasions since I've been editing in the area he's been blunt and pushed towards the boundary of WP:SPADE, but I'm cautious about whether or not he's crossed over into incivility. Most editors get a degree of leeway, WMC has been particularly exposed to civil POV pushing. In the end we have to decide whether we want to put article content and accurate reflection of the state of the science first, working on getting better civility by improving the editing environment for all, or whether we enable undue pushing of minority views. Others will no doubt differ. We'll see how the arbiters balance the various demands, and no doubt will have another round of trying to present evidence and argue the pros and cons. As for inflaming things by comments, some people are very easily inflamed, in my view the best answer is extreme civility. Even at the expense of humour, which is rather a shame, but there it is. As the old saw has it, "anything you say may be taken down and used in evidence against you" – "trousers!" . . dave souza, talk20:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I've witnessed the civil POV pushing you're talking about. I think it helps not to be too emotionally involved, so I can keep my distance, but I can see how people can become annoyed. Were I a climate scientist, I might have blown my stack by now. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
That's something that sets identified experts at a disadvantage here. Attacks on them are attacks on their reputation, which is important to them. It also opens them up to bloggers or political columnists spreading lies and misinformation about their Wikipedia activities. That's a reason why I'm not an expert, and always edit in areas where my interest is purely amateur. These pressures aren't very good for the quality of articles, but do reflect online society as a whole. . . dave souza, talk08:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Having seen the description of him as conservative removed again today, I'm wondering why, given the sources and the talk page, he isn't described as a right wing Christian Zionist alleged to have connections with the Patriot Movement? His article seems whitewashed. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be an IP intent on whitewashing the bio and making it into a vanity page, all too common among those promoting fringe views. Don't know enough about it all myself to help much, I'm afraid. . . dave souza, talk08:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Dave, why do you care if this particular BLP doesn't contain any, or very little, negative information? Isn't one of the creeds of our BLP policy to "do no harm?" If most, if not all, of our BLPs were "whitewashes," I'm not sure that that would be a significant problem. Do you feel that one our missions here is to prevent that for certain, or all, BLP articles? Cla68 (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
So, Cla, do you think that "evangelical Christian" does no harm, but conservative Christian does harm, and properly sourced description as Christian Zionist with ties to the far right Patriot movement is unacceptable negative information? I'd have thought that Christian Zionists in the Patriot movement would disagree with you. We follow the best available sources. . . dave souza, talk08:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
What do we care if the article identifies him as having ties to the "far right Patriot movement"? Why do you? It sounds like you are taking a personal interest in making sure that everyone knows who this guy "really is." Cla68 (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
If most, if not all, of our BLPs were "whitewashes," I'm not sure that that would be a significant problem. Are you serious? That would be a severe problem, a violation of the fundamental precept of Wikipedia, NPOV. It's one thing to trump up minor issues in a person's life. We have policies to deal with that. But you are objecting to inclusion of significant biographical details. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
You're in the wrong place for hagiography, Cla, our BLPs should show well sourced significant information in fully compliance with relevant policies. If you want to disguise who people really are, you shouldn't be editing bios. . . . dave souza, talk16:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, Dave, haven't you noticed that I rarely edit BLPs (although one FA that I helped write is a BLP, but that was a lapse of reason). Just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should. If you're familiar with the Rosalind Picard WP incident, you'll understand why. Cla68 (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Since you have no real bone to pick with Dave on policy, what then is the purpose of your coming here to scold him? It strikes me as disruptive. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that this behavior on the part of Cla68 may be a disruptive pattern. I've started a thread on his talk page where thoughts can be further expressed if so desired? Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I find Cla's nagging unsurprising, but am not treating dealing with it as a priority at this moment. Thanks for the heads-up, dave souza, talk18:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Creationism
Hi Dave. As you are a recent visitor to the Creationism article, I just wanted to say that I've rewritten a section of it, and would appreciate you giving it the once over. In speaking with Dougweller I realise that my version might be missing the point (or misrepresenting it) cf. Dawkins on NOMA. I still think it's better than the confusing text that was there before, but I may be putting more of my interpretation in there. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO08:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, it does look to me like an improvement. It highlighted what seems to have been a diversion introduced into the lead earlier this year, so I've moved that to talk and replaced it by a discussion of the origins of the term in relation to the development of the anti-evolution movement. . dave souza, talk10:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for giving it the once over. I'll have a think about it some more and may edit it again. It wouldn't be the first time that I've reinterpreted a source through my personal blinkers then (unwittingly) written up my take as if it were that in the source. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO15:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
No worries, it was a confusing post on my part (I was surprised to see I was the one who put it in, so yeah...)
