Thanks for cleaning up A Watts, I tried years ago, but was overwhelmed by POV pushers. --Theblog (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider refactoring your comments to adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, the usual way to do this sort of drafting is with a user subpage, eg User:Alexh19740110/Lindzenearlydraft. This is easier to edit (you can invite others to contribute too, and then it's definitely easier to keep track) without cluttering up the talk page (which particularly with multiple drafts becomes problematic). Rd232 ^talk 03:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Richard Lindzen.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you make blatantly false accusations of me vandalising content again, I'll escalate. Your obvious attempts to inflate the non-existent qualifications of Watts won't succeed in the long run - Wikipedia requires evidence-based content - not your desperate need to validate anti-science bloggers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonoApe (talk • contribs) 10:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your belief, I'm not 'smearing' Watts - I'm merely motivated to ensure people, such as you, do not inflate and manufacture credibility and non-existent qualifications for someone who works to undermine scientific understanding and spread ignorance amongst others. Far from being overruled by other editors who are scientifically literate, they have undone your constant attempts to insert weasel words and hyperbole.

"If I told you he had a degree in zoology what would you say about that?" - I'd say you're welcome to your fantasies, but it has no place on Wikipedia. Simple, eh? I note that you have not replied to me in the talk pages or responded to the evidence that Watts is not a broadcast meteorologist according to AMS. Unless you have credible evidence, your wishful thinking will not be an acceptable substitute.

Also, I note your hypocrisy in smearing other editors by accusing them of "bias" when they disagree with your evidence-free beliefs. Spoken like a true Denier. --MonoApe (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"your evidence-free beliefs" and "Spoken like a true Denier." are fine examples of WP:BAIT. If such things bother you then you would be well advised to develop a thick skin. They are but water off a duck's back and they are repeated by the majority POV pushers ad nauseum as a means of picking off all but the most dedicated of skeptics. It's not that there aren't skeptics, it's just that we lack the numbers to enforce our POV by shear numbers like the majority has. Its unfair, but that's the reality. You also have to try and develop a reasonable dose of WP:DGAF. Getting too emotionally attached to a point is easily done and a sure fire way to end up giving your opponents ammunition to use against you. Better to live and fight another day than to get yourself needlessly blocked or banned. That's just my opinion, though. --GoRight (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Stephen McIntyre. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Try to stick to commenting on the content/discussions on content - and leave out the personal attacks, in general an assumption of good faith never hurt.

As for why i comment several places.... They are on my watchlist. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May i remind you again that assumption of good faith is a policy? The last part of this comment is not. In general please refrain from projecting assumed motivations to other peoples actions. Just as you, i have no idea why that was inserted, so i'm going to stay mute in that regard. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Guettarda (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make ridiculous claims like you did here "for the record". I added this simple boilerplate warning to help you avoid falling foul of Wikipedia policy. Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Guettarda (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, hi: Why don't you email me at pdtillmanATgmailDOTcom, as this is a public forum, so I can't really be frank. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tillman"

