User talk:Tillman/Archive 4

Reverts on Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Hello. I wish to inform you that you've reverted my edits twice on Climatic Research Unit email controversy within 24 hours:

• 02:52, 27 April 2011 Tillman (talk | contribs) (104,096 bytes) (Pull manuf controv stuff & remove tag. See talk, last two sections) (undo)[1]
• 03:51, 26 April 2011 Tillman (talk | contribs) (103,366 bytes) (CJR: not appropriate for lead per consensus at Talk)[2]

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have reverted two of mine as well:

• diff
• diff

Perhaps we should both take a break, eh? I'm done for the day. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My preference is to come to a compromise. I have already said I will agree to add a modified version of your FOIA material to the lead if you can show it is significant by way of secondary sources. And you should also consider a modified version that summarizes the media reception. I'm not trying to push a POV. I'm trying to summarize the main points of the article. Perhaps you could do some research on the media controversy and write it in your own words. I'm willing to help add the FOIA content if I can find the right source. I see that the topic of FOIA is touched upon in the article, but it reads as a function of recentism rather than something important. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. There are (ims) plenty of 2ry sources for the ICO stuff. I'm surprised none are cited. And I would greatly prefer collegiality & cooperation to confrontation. Perhaps you could tone down your talk comments a bit? They read pretty abrasive, at times.

Might be a day or two to get back to this stuff. Travel tomorrow & then again this weekend. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I might add some material about the FOIA if I can find some good sources. You're always free to improve it. I'm going to add transparency to the list of criticisms in the lead (Pooley 2010) as this word keeps coming up in the secondary sources as one of the main criticisms. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Samuari Video

The discussion on whether or not to include Suzuki's video in the Suzuki v. Consumers Union article has been reopened, leaving you a note in case you want to review and participate. Regards, ThatSaved (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see, we lost the photo of the test as well. I think I have another that might fly as FU. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:One Man's West.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:One Man's West.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

CRU email controversy

Can you take two weeks off from this article please? It might not be entirely your fault that the general conduct (with persistent IDHT, battlefield conduct, etc.) has deteriorated, but I feel that unfortunately, you have played a fair role in it. This message is also being posted on the talk pages of Viritidas and Pete Tillman. NW (Talk) 15:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have violated 1RR, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=432767732&oldid=432764289 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=432873968&oldid=432870459 . Please be careful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Arthur. I've self-reverted. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Viriditas: just what part of WP:No Personal Attacks do you not understand? This is an extraordinary outburst, that I'll be copying to a private file.

Could you please help me see where this so-called personal attack occurred and why my comment is considered an "extraordinary outburst" by yourself? And more importantly, what could possibly merit copying it to a private file? I would just love some help understanding this, Tillman. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me help you out here Viriditas. You said, Your comments reveal you are pushing an extreme fringe theory that even the most public deniers gave up on years ago. Calling someone a 'denier' is offensive, as is publicly asserting that someone is a 'extreme fringe theorist' or a 'conspiracy theorist'. It's the same as saying someone is stupid &/or dishonest, and given that Pete was simply making a point about what is and what isn't well sourced or neutral language in Wikipedia, it was just a tad uncalled for too. You then proceeded, knowing that Pete is a geologist, to insult him professionally: I realize that many geologists went to their graves refusing to believe in continental drift ... but AGW has had a solid consensus for 15 years now. Then you disrespected him as is your habit by addressing him with his surname: Tillman, you are in clear violation of FRINGE and undue.

