User talk:Aryeh M. Friedman

Note to any readers I routinly remove any posting from bots so if it looks I deleted someone to censure them I can assure you thats not the case

State of Fear Revisions

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on State of Fear Revisions, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because State of Fear Revisions is a test page.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting State of Fear Revisions, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of creating a main space article to work on your revisions, it is recommended that you create a user space subpage as your working area. That way you can work on the revisions until you are done without anybody disturbing you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A) It will be easier to do the swap when needed B) There is a serious devide with in the editors of the orginal article that is unlikely to be resolved without a wholesale rewrite.... thus until then this can be offered as a "alternative" view on the subject

I noticed that you recreated the article. Per my suggestion, I have moved article you recreated to User:Aryeh M. Friedman/State of Fear. As for your reasoning, a "swap" is not easier to do as you would not be swapping anything, but just replacing the original article's content when you reach consensus. "Alternative" views of articles are not allowed on Wikipedia articles (see Wikipedia:Content forking). If a group of editors have issues with an article, the issue should be discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus worked out. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the discussion page for the orginal article you will see that there is no agreement and unlikely to be.... we can't even decide on suitable NPOV wording and that is my main goal in the rewrite (and moving the science debate to a different article)

I haven't read the entire talk page, nor do I particularly want to since the topic does not interest me. My goal in helping you is not to resolve the dispute, but to help you work towards resolving the dispute. You need to work within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which means working within user space for rewrites, not having an "alternative view" article, and working towards consensus on the issues related to the article (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for some tips on how to resolve issues with articles). I realize that you are new to Wikipedia and some of these guidelines can be confusing, but they exist for a reason. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion. Since the SoF article editing has been indeed very controversial, edit wars included, why don't you start just by working this subject just as a section, that might save you some time and effort. Someone in the SoF Talk Page already suggested listing all the issues questioned by MC (see for example The Deniers for such a list, as most of those issues already have a Wiki article). Anyway, be very careful to use NPOV language, otherwise the editors in the GW camp will reverse, censor, etc. your edits (see the edit history and talk page in the Antarctica cooling controversy article, it will give you a taste of how difficult it is to work on controversial subjects, I created it when new to Wiki and the experience was quite a headache). Good luck. Mariordo (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PD: have you read "The Science of Michael Crichton" edited by Kevin Grazier?, it has a chapter devoted to SoF. Today I am having difficulties accessing my email, but you can use wiki's "E-mail this user" feature in my user page (at the left column), mine is activated, so we can make contact for you to send the materials you offered me, I am looking forward to read them. Mariordo (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I have not read it but since I got a $100 gift cert to amazon as a bday present (today is my 10th 29th birthday) I will see if I can get it used there

SoF Changes

Regarding "Reader/fan...": I for one did not understand what the section referred to, and still am not sure of what whoever put that title (you?) had in mind. It could refer to controversies between readers and fans, or created by a notorious reader/fan, or... Of course M.C. did not create controversies about the book himself: he wrote the book. All controversies have to be begun by comebody else. Thanks, Goochelaar (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that one of MC's stated goals in the afterword was to *NOT* create any conterversy just get some "objectivism" into the picture... I was refeering to unwanted bad press generated by readers/fans

(Oh, and it would be helpful if you signed your interventions on Talk pages!) Goochelaar (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get too carry away with rv in SoF, and be aware of the WP:3RR. I am still working on several related projects (a bit too technical and time consuming), but I hope in two weeks I will come back to SoF and other more fun to work articles. See you arond. --Mariordo (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read any of the stuff I am writting for the saci debate?

You now have 3R, even though you failed to mark [1] as a revert William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so do you 2 from me and one from the other guy so either offically or unofficial your in the same boat

Please learn to sign your talk page contributions. Failing to do so will irritate everyone William M. Connolley (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morals and Markets

Given the impression of advertising and conflict of interest for this yet to be released book, I've moved the draft for now to User:Aryeh M. Friedman/Morals and Markets. You can expand it there with reliabel sources once available. Customer reviews don't count.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at my talk page. And I appreciate that you're now working on a novel that has not only already been published, but that i actually bought the other day (not read yet though).--Tikiwont (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying you personally bought Morals and Markets and it has arrived already? Now that is weird because last I heard from my dad is it is binding right now (about 2 weeks ago)... namely should be sent to distributors this week and retailers next week... I think press copies might have already gone out though so might have one of them

Sorry, I meant a Wikipedia article about a novel...And i appreciate it because both I can look up an improved article after I read the book and because it's better you do it than Mr Crichton's son. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean SoF keep in mind it is much more conterversial then NPOV policies would allow me/us to make clear.... I have a brainstorming page for a start of a rewrite on the sci. debate (see SoF disccussion page) and currently represents only my thoughts and no real attempt at wiki standards it does show how complicated the sci. debate really is (I personally think that WP in general does not have NPOV on global warming for reasons that will be clear from that brainstorming page