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ► RATEL ◄ 13:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charming, quoting Ratel's talk page: (1) "Attempting to give a damn about your WikiWhining" (2) "Wikipedia Quote/Unquote I'm not an admin, don't ever wish to be one, won't ever ask to be nominated to be one (unlike some people) and won't ever accept a nomination to be one. I won't ever kiss an admin's ring and sure don't want anyone else to kiss mine.. well, maybe this one but not the bureaucratic one." So I guess that means you're not in a position to be blocking anyone, only making threats here? Meanwhile, any clues on what the "disruptive comments" or "personal attack" were? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea (or interest in) what Ratels warning was about. But your introduction text here is a personal attack and shows a rather large degree of not assuming good faith. I hope you will refactor and delete this, so i will only answer the content related issues. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this is a personal attack either, it is a statement of fact (that you are not neutral on the issue in which you've stepped in to mediate on with respect to neutrality). Or are you denying that you are an editor largely devoted to climate change articles, and that nearly all of your edits are made in defence of the human-caused climate change theory? On assuming good faith, there is nothing to do with here with assuming anything. It is again just a simple statement of fact that you are not neutral. If you still believe you are the right person to be mediating in a neutrality dispute on climate change, you may refactor the comments yourself as you see fit, as I stand by my comment. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on context and content - not on the user. That is what NPA cooks down to. Yes - i do edit a lot of climate articles, and i do have a large interest in the subject. But i'm sorry to tell you that my position/opinion lies rather conservatively within the scientific opinion on climate change (which btw is rather irrelevant, since i'm going by the weight of references - not my opinion), and if that is "biased", then you have gotten something rather wrong about what WP is about. Nb: commenting on an RfC is not "mediating". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Heaven and Earth (book). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ► RATEL ◄ 15:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No that's absolutely false, you have engaged in an edit war here with me, and moreover I have not reverted the edit three times yet (I'm going to escalate it instead). I am defending WP:BLP, since you are insisting on inclusion of insulting, irrelevant, and potentially libellous remarks against a living person, and moreover you have failed to give any reasons why you want the material included. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Heaven and Earth (book). Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. ► RATEL ◄ 08:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have assumed nothing, and proved a point, which is why you are now attacking the editor, dismissing what I've said as a "rant", unwilling to discuss. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs run for more than a few days, so don't jump the gun. In fact the robot that polices RfC tags removes them after a month. ► RATEL ◄ 07:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on my Talk page, I'm replying here. You may email me if you like, use the "email this user" link from my Talk page (Usually in the panel on the left, but it varies with the skin you use.) From your Talk page, you seem to be tangling with a number of editors. I'd urge that you proceed very carefully, get help before engaging in any conflict, back off if you are warned, do not insist, you may be dealing with some highly experienced editors who have strong points of view, and there are some administrators supporting them who may not be shy about blocking of editors perceived as disruptive in a field of interest of yours, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley, and particularly my evidence on the Evidence page for that case.

Dismissing a warning from an editor because the editor isn't an administrator is foolish. I'm not an administrator, but, should I find it appropriate for an editor to be blocked, I do know how to get the attention of one, and I'm not necessarily as well connected as some who have warned you. Others have been blocked for less than what it seems you may have done.

I'd recommend you discuss this with GoRight who may share your point of view (or not, I haven't investigated). You may have some valid points, but, faced with many experienced editors, and with your inexperience, you may make any of many common mistakes and be quite vulnerable. Ratel is not known to me to be a "cabal administrator." Be sure to be careful about warnings, rigorously avoid incivility, and do not edit war no matter how "right" you think you might be. Again, get help. Take your time. Being in a rush can lead you into many pitfalls. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the warnings from Ratel were completely frivolous. What can one do if an editor slaps frivolous warnings on your page? After warning me repeatedly about 'civility' anyone reading the thread in question can see for themselves that Ratel descended then directly into name-calling against the Evil "denialists" (not me) and finally into outrightly obscene language. I can't say that I've ever used any expletives here in WP. And there was no edit-warring with Ratel; he made that warning after I reverted his edits twice. I should probably take action about all these false accusations but I frankly don't care about this sort of petty stuff. Alex Harvey 04:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You raise the subject on AN/I or do a user RfC on those you feel are acting outside of what is reasonable/rational/policy. On the subject of civility, i wouldn't throw stones, since you have a very bad tendency to assume bad faith, and let this stick through in your comments on article talk pages. And AN/I (or an RfC) would look at the behaviour of all editors. And i think that Abd will agree with me on that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I measure actions by the disruption they create. AN/I reports, unless the matter is not only crystal clear but there is also is no cabal on the other side, can be quite disruptive. AN/I isn't part of dispute resolution process, it's 911 to get administrative support. If the matter isn't very clear, forget it, you will get nothing from it and you are quite likely to get a dent in your record, maybe worse. If you have been recently edit warring, any attention focused on you could result in a block, and in the field you are interested in, it could be an indef block. You could appeal and chances of success exist but would be low. It's difficult for highly experienced editors to deal with cabal opposition; see, the only cabal that matters is what I call a Majority POV-pushing cabal. Such a cabal can easily muster support beyond its own membership, because many people will instinctively agree with them. So if you are going to advocate an unpopular position, you are dead meat if you rush it. GoRight knows how to proceed, and even then it's dangerous.