Since I have diffs showing you've been treating all editors whom you think are 'skeptics' (including one who most certainly isn't a skeptic) in the same way since the beginning of April, and have made, on my count, over 30 personal attacks, it might actually be a good idea to ask yourself if perhaps there really is some part of NPA that you don't understand. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice cherry picking, Alex. Tillman posted a comment explaining why he made a revert. I responded with "Tillman, your edits and reasons for making them are not supported...Your comments reveal you are pushing an extreme fringe theory that even the most public deniers gave up on years ago." This is not a personal attack. Tillman's comments deny what is in the sources and call a news story in Scientific American an "opinion...from a magazine notorious for pro-AGW bias" which he labels as "unsuitable" Tillman then, bizarrely, requests that we substitute a primary source for a secondary. All of this shows a major misunderstanding as to how Wikipedia works and how we identify and evaluate reliable sources. Alex, your opinion that calling another editor out on their climate denial is a "personal attack" is unsupported. It is supported by Tillman's own words and edits. The statement that "geologists went to their graves refusing to believe in continental drift" is a popular history of science anecdote, and historians of science like Naomi Oreskes use the concept of continental drift as a historical parallel to the weight of evidence that led scientists to accept anthropogenic climate change. In her book, The Rejection of Continental Drift (1999) she describes, unbelievably, how deniers of plate tectonics like Harold Jeffreys held out until 1989, even though the scientific community accepted it by the early 1960s. That many geologists went to their graves refusing to consider new evidence is now a common expression in public discourse:

• "...the most important contribution to Earth sciences in the last four decades may be the discovery of seafloor-spreading and plate teconics. And yet, some distinguished Earth scientists went to their graves unconvinced of the evidence.[3]
• "Some geologists went to their graves not accepting that the continents move. Science progresses nonetheless, by the accumulation of evidence and the testing of hypotheses that account for it. Today it is difficult to find an article in geology that begins by allowing that plate tectonics is only one possible model among many other equally plausible ones - even though 40 years ago the theory was as hotly contested."[4]

Alex, calling a user by their user name is not a form of disrespect. This discussion is obviously not going to bear fruit because neither you nor Tillman will recognize the problem. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, I suggest you seek input from an uninvolved third party as to whether or not what I highlighted above is acceptable or not. Also have a look at William Connolley's 'Naming of Cats' since he has strong views on what is and what isn't polite when addressing editors who uses their real names. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I agree that I can work on being more polite. I will put that at the top of my to-do list. While I'm busy doing that, I would invite you to study and review Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. I can't help but notice that every single time myself or another editor tries to discuss and address a topic, you and others try to change the topic from that of an encyclopedic subject to one of editors and contributors. Then, you turn around and claim that we are making personal attacks or engaging in incivility. I'm tired of your game, Alex. From now on, please expect me to address the topic only and nothing else. I will not be baited or drawn into your little civil POV pushing trap anymore. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate any sort of concession from you by now, you still don't seem to have understood. Your apology is followed by another personal attack. You are claiming that I am not acting in good faith, and that I have a secret agenda, which implies that I am not honest. For what it's worth, although I believe you've violated NPOV in about 10 different ways in your new lead, I have no doubt you believe what you're doing is right. I don't think you're being dishonest in putting forward your arguments; I just think you're not listening to what others are saying, because you've made up your mind that they're not acting in good faith. What you need to figure out is why I would waste my spare time doing something I didn't believe in just to annoy you. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What we have here is a breakdown in communication. I did not say any of this. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What Alex said ;-]. V, you really need to get a clue that no one (or at least not Alex, me, or Arthur, sfaik) is out to "get" you, and your constant, petulant, weird personal attacks are wearing. Please stop doing this.

Do recall, this is supposed to be a pleasant, educational hobby, not a grim slog through ranks of Denier Enemies.... I'm reasonably sure everyone active at the page now truly wants to improve it. We do have different ideas of how, but, you know, that's how this place operates. I was hopeful that this page could be rewritten so as to be fair and readable. Now I'm just trying to see that it doesn't get worse than before. Sigh. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you give me an example of what you consider to be a fair and readable secondary source on this subject? Since we write articles based on good sources, it would be a necessary prerequisite. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] One that immediately comes to mind is Fred Pearce's long Climategate series for the Guardian, but even he didn't get everything right. But we rightfully rely on his report extensively. Another would be Weart's Discovery of Global Warming, though it's not directly applicable to this article.

But the readability (and balance) of our article is really up to us. For an example of just how bad it can be, try reading "Information Commissioner's Office". Wikipedia is, of course, prose by committee, so we can't expect miracles, but we can do better than this. I hope.