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind, but then you should do so for WP:SOAP. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is part of the controversy around SoF what is non-SOAP to some people is SOAP to others so we are left with a rather bland and not totally representative picture.... just so you know my personal POV on the topic I believe that it is quite likely that there is a unnatural warming trend and we are the primary cause, but at the same time the actual science is to weak to be anything beyond strong speculation and there are some known limits on how accurate it can be (90% of which is due to the limitations of the theory behind computers.... which has also proven that these limitations are non-by passable)... therefore I draw the same conclusions Crichton does on GW but not on some of the other topics mentioned in the book (one thing that needs to be done in a NPOV way is to show that Crichton him self does not take sides in the debate at all he mistrusts "industry" as much he does the "science" to support GW)... the above example is a part of the SOAP/NPOV issue for the book since the 2 editors who agree with Crichton have found plenty of reliable sources that come to the same conclusion but the anti-Crichton editors relegate them to be anti-critics not what they are (support for less then a complete understanding of the climate)... forgot to mention that the other point everyone misses (and has been documented at least 6 different places) is Crichton's maini arg is not for action or inaction on GW but to really understand stuff as completely as possible then take action based on the cold hard facts not politics or speculation

Forgot to mention that the closest I have come to fist fight with my dad in the last 10 years or so is when I said a) what he said about SoF in M&M was factually incorrect and b) for a scientist he was being very unscientific (personally and in M&M) on the question of GW (no independant verification of the claims)

Ah well, I have to say that I wasn't aware of this background when I picked up the novel and actually mentioned it here only as an example that writing an article about books is better once they are published and reviewed by many, but then of course other problems with an article can arise. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From your user page...

why Venus (which is too harsh of an environment to send manned missions to currently) is a run away-greenhouse effect and Mars appears to have become a global freezer, despite the fact both of them have roughly the same amount of CO2 the earth does is wrong, obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to get the data again but it was in one of the appendixs to one of the IPCC subreports (and I was talking about the same % in the enitre planet/atmopshere system not the amount in the atmosphere only) --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to get the data again but it was in one of the appendixs to one of the IPCC subreports (and I was talking about the same % in the enitre planet/atmopshere system not the amount in the atmosphere only) --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that the hypothesis here is that due to having no life or warming seas (which actually are a product of global warming to some extent) Mar's CO2 is largely found in the ground and that once this got a certain point it acted as a vacuum (this is especially supported by Pathfinder finding "proof" [I only have the news to go on this not the science so I take with a grain of salt] historical "proof" of liquid surfave water). The hypothesis for Mercury is for what ever reason it had too much CO2 in the atmosphere and at some point in it's history this became enough to act as a sucker of trapped CO2 in the rocks so as a result newarly 100% of the planet-atmosphere system is in the atmosphere. For Earth the hypothesis is somehow we hit that magic goldie locks zone that allowed life arise then the life it self stablised stuff (we have much smaller variations then either other planet even with any forseeable human acticity [i.e. no one is predicting a run away ghe]), but human actity has the potential to move up into one of the warmest peroids in our geologic history (not the warmest though) --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't believe it even in that version. Unless you mean C not CO2? And presumably you mean in the sfc-skin of the planet, not the entire body of same? I have no real idea what youre claiming; do you really expect anyone reading that off your userpage to be able to guess what you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure it said CO2 but will look it up like I said... I will also change the wording to make it clear that I meant as % of the total mass of the non-molten rock part of the planet (including atmopshere)

So did you look it up?

Although Earth and Venus seem to have a similar total mass of C (to within a factor of 2 or so—ironically we may know Venus's C more accurately than our own since most of ours is buried out of sight while Venus's seems to be in plain sight), hardly any of Earth's carbon is CO2, most of it is bound up in limestone, dolomite, etc. One could sequester in the ground all the CO2 in Earth's fluids (atmosphere and ocean) after converting it to say limestone and it wouldn't make a noticeable bulge in the amount of limestone on Earth. The flip side is that the other direction if taken to the limit would likely fry us, if Venus is any indication, as we aren't that much further from the Sun. But no one seems to know just where that becomes a runaway process. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

Please stop using anon socks to edit SoF [2]. At least, if you must, try to avoid your characteristic miss-spellings [3]. I presume you're pretending its not you; note that with that sock you're broken 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the talk page I never denied it (and actually admitted it)

Thanks, and apologies. You hadn't when I noticed though. And please sign your posts, even when not logged in. It really is basic politeness William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought signing was only theortical possible if logged in (i.e. the signature is automated proof of being logged in [not adding it but the fact it gets added correctly])

Mediation

I've signed on as mediator for the MedCab case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-08 State of Fear. If you are agreeable with that, would you be willing to begin with an opening statement on the case talk page? Sunray (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Moved from MedCab talk page]. The print reference actually was quite valid and here is an other one http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx... bottom line is good faith is highly questionable in this case --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this does not relate to the subject of this mediation. How is it you don't get that this mediation is about content, not about contributors? It seems to me you are acting in bad faith. Why do you persist? Sunray (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like us to have an understanding about this. My interpretation is that participants do not talk, in this mediation, about one of the participants, only about the issues at hand: the question of what is OR and the use of reliable sources. If I am missing something, please feel free to discuss this with me here or on my talk page—not on the case talk page. Are you in agreement with that? Sunray (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't heard from you for awhile and I was wondering whether you wished to proceed. If not, I would suggest that we wrap things up. However, in your last statement on October 15, you indicated that you believed that the orginal case is not completely settled. WMF responded to that with some suggestions. Would you be able to respond and let us know if you want to continue or not? Sunray (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ou9tside responibilities got in the way I will need an other few days to get out from under them. As to the wording I generally accept it but the issue (as it originally was what to fill "xxx" in with... all M did was wrap the points in a more NPOV wording but what the actual points are is still at issue. --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I will await your further input. Sunray (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been awhile now, since there has been any interaction with respect to this mediation and I would like to close it. I've added a summary of the mediation and would like your comments on whether you find it accurate. I will then close the mediation. Sunray (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]