RfC is better, but you'd better have your ducks in a row. In particular, if you file an RfC against a user, you will get the book thrown at you, your record had better be spotless. To navigate the byzantine WP process can take great skill, so, to start, I highly recommend you identify sympathetic and experienced editors and help them, and be helped by them. Look for small increments of improvement, not big changes. You are not going to get the cabal eliminated. You might notice at the current RfAr that I haven't suggested sanctions against anyone, though I've named a dozen names or so. And I'm not likely to suggest anything about more than a very few. In fact, I believe that much of what the cabal does is legitimate and helpful. It's just imbalanced, that's all. And the solution isn't to imbalance things in the other direction, it is to build process that finds balance. That takes a lot of work, and the work is probably going to come from editors who hold minority positions. Fortunately, most of us have a minority position on something, and so we can all understand the value of having process that is open, not frozen, and that allows minority opinion a voice, without making everything a tendentious and endless discussion.

Yes, I agree with KDP. You aren't ready for this. Build your experience, before it gets abruptly terminated. I'm working on my end of it, if I'm successful, some of the danger will subside, but you still would not be able to just push your point of view and insist that your way of looking at things is right and the others are wrong. Take your time. Read WP:DGAF and mediate on it. If you insist that Wikipedia be True and Right, and right now!, you won't make it long here. The project is full of errors and imbalanced articles, and in order to fix it we need a more efficient community, which does require taking the time to work out problems so that they don't keep recurring. It's my hope that KDP and the rest of the cabal, that part which doesn't implode and disappear, and I, will be eventually not only be on the same side, we already are on the same side, it just looks different. (I don't recall if I left KDP in the list of cabal members, but he's been associated with it at times..... not that it really matters. But one consequence of being a cabal member is that if somebody tangles with you, there will be other editors who will support you no matter what, until your actions become so ridiculously contrary to policy that they will drop out. KDP isn't likely to go there. In other words, if you attack KDP, you will be attacking whole group of editors, some of whom have block buttons and one of whom has checkuser and oversight privileges. If you even think of creating a sock, that's it, it will be over. --Abd (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet followed up on the current discussion on the page in question. I will try to do so when I can get a chance. One of the nice things about wikipedia is that there is no deadline, and so you can revisit things well after the initial events occurred. I can tell you from my own personal experience in these types of pages (i.e. global warning related pages) that there is a dedicate group of editors that tend to reinforce one another's POV which can be very frustrating. It is absolutely imperative that you not violate policies as a result of that frustration. Edit warring will get you blocked more often than it will advance your cause. If you are out numbered by a WP:TAGTEAM you will not win and so the only thing continued reversion will achieve is to provide aid and comfort to those with whom you may disagree because they will use it as evidence against you. NEVER make a post that can be so used against you, at least not without some well thought out reason why.

KDP and I frequently butt heads but in this case he is giving you good advice in terms of following policy and the correct WP:DR to pursue. While these may sometimes feel completely glacial in their pace, they are also your best aid in actually getting the changes you want. Note that if your point is not the most popular point of view, there are times where you are going to be forced to accept that reality and simply allow the majority to have its way.

If you feel like something is really bugging you that is the worst time to try and push it through. Focus on something else for a couple of days to allow your thoughts to work themselves out without giving others on-wiki evidence such as reverts and incivility that occur in the heat of the moment (not saying this is the case in your case as I haven't yet looked) but you get the point. I highly recommend that you spend such time reading through some of the policies I have linked to on my user page. You fellow editors will like quote them against you so it is important that you know what they say to recognize when a skewed or cherry-picked rationale is being cited. --GoRight (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your contribution history, Alex, you are largely an SPA. While there is nothing in itself wrong with this, SPAs frequently don't have enough general Wikipedia experience to understand the policies and guidelines, nor the actual community practice. You are immediately visible as an inexperienced editor by much that you do. For example, you don't use edit summaries beyond the defaults. Experienced editors will note a brief summary of what they are doing. There are even tools that can be used to report what percentage of edits have used summaries. It is a mark of courtesy to the community. And then if a major edit is covered up by "spelling correction" they will throw the book at you!

Someone like GoRight often suffers from lack of support. Back up. Consult with him. If he's not going to accept some change you'd want to make, if he's not willing to support it, it probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, so why waste your time and everyone else's time with it? (I'm again assuming similarity of POV, my own POV, personally, would probably be much more aligned with KDP, and where we might differ is on process and behavioral issues, maybe. I believe that there is a very important place in Wikipedia for "minority POV-pushers," if they remain civil.) Then, if you agree on a change, you might have more of a chance. At least the change could survive a single revert! But when you are in a minority position, you will need more support than that, so the hope of change is that, with some support, you could broaden support until you have a majority of active editors. If you over-reach, you won't be able to do that; the most that a minority POV can hope for is fair representation of what is in reliable source, not ever dominance; sometimes with obscure articles a minority can prevail because they bring more editors to bear on the article, but that's highly unstable. It won't last. All that work, for nothing, in the end.