Your own writing style is clear and readable. Where you fall down sometimes (in my view) is in the "Fair & Balanced" department. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the constructive criticism. Since you are the second major contributor to Heaven and Earth, the so-called "bible" of the climate change denial movement, I'm sure your sole interest in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy is to bring fairness and balance to the topic, so perhaps I should ask you for advice on how to proceed. Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas: please WP: Assume good faith. Your constant Battlefield mentality is corrosive and tiresome. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is you who appears to fighting a battle, as your latest edit to the disputed article indicates in spades. Please stop accusing others of your misdeeds. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Viriditas: you cause no (or not much) offense by addressing me by my surname. Other than that, if you really can't tell why your comments are offensive, you really, really need to work on your Wiki-etiquette, your basic civility skills, and perhaps your common sense too. I hope you improve. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

1RR violation notification

Tillman, for the second day in a row, you are in violation of the 1RR editing restriction per the probation sanctions on Climatic Research Unit email controversy. I recommend that you self-revert yourself immediately. You have made a total of three reverts for June 8, 2011. It is evident that you are still having great difficulty understanding what a revert is and how to avoid it. I will therefore be reporting you. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, IB you are confused re IRR. Please see Kim Peterson's discussion at talk:

Policy does address closely-related edits, with this: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I will grant you that this is a confusing rule. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Tillman, you have explicitly and unambiguously violated the 1RR. I have reported you here. Please make a sincere effort to learn what a revert is and how to avoid breaking the 1RR in the future. Of course you are welcome to avoid any enforcement by self-reverting, in which case I will ask for a warning not a block. Right now, I'm asking for your block. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

Fox News, Clive Hamilton, Michael Calderone etc.

You have not responded to my repeated queries for you to explain your reverts on the CRU talk page. Because you have been ignoring my requests for 48 hours now, I have no choice but to bring my requests to your talk page. If you dislike that, feel free to answer them on the article talk page.

There are multiple topics and issues at play here, but let's begin with the easiest one so as to develop a common ground of discourse where we can work towards agreement. I will begin with your revert of the Clive Hamilton material. Recently, you removed the following statement from the CRU article without any explanation:

Clive Hamilton of Charles Sturt University observed that news outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch played a major role in airing attacks on climate scientists during the controversy.

It appears to me that you have not performed the slightest bit of research on this topic. If you had, you would have quickly discovered that politicians on the left and right, journalists of every stripe, and publications across the spectrum all agree on one thing—that news outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch were responsible for propagating the climategate scandal meme more than any other media outlet. If you are seriously questioning this fact, then I suggest you begin by doing some research because your reverts tell me you are editing from your own personal bias rather than from the sources. For example, Chris Mooney writes:

In the ensuing scandal after the e-mails became public, top climate scientists were accused of withholding information, suppressing dissent, manipulating data, and worse, particularly by right wing media and blogs. The controversy garnered dramatic press attention, especially on outlets like Fox News.[5]

As you may or may not be aware, Fox News sent out memos—leaked memos covered by secondary sources—issuing instructions to their anchors and reporters to spin the story towards climate skepticism and doubt. According to Yahoo's senior media reporter Michael Calderone:

In December 2009, the Fox News executive instructed staff to include skepticism of climate change data in their reporting. The memo came just 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately said on-air that the UN's World Meteorological Organization found that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest [decade] on record."[6]...The Sammon memo was sent around the same time as "ClimateGate," a controversy fueled by conservative media that Fox News seemed to cover far more than other networks.