As I noted on the talk page, as is I don't think it's really worth including. Dembski has said a lot, and I don't think all of it is a) worth putting on the page and b) part of a consistent effort. I think his ideas are dumb and his methods scientifically contemptible, but that doesn't mean we should note every single bit of antiscience he says.
[3] Just to let you know, I plan on continuing with the voluntary topic ban. I stepped outside of it at the Illusion article briefly because of the special nature of what had occurred there, but I think we should continue with it, in spite of at least one other person who appears to have renounced his voluntary ban. Cla68 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you surprised that there might be an expectation that those who signed up on that list would try to stick to what they committed? Cla68 (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
PZ Myers and the Koran
Hi Dave Souza. The reason it matters that PZ Myers only desecrated an English translation of the Koran and not the original Arabic is: if he had desecrated an Arabic Koran he would be on several Muslim hit-lists, maybe already killed by this time. Instead he cleverly kept himself safe by desecrating an English translation. 207.237.243.185 (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think these comments were very helpful for cooperation, collaboration, and compromise. In fact, they seemed to be kind of sarcastic. Please remember that we're not supposed to take a side on these topics or at least not to belittle the viewpoints that the sources represent. Cla68 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Dave's comment reminded me of a long-ago incident, when I & another geologist were having lunch at the (only) cafe in Datil, NM, the closest town to the then-new Very Large Array. We chatted with the waitress, mentioned we were geologists working in the area, and she replied:
@ Pete, thanks for that anecdote, a good point and of course I fully agree that geologists are scientists. I can empathise as my son is an engineer – in this country they're sometimes regarded as less than scientists, or indeed as people who fix boilers or the like.
@ Cla, you seem to have missed the obvious, that I was replying to Pete in a similar lighthearted way to his own comments. Unfortunately your posting here is rather confrontational and reminds me of concern trolling, please be more collegiate. . . dave souza, talk17:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You're an admin, so you should know that any undoing of another editor's work counts towards 3RR, whether the same material or different, whether in whole or in part. Please see WP:3RR. SlimVirgintalk|contribs22:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Influenced section
Hi,
In edit-reverts of Charles Darwin you mentioned that Influenced section should list the people in physical contact. But this is not consistent across wikipedia. To give a few example: Aristotle, Adam Smith. Let me know your thoughts.
For me it makes sense to list all the notable people who were influenced. -Abhishikt 23:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)
List names of any notable people who influenced the scientist significantly. The intention is to only list those influences that had physical contact with the scientist. Do not insert those influences that were not in person (e.g. via study of works or books) as this is more tenuous and there are generally too many for each scientist. Only list those who are notable enough to warrant a wiki article.
influenced
List names of any notable people who were significantly influenced by the scientist. The intention is to only list those that were influenced by physical contact with the scientist. Only list those who are notable enough to warrant a wiki article.
In some articles editors may have agreed to be lax about this, it's something that can be discussed on the article talk page. However, Darwin influenced so many people (and was influenced by so many people) that each list could form a complete article. The main article is already rather oversized, so the present numbers of those Darwin had contact with make a pretty reasonable short listing. . . dave souza, talk09:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Restrain your bias, aggressiveness
You seem to think you own article "Expelled". The article is so hopelessly and tastelessly one sided, that it is one of the worst in this "wikipedia", and you seem to be one of the main POV-pushers, in the "wikipedia" parlance. BTW I am atheist, and do not share opinion with the author of that documentary, although persecutions in science do exist. However, the level of that "article" is so lowly one sided, that it begs for improvement also by people OTHER than you, and look from outside (of USA frustrated with its religious fundamentalism, that has no parallel in Europe) should be welcome, not aggressively attacked with hostility/heavy weaponry. In any case, restrain your urge to control this shameful article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.154.3 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey Dave, what's the deal with the chiropractic sanction message on my talk page? Is that a warning for any particular editing, a reminder, a procedural technicality? I'm not quite sure where it comes from or if it indicates any judgment about recent editing. Also not sure whose judgment it reflects. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Update. "This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem." This is kind of buried at the end of the 6th paragraph. I didn't see it at first. Because of the presumptuous nature of most templates on Wikipedia, I'd recommend rewriting the notice to be more clear up front that the warning is boilerplate and not connected to any recent activity. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, on my reading it's a non-accusatory information template advising that the sanctions apply to the topic. Trust you'll bear it in mind. . . dave souza, talk12:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Dave, Given your lack of apparent concern that both I and Anon interpreted the template as an incident-related warning, I hoped you would consider making ["This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem"] more prominent, so that future cases don't make the same mistake.