Hence the importance of working on consensus process, and better documentation of what I call the "backstory." There is a FAQ for global warming, and right now it's pretty biased, last I looked at it. That should be improved, it should be insisted that the FAQ be neutral, that it explain why the article is the way it is, and where the reason for article state is illegitimate, building that FAQ will make it apparent.

One more point. Play the Whack-a-Mole game, look at Recent Changes and revert out vandalism. You can ask for Rollback privilege and use Twinkle for this, but you can do it without that special privilege. If you look at just the IP edits, you'll see a somewhat higher percentage of vandalism. At some times of day, it's hard to find a vandalism edit that hasn't already been reverted, even if you are quick, and this may give you some appreciation for what goes on. You'll be doing a service, and the more that you do stuff like that the more respect you will get from the community. Make a point to correct spelling or grammar or make other non-controversial improvements to articles, all over the project. (If you are reverting vandalism, you will look at a lot of articles, and you will spot lots of errors that you can quickly fix.) It's fun, actually, and simple to do, for a time. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments Abd, GoRight, and Kim.

Firstly, I simply have not edit-warred with anyone. To edit-war seems rather immature and pointless. Assuming good faith, Ratel apparently lost count of my reverts after one. The morbidly curious may confirm this in the revision history of the Heaven and Earth book page. The incident with Guettarda should also be discounted because WP:BLP policy states very clearly, as I reproduced in the Ross McKitrick talk page, that WP:3RR doesn't apply if editors continually insert material in violation of WP:BLP. I specifically wanted to test this clause of the WP:BLP and stated so with references in the revision history. Guettarda then put that warning on my page. A consensus was subsequently obtained for my position that the material I was removing was indeed contrary to WP:BLP and the revert finally stood. Thus I cannot see how this can be counted as edit-warring.

On WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF I am guilty as charged. Maybe I just don't have the patience for this. And I'll give you an example of why. If you visit the Anthony Watts talk page, you will see that I have argued now for 7 or 8 hours over what is a very basic, simple, logical point. It is purely about improvement of the article.

I have argued that --

1. you can't include a refutation of something in Watts' article without first including discussion of that thing it is said to be refutation of. Not good enough, so says KDP & WMC. I am pushing my POV, says KDP & WMC.
2. I have shown that a statement given in the article is in no way relevant to the article.
3. I have demonstrated a factual error in the article and have tried several times to correct. A 2007 source is being used to imply Watts holds a specific position on NOAA's statement of 2009.
4. I have corrected grammar & punctuation and wording order several times to have my edits reverted in toto.

Now on WP:CIVIL I have lost 8 hours of my life over this trivia. That's time I should have spent with my family. Will anyone give me back these 8 hours after the minor point is finally resolved? Does this mean I have been treated with civility?

On WP:SPA, yes I have made that clear on my user page. Indeed, my main focus is in removing the slurs against living people from their biography pages. So far, I have not tried to do anything other than that. Had I not wasted so much time arguing over trivia, I would probably have contributed a lot more.

On my POV, to be very clear, I do not know what is causing global warming. I voted have voted for the Greens in the Australian Senate for every election other than the last. I have always voted for Labour (left) in the lower house. I am a progressive. But I also believe that certainty on the global warming issue has been vastly overstated. That is my POV; that is my bias. Everyone's got one. That is, in fact, the majority position. Even the IPCC position statement gives "90%" certainty that humans caused recent global warming.

On the remaining points you have raised, I thank you for your advice and will look into all points. Alex Harvey 08:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"IPCC position statement gives "90%" certainty" Actuality it's > 90% as defined by the IPCC. But don't let little things (like not knowing what the IPCC says in AR4 or not knowing anything about climatology) stop you from edit warring pages on global warming. ► RATEL ◄ 12:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ratel, on "little things" why not show us time and date at which I reverted an edit of yours a third time. Since it didn't actually happen, you're going to struggle with that; so why not just remove the warning from my talk page? You could even say "sorry."