The attacks on climate scientists emanating from the news outlets owned by Murdoch gathered steam as Copenhagen began, and continued day after day, week after week, month after month, until the results of the investigations appeared a year later, with little to no reports ever made covering the exoneration of the scientists. Do you question this chain of events? Because if you do, I will suggest that you haven't looked at the sources on this subject. It's part of the historical record. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Pls post this material at the article talk page, and I'll reply there. See WP:BRD and WP:BOP. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No. There are already multiple threads open on that page requiring your comment that you either refuse to respond to or continue to ignore. It's put up or shut up time. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

1rr

I saw your comment on the ANI thread - all the revert rules are on a reverts per page basis - so if you reverted two different editors, you'll still be in violation of the 1rr. Kevin (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I'll never get this stuff straight. Confused by the ". Undoing another editor's work—" business, I guess. Or just dumb. I'll self-revert one in a moment. Thanks! --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You've just violated the 1RR for the third day in a row with your reinsertion of the syn tag at 17:41, 8 June 2011. This is the third time you've added the tag, and you've reverted its removal by two editors, myself and SBHB. Please self-revert immediately. 1RR means you can only make one revert a day, not three. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record the diff of your personal attack can be found here. On article talk pages, we do not refer to editors in headings:

Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user. (WP:TALKNEW)

Furthermore, we do not attack editors on the talk page as you did with "Continuing his usual pattern, Viriditas..." Please review WP:NPA so that it does not happen again. Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted the guideline. "Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user." It doesn't say about a user. And "Continuing his usual pattern" would be appropriate if correct; we're discussing a problem with your edits on that article, not a general problem with your edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's you who has "misinterpreted" the guideline, Arthur. We never address other users in a heading on an article talk page. That's clear and to the point, and there is no misinterpretation possible. The statement that follows, 'headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user, is a paraphrase of the nutshell contained within the no personal attacks policy: Comment on the content, not on the contributor. That is precisely what "headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user". You may comment about the content, not the contributor. This is also followed by Never use headings to attack other users: While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines. The exception to the guideline, reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators has nothing to do with this discussion, as Tillman is engaged in a content dispute. Viriditas (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, I think most everyone who deals with you is getting awfully tired of your constant, verbose, tiresome wikilawyering. For sure I am. Don't you have something better to do with your time? --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking for "everyone", Tillman. That Arthur Rubin, an administrator, does not understand basic NPA and talk page guidelines is troubling. That you are using the article talk page to repeatedly attack me is also troubling. That you have repeatedly violated the 1RR probation restriction without any enforcement is also troubling. Surely, you have something better to do with your time? Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, all potential issues regarding Tillman's behavior aside, your own behavior is hugely problematic. Just taking a look at this section alone - look at what the NPA template that you gave Tillman actually says. Do you really think it's appropriate to leave that message on the talk page of an editor who has more than 15,000 edits who you are in an active content dispute with? UW-NPA1 is clearly not written for an experienced Wikipedian - I mean, criminy, it includes an explicit welcome message! The appropriate way to handle this would've been to leave a polite non-templated message here telling Tillman that you feel his edit conflicts with WP:TALKNEW and asking him to change it. If you do not feel you can do that, then ask an uninvolved editor or administrator to do so for you. If you feel it was somehow a violation of NPA severe enough to merit sanction, then take the matter to an appropriate noticeboard. Nothing productive could have possibly come out of the way that you have approached this section.

I'm not saying Tillman's behavior isn't problematic - certainly at least some of it is, but I'm choosing to comment on your behavior over his because you're the one trying to claim the high ground here. If you want to reach an eventual productive consensus regarding the issues on the CRU article, you have to treat other editors with some level of respect and WP:AGF, even if you disagree with them vehemently and think they are violating policies. The way you have been approaching this situation is only going to keep elevating and inflaming things. Kevin (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This thread concerns Tillman's continued personal attacks on the CRU talk page. I have no idea why you think I have disrespected Tillman or assumed bad faith, but I detect this has more to do with our personal disagreement on ANI than this issue. Furthermore, there has been no enforcement on the 1RR violations Tillman has made over the last three days. My report on ANI concerned those violations alone, and were repeatedly met with personal attacks from Tillman in response. In fact, in that report and in this thread, I have not brought our disagreement over content into discussion. I am concerned that your continued involvement and reading of this issue is at complete odds with the facts. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Your misuse of dispute templates

You are continuing to misuse dispute templates against best practices, and you have even violated the 1RR while doing it. Recently, you added both the {{POV-statement}} and {{syn}} templates in violation of their recommended use.