Given your parting words, however, [Trust you'll bear this in mind...] and the fact that not every editor who has worked recently on the article received such a warning, I am inclined to think you do have a reason for posting the message and are being a bit oblique by not saying so.
If there's nothing in particular you're responding to, it would help to have that clarified. And if there is something you're responding to, it would really help to have that clarified. If this is just a response to Anon's recent thread at Admin Noticeboard, then that would explain the notice, I suppose, though more details would be useful... as is it seems you prefer to have editors wary of crossing lines without indicating whether they have already been doing so. Ocaasi19:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Partisan editing accusation
I believe you've accused me of partisan editing a couple of times on the ArbCom pages. I find this curious, as I think my work on the DeSmogBlog article is a good faith effort to present the subject in accordance with our NPOV policy. In fact, I removed sketchy criticism from the article. I also added a negative review to The Deniers and criticism of Ian Plimer's views on volcanic CO2 emissions. There are probably more examples that I could find. The fact is, I don't edit for one side, I try to edit for all sides, according to the sources available. Are you able and willing to do the same? Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Your belief about the Arbcom pages is unsupported by diffs or times of edits, so I've no comment on that. Thanks for your advice about your intentions, I'll try to find time to examine your practice more closely. As always, I endeavour to comply fully with weight policy in presenting various views, and hope you'll co-operate in doing the same. Thanks, dave souza, talk12:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Cla, your partisanship is indeed fairly obvious, and pointing to one article where you've deliberately been good isn't good enough. So: if I point you to my stand against AJL, will you declare me to be non-partisan? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
@ Cla, what I was addressing there was the point that you clearly want to give credence to sources I find flawed, which support a fringe viewpoint, presumably because you've come to the subject with a different background of information – in a similar way, someone who begins by reading the Wall Street Journal is likely to start with a different impression from someone immersed in current climate science. The impression you give in some of your edits is no less ideological than the impression you seem to have of ChrisO, my hope is that in both cases that's a superficial and incorrect impression of someone trying to find the right independent balance in covering both minority and majority expert views. Glad to see your willingness to go some way to meeting the concerns about the portrayal of Michaels, who is clearly regarded by mainstream scientists as representing industry interests rather than current science. However, the other part of the edit shows the pitfalls of using sources uncritically, and I think we have to be cautious about all sources, cross checking them as much as possible. . dave souza, talk17:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Dave, my use of sources is in accordance with WP's policy. I use the sources, as shown by my editing, to add information to articles for all sides, like I did with Michaels, and like I have done in other articles. If we approach the topic from different perspectives, then we need to work together. I'm willing and able to accept a wide variety of sources and compromise and cooperate to give all sides' views in the article. It's interesting to me that an editor who supports giving all sides in an article according to their weight in the sources is called partisan, while an editor who tries to primarily give RealClimate's side in articles believes that they are "neutral" (this comment is not addressed at you Dave). Nevertheless, from what I've seen of your editing in CC and Intelligent Design, Dave, you often don't appear as willing to edit for all sides. Can you produce some diffs in which you added information to an article that supported the believer's side in ID, or supported a critical view of AGW, whether it be scientific, political, economic, or any other aspect? Cla68 (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Pseudoscience enforcement
I'm well aware thank you for pointing it out. Please do provide me with a link where you think I've been problematic so I can improve. Were you referring to the talk page revert? Where I've already agreed to stop a week ago?--Anon00:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As above, on my reading it's a non-accusatory information template advising that the sanctions apply to the topic, and you didn't seem to have been officially advised of it earlier. Trust you'll bear it in mind for future edits. . . dave souza, talk12:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
RCP whoops
No problem... just like I think each admin candidate should do content work so they can understand how content disputes work, I also recognize the value of doing recent changes patrol, as I have (though not recently), which helps with AGF'ing odd-looking changes like that. I've screwed up more than a time or two myself... :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