Here is AR4, SPM. p. 5:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. 7 It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}

Next refer to footnote 2 on AR4, SPM, p. 2:

2 Words in italics represent calibrated expressions of uncertainty and confidence. Relevant terms are explained in the Box ‘Treatment of uncertainty’ in the Introduction of this Synthesis Report.

So I find AR4, Introduction, p. 27:

Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%.Alex Harvey 13:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thus, it follows undeniably that the IPCC position on human-caused climate change is less than virtually certain and even less than extremely likely. That means it's somewhere in 90% < level of certainty < 95%. So you are right, I suppose, if you want to split hairs. The point I made stands.

By the way, what makes you think that I "know nothing about climatology"? Is it consistent with WP:CIVIL to assert something like this? Thanks for reading. Alex Harvey 13:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the edit history from the Heaven and Earth page at the time Ratel's warning was added (order made chronological):

1. (cur) (prev) 13:34, 13 July 2009 Alexh19740110 (talk | contribs) (14,026 bytes) (→Content: - rm insulting, unscientific remarks from an astronomer comparing book to the work of Velikowsky. The relevance of astronomy & astronomers here is ... ? See WP:BLP...) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 13:37, 13 July 2009 Ratel (talk | contribs) (14,617 bytes) (Reverted to revision 301854828 by Alexh19740110; This is NOT a biography page! Do not censor cited material. (TW)) (undo)
3. (cur) (prev) 14:01, 13 July 2009 Alexh19740110 (talk | contribs) (14,026 bytes) (Reverted to revision 301856405 by Alexh19740110; pls read WP:BLP, it applies to ALL pages. further, these idle insults from an astronomer are simply not relevant to the article.. (TW)) (undo)

At this point, the above warning was added to my talk page. So I can only count two reverts. So again, Ratel, why not say "sorry" and remove the warning? Alex Harvey 13:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• WP:3RR applies to "any action... that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." See

diff 1: Reverted to revision 301851169 by Alexh19740110

diff 2: rm insulting, unscientific remarks from an astronomer comparing book to the work of Velikowsky

diff 3: Reverted to revision 301856405 by Alexh19740110; pls read WP:BLP, it applies to ALL pages. further, these idle insults from an astron...

Now, who should apologize, you or me? ► RATEL ◄ 13:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those were two completely unrelated reverts... I allowed the first one to stand immediately... it wasn't my understanding this violated WP:3RR or what an "edit-war" is. If that's the case, then, you also violated WP:3RR on the same day...

1. (cur) (prev) 15:30, 13 July 2009 Ratel (talk | contribs) (13,738 bytes) (expand quotes from RS; remove material sourced from somebody's blog) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 13:37, 13 July 2009 Ratel (talk | contribs) (14,617 bytes) (Reverted to revision 301854828 by Alexh19740110; This is NOT a biography page! Do not censor cited material. (TW)) (undo)
3. (cur) (prev) 13:06, 13 July 2009 Ratel (talk | contribs) (13,699 bytes) (Reverted to revision 301675448 by Ratel; Come on, not blogs again ..... (TW)) (undo)