Whenever one adds a pov-statement tag, the template documentation says that:

The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor

The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame.
This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject. The personal beliefs of Wikipedia's editors are irrelevant.
Do not add this to a page more than a reasonable number of times, instead use one of the other templates mentioned below instead.

In regards to your use of the syn tag, the documentation says

When a given editor adds this template he or she must concurrently add corresponding text to the tagged article's talk page to explain their concerns relative to original research for the given tagged text unless talk already exists relative to such concerns. If a given article has been tagged and the tagging editor doesn't ensure that corresponding article talk relative to the tag isn't either already available or added within a short amount of time (ie: no more than 24 hours) then fellow editors are within their rights to remove the tag or alternatively, add talk in support of its use.

You do not appear to have read the documentation for the template, even though you have been asked over and over again to explain your edits on the talk page. In cases where there is a discussion on the talk page about certain aspects of your concerns, you have either failed to followup on that discussion, or have continued to ignore the points raised there. Please do not continue to add dispute templates without immediately rebooting or starting a new thread about your concerns. What seems to be happening here, is that your concerns have been addressed, but you are ignoring the previous discussion and continuing to disrupt the article. This cannot continue. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation, and will reply at the article Talk page.

"This cannot continue." Oh, do I agree with that -- though for a different value of "this" than (I imagine) you have in mind. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Directly quoting the template documentation is not an "interpretation" of any kind. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

My 2¢ on Climate Change

If it helps you, I'd like to give my 2¢ contribution on the Climatic Change Controversy. I believe the oil price goes up, the world economy is in a down turn and that Yellowstone will erupt in our average lifetime. So, I believe the world climate is cooling down ;) Stay cool, people on earth have other problems ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Since we are downwind of the enormous fire in E AZ, it already seems volcanic...

Thanks for all the improvements to the mineral pages! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thx, fighting with an elephant ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1940 Oldsmobile Station Wagon.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1940 Oldsmobile Station Wagon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Indentation

I know that this isn't policy and that this is only a question of politeness - so take it in that spirit.

Is there a specific reason other than laziness for outdenting your comments constantly? The trouble with this is that you are impeding comments and the reading order.

Please take a look at the below:

A

B R(A)

C R(B)

D R(B)

E R(A)

Here it is possible to reply to all of the comments (A...E) without impeding the reading order. Here is what you do:

A

B R(A)

C R(B)

Where is D to put his reply to B? Or E its reply to A? There are three possibilities: a) is below B indented - which affects the temporal reading. b) is below C, which affects the readability, c) is to indent C and do it at the correct indentation level.

Outdenting is often necessary - when your text is compressing up too much against the margin - but it certainly isn't when you are only 2-3 indentation levels into a discussion. And even when you outdent - you should never outdent to a level where it impedes comments that are at a lower indentation level. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Pete, I'd add that while the Daily Mail is rather stereotypically funny in the sense of being ridiculous about science, your suggestion that you were just adding it to make me go "boom" indicates you were trolling. Don't. . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dave: not trolling, trying for a bit of levity. Sorry it fell flat.

Kim: I'll try to pay more attention to indenting/threading. Did you find adding subheads helpful? WP's software isn't the best for keeping threads straight, ime. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP

Making comments like this about living people is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Calling identifiable, living people "clownish" and "sloppy" would not be acceptable anywhere, but I'm surprised that you would engage in that sort of behaviour on an article subject to arbcomm sanctions. Please remove your comment, and refrain from engaging in abusive behaviour like this in the future. Guettarda (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure that I am echoing criticisms that have been previously published in RS's. Hence I don't believe that any BLP violation has occurred.

Nevertheless, since others have objected, I will strike the comment. But try not to be so thin-skinned. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? You can't just strike your smears and leave them readable there in the article text. No, it is not acceptable to engage in these sorts of unsourced attacks on people in Wikipedia. If supported by reliable sources (which you have declined to provide) they can be reported in articles. If they are notable. But you are not allowed to make these sorts of attacks on people, you are not supposed to use an article talk page to engage in those sorts of smears. If you don't understand something so basic, you need to refrain from editing articles about living people. Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)