Let's call it a draw then shall we? Alex Harvey 14:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll call it quits if you've got the balls to prove you're not a Rightard, as you claim not to be above, by watching this ► RATEL ◄ 15:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why prove I am not a "Rightard"? (=stupid right-wing person...?) I am not a rightist. I am left on just about every issue you can think of. My hero is the ex-labour prime minister Paul Keating. I am a huge fan of Obama. I support the Rudd government in Australia, and forgive their ETS as the fault of scientists. I have read a number of works of the extreme-leftist Noam Chomsky. On Oreskes, she appears to have argued something that offends my common sense, i.e. that she looked at journal abstracts or articles or something and found practically zero papers in the literature opposing the "climate change consensus". That's absurd because I've got at least 50 on my laptop right now. I'll tell you what; rather than watching that 1 hour doco which will exceed my broadband limits, I'll read her Oreskes 2004 paper and get back to you; how about that? Alex Harvey 16:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I see Rightards are actively trying to recruit you to their cause. You need to think carefully about that. Go to a library and watch that video of you don't have the bandwidth. The links between the denial industry and the smoking lobby will shock you. ► RATEL ◄ 23:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Oreskes stuff apiece with the Union of Concerned Scientists document Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science? If so I've already looked at that this matter closely and it appears that UCS has made a lot of errors and misleading statements. The Marshall Institute replied to this document and to the best of my knowledge UCS has not been willing to discuss the matter further. Further, there are some skeptics, e.g. Christy, Pielke, who were environmentalists way before this global warming scare even started. It is absurd that they are in the pay or influence of Big Tobacco. I'll have a look though if I get a chance. It's a busy week for me at the moment. Alex Harvey 02:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I must say, this Ratel person reminds me of my neighbor's Chihuahua who occasionally stops by to try and hump my leg. Yea, its annoying, but its harmless and the little bugger simply doesn't know any better. You just have to find a way to deal with it. The thing is, AH, you need to set your sights on the long haul. To make any changes to the status quo around here will require lots of time and patience. Think of yourself as the water that is trying to erode a giant mountain of crap (something else my neighbor's dog seems to be able to produce a lot of, BTW). The water does not get angry at the mountain, it merely goes on about its business of breaking it down, little by little, over time. Time is your friend. Learn to use it wisely, and don't be in a hurry.

This place is full of Chihuahua's who want to hump your legs and crap in your yard. They are testing your metal. They want to use their numbers to harass you into giving up and leaving. The solution, of course, is easy: just don't let them drive you off. Refuse to give them the satisfaction. Carry on in the knowledge that you are the water eroding the giant mountain of crap that they keep building.

If you are interested to correcting falsehoods and unfounded attacks in WP:BLPs then you shall find fertile ground in the BLPs of the AGW skeptics. The double standards and the tactics used by your opponents can be easily learned by reviewing the histories of some of the more prominent icons from either side. Off the top of my head James E. Hansen seems to be one of the more popular AGW scientologists to be defended, and Fred Singer seems to be a popular target for character assassination. Some other popular targets would include William M. Gray and Lawrence Solomon who is actually a journalist. His series on The Deniers will yield an entire Pantheon of BLPs which will benefit greatly from your efforts. And believe it, or not, the problem extends all the way into the BLPs of fiction writers such a Michael Crichton. No stone left unturned.

Now, carry on, and if you run into a particularly crufty piece of dog crap feel free to stop by my talk page and point it out. I'll be happy to lend assistance. In fact, you can consider this an unsolicited request to be kept informed of all such cases. Please make a note of it. --GoRight (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might add him to your list of BLPs to review when you have time. He is a favorite target of the usual suspects. --GoRight (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given our past interactions on various topics I thought I would make the following offer.

If you ever have something you want me to offer an opinion on or that you feel I might personally be interested in anywhere on wikipedia, its talk pages, or within any of the official forums such as noticeboards, RfCs, RfAs, and the like, please contact me directly on my talk page and feel free to reference this standing request. I trust your judgment in deciding which topics might be of interest to me, and please keep me informed of any topics in general as well as items specifically involving you personally.

Consider this to be my unsolicited request to you to be given friendly notices. Please make a note of it. --GoRight (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was intended to distinguish Watts' position as denialist rather than skeptical. I gave good evidence to support this. While you may disagree, it is incorrect to label my position mere "name-calling". It is a significant matter that Watts' position has been to attack the evidential basis for the warming trend; his various positions, taken in aggregate, can be seen without any great stretch to be a blanket denial of the consensus on every level. There may be scientific papers from the mainstream with which he agrees, but those are surely in the minority. --TS 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TS, I may have only seen the heading and not read all the evidence/arguments (I see you regard his appearances at Heartland as significant?). I'll have to say I'm unlikely to be persuaded. I believe the very idea of the "climate change denialist" is problematic, but even if it was a useful concept, it would only apply to people who either are mentally ill ("in denial") or who are paid by industry to spread dissent, against their own belief that climate change is real. I don't think there is evidence that Watts fits either of these categories. I doubt that many do. At any rate, the point is that the term is offensive, a term of abuse. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The implication of this well sourced and supported article is that anyone that believes that HIV does not cause AIDS is ignorant, OR biased, OR idiotic, OR has a hidden agenda, OR has been mislead, OR hasn't looked at the evidence, OR ... You'll find that any factual article often contradicts those that hold spurious and incorrect beliefs. This is an encyclopedia, it doesn't treat all views as equally valid. See WP:NOT, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE." I think you may have misunderstood. My point was that the article follows the sources, and that the supposed implicit implication in the previous post didn't hold up. What did you understand me to mean? Note the final OR followed by ellipsis. Verbal chat 13:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Verbal, well it appeared that you were saying that the article is very good, that the term "AIDS denialist" is perfectly fine, that if the article appears to communicate the idea that AIDS deniers are ignorant, biased, idiotic, dishonest, confused, and so forth, then it's because they are. :) I know nothing about how well-established the link is between HIV & AIDS (and I would of course assume like anyone else that it's very strong) but I can't support Wikipedia calling living people "denialists" under, well, many circumstances (I am debating with myself whether it's appropriate in the "Holocaust deniers" case). At the end of the day, certainly for climate change skeptics, it is just a term of abuse. Whilst the term is used widely on the internet, a bit in the press, it is not used in rational dialogue -- e.g. in scholarly papers -- where the ideas of the so-called "denialists" are often, quietly, taken a lot more seriously. Now it is possible that there are people who are truly "in denial" in the proper Freudian manner. But how can I know who they are? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Alex, but when someone is said to "be in denial", it doesn't refer to the holocaust. I'm a smoker, and despite intellectually knowing that this will quite likely kill me, i'm subconsciously in denial about that, or at least the dangerlevel involved. (otherwise i'd have stopped - i have nice children that i want to see grow up). When i say that - am i stating that i'm like the "holocaust deniers"? No. If someone is in denial about being too fat - are people who say it, comparing that person to a "holocaust denier"? No. The reason that some are drawing a line between X-denier and HC-denier is to try invalidate the statement. Its a fallacy plain and simple (a kind of reversed guilt by association) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, I can't understand you here I'm afraid and in any case I should point out you're probably taking the remark out of context.

The very idea of "denial" is a Freudian concept and as with all things Freudian it has always been regarded as a marginal view by the mainstream of psychology and psychiatry. Today there are few who give Freudian ideas any credit at all. Karl Popper famously had Freudian psychoanalysis -- along with astrology -- as exemplifying pseudoscience as distinct from scientific method. So there isn't and never has been agreement in the first place that ideas like "the subconscious" and "in denial" even refer to real things. But even if we suppose for a moment that they do, we assume a sort of neo-Freudian worldview, a proper psychiatrist is still required to make the diagnosis. So, as I said, for you or I to call Ian Plimer a "denialist" is to indulge in name-calling; it is a term of abuse. Interestingly, you already agreed with this much here. So I'm a little puzzled that you seem to have changed your mind. Anyhow, you tell me: what objective criteria can a Wikipedian use to decide who is a "denialist" and who is a "skeptic"? Is there a Wikipedia board of psychoanalysis that can make a ruling here? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, i think you should try to rewrite the denial article, since you apparently claim that its a "marginal view", to reflect that. Psycology also originated with Freud - but its also not a "marginal view". (hint: X has been the origin of marginal views; X has originated the idea of Y; therefore Y is a marginal view - is a logical fallacy).

There is a large difference between the case of Calder and Plimer, in the first case there was no sources for the wording, in the latter there are such sources, and sources are the (only) objective way for WP. Here btw. is an objective indicator (for us personally) that Plimer is denying things: His claim that Volcanoes produce more CO2 than Man. (which is only one of many)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I said. Once again, to deny things is not the same as to be "in denial" of those things. If one believes that volcanoes produce more CO2 than man, then one may say, linguistically, that one "denies" that man produces more CO2 than volcanoes. It does not automatically follow that one is therefore "in denial" of the fact. Indeed, my feeling is that in these cases Plimer has simply not done his homework. Now, you might think this is a good indicator of "denialism" but that is WP:OR. Also, psychology didn't originate with Freud. Once again, the idea of "denial" in psychiatry is very controversial, as is the idea of the "subconscious". Most do not take any of this very seriously. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved your long analysis from Talk:Climate change denial to a subpage in your namespace User talk:Alexh19740110/denial analysis, and annotated this with a link and a move comment on the CCD page.

When using up so much space, i suggest you do it like this. And if you want it to go into talk space, then i suggest a more neutral analysis - your personal soap-box comments in between, do not belong in/on the article talk space in any circumstance. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMC is known for trying to bait opposition by calling their words a "waste of time" or "rubbish". Don't bite, just ignore him, because if you do bite, he'll get his friends to pile on and before you know it, you're labelled a "tendentious editor". The "Ph.D" thing was another example. See WP:9STEPS. ATren (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ATren. You words of moral support are much appreciated. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What you do mean, I think, is that while you're prepared to subscribe to the concept when it pleases you, you will drop it as soon as it becomes inconvenient, as it is when discussing GW here." - More absurd bad faith assumptions. I've seen this before with WMC: he views you as being on "the other side", therefore he will never engage you, only bait you. Even if you try to "make nice" with him, he will twist your words against you, as he did here. He once criticized me for not putting "revert" in an edit comment, I apologized, then he criticized me for my wording apology! This went around a bit more, until I finally said "William, please craft an apology in words which are acceptable to you and I will sign it". That was the end of it. All that because he objected to my my long explanatory edit comment not containing the word "revert".

But, you can be sure, if I had taken the bait further, he'd have been on a noticeboard calling me disruptive, and I would have been the one getting warnings.

The only way to deal with it is to treat him as a hostile witness, e.g. address his points but ignore his insults. BTW, I am on his side for the most part, but he just thinks I'm not because I'm not in lock-step with his attempts to ridicule all the skeptics and deniers. ATren (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am probably on his side for the most part too. Right up to the point where he would say the whole thing is proven. But I enjoy the exchanges with people who disagree with me -- they're the ones that challenge you to learn and reconsider things. Your essays on civility are interesting. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that anyone would state that its "proven" - proof is simply not a concept in science. But there are varying degrees of confidence. For instance: When its said that humans are causing the increase in CO2, then the evidence base is so solid (the confidence so high), that disputing it becomes ridiculous. When we are talking about the contributions of various forcings to the late 20th century warming - the confidence is high, but by no means certain, but there are several lines of argumentation that are ridiculous (for instance stating that human contributions cannot contribute very much (or doesn't at all)). There is a large chasm of credibility, and scientific merit between the arguments from (Lindzen, Christy,..) and those from (Singer, Ball,...). [btw. this thread is not a very good example of cooperative spirit, assumption of good faith or trying to keep things objective instead of personal, ie. not a credit to either of you.] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling him not to take the bait in petty arguments. What is wrong with that? ATren (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Staying in the combative mood - eh? Try reading your post again... Ponder a bit on the "he'll get his friends" part, perhaps enlightenment will emerge. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that exactly what happened on Talk:Solomon? :-) What I find amusing in all this is that nobody is denying that WMC's Ph.D comments are disruptive and unnecessary, even as they try to keep me from pointing it out as such. ATren (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What editor has WMC gotten "his friends" to do anything about on Talk:Solomon? (ie. what proves that comment?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's Talk:Lawrence Solomon, and two allies quickly showed up to remove my response to his provocation after I restored it. Do you agree with WMC continuing to harangue Alex on the Ph.D issue? This is from this morning: What you do mean, I think, is that while you're prepared to subscribe to the concept when it pleases you, you will drop it as soon as it becomes inconvenient, as it is when discussing GW here. If it was all just a minor misunderstanding, why is WMC continuing to assume bad faith? ATren (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - but it seems that you've been badly bitten by the ABF-bug, so i'll take a bow. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I must be dreaming, these people at my talk page keep assuming bad faith! Look at this, Kim assumed ATren assumed Alex assumed William assumed Solomon assumed bad faith all the way to Adam! (Would anyone mind if we blame it all on the Devil?). Alex Harvey (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has provoked me into making WP:FLEAS which I've intended for a while William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh c'mon. There's a funny side here, isn't there? :) Alex Harvey (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WMC's essay. ATren (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex. I've blanked the article, the content is now in your user space - User:Alexh19740110/EnergyProbe. I also nominated it for speedy deletion as {{db-author}} (see WP:G7). The same I did with that redirect (nominated as {{db-redir}}). I hope everything is OK. Have a good day, and happy editing. Antonín Vejvančický (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Alex Harvey (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. [1]: Fine with me. Simply removing a comment leaves a mistaken impression of who talks to whom. Leaving a placeholder that is sufficient to maintain the context is completely acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful. -Atmoz (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]