User talk:Tillman/Archive 5

POV

To be blunt: You are letting your POV show rather rabidly.

On Talk:Hockey stick controversy you have within the last week:slandered active living researcher, Stated that you personally have more expertise than the researchers (which you know you haven't), Indicated that you will enforce your POV by doing WP:OR. And now on Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#IPCC_WG3_and_Greenpeace_report i find that you are using blogs to what i would describe as "fertilize the grounds" for coming POV. (under all circumstances this doesn't belong - article talk pages are not news-aggregators)

This is (imho) unacceptable, and i suggest that you start to think a bit before commenting/posting. And i know that you can do this, since you have been excellent at it before. I don't know what has happened to bring out this, but i suggest that you try to curtail it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this: I've responded to Pete's recycling of blog innuendo, but will be delighted if Pete thinks it best to delete his posting and agree that my response should be deleted at the same time. Let me know if you're agreeable to deleting the section and I'll go first if you prefer. . . dave souza, talk 18:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re IPCC talk page: Dave, I've replied there. Kim, please see my caveat there, now repeated.

Re POV: I'll reply in more detail later, but I'm not the only one whose POV is showing.... Nevertheless, you have a point. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re POV: Basically, you guys are right, and I'll tone it down. Event in RL set me off, I suppose. Sorry! Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Pooli (cat).jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pooli (cat).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Leyo 18:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bailing out.

You have made it quite clear that your intention is to bait me, with this edit[1]. And combining this with the above section on POV language, i have a hard time assuming good faith - thus i will voluntarily leave the article. Have fun. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Kim, sorry to see this.

@ Pete, you really have to stop this battlefield stuff: comments like "for shame" when your appeal to questionable authority is properly questioned are inappropriate and uncollegiate. I hope you're not raising the temperature of discussions deliberately. . . dave souza, talk 03:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, Kim, I sat on a (possibly intemperate) response overnight. Let's see if I can respond civilly.

Dave, you appear to be retailing unsourced innuendo about a senior climatologist who holds opinions that you don't seem to like. If you look at your posts at "POV", above, Dave takes me to task for "recycling of blog innuendo". What you two are doing, Dave especially (but also Kim in the past, I'm almost certain) looks a lot like that: @dave souza, 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC), Curry "showed herself to be hopelessly ill-informed." etc, etc.

Dave, unless you have BLP-grade cites at hand, this doesn't belong at Wikipedia, as you and others so recently reminded me. Pot, kettle?

Kim, I'm sorry you felt "baited". I thought it a fair, if perhaps overhot & hasty, response. Prof. Curry is a courageous lady and a good scientist. I consider her a colleague, so I may have overreacted. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, I'm glad to see a more reflective response from you. Curry's blog comments don't do anything to establish the reliability of 'HSI as a source, her own comments on other blogs have shown her misunderstandings about paleoclimatology and its history. It's not her specialist topic area, and I've no adverse comment about her work or her university position. As far as I'm concerned she's a good scientist, but that doesn't mean she's right about the HSI. . . dave souza, talk 22:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pecos Glazeware Bowl

Hello, Tillman. Greetings from the Photography workshop. A reply has been made to your request.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Photography reply}} template.

Your editing behaviour and my talk page

I have asked that you stop posting on my talk page until such time as you can show that you have stopped misrepresenting sources[2] and stopped using Wikipedia to engage in attacks against living people.[3][4][5] You have now violated this request twice. I realise that someone who refuses to abide by a Foundation policy like WP:BLP is unlikely to follow something backed up by no more than a community norm. But I am always optimistic in my belief that humans can reform, and it is in that vein that I post this note. Guettarda (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plato vs. Women

I've just reviewed the discussion about ejecting Jo Clayton's musings. Whilst not assigned the weight of Hegel and so forth, nonetheless her remarks or something similar would have some merit. This article is lacking in tart responses from women impatient with male blathering. To take a New Zealand comparison, a famous book was Barry Crump's A Good Keen Man, which became a bloke's icon: later there appeared Jean Watson's Stand in the Rain, which contained aspects of her marriage with Mr. Crump and a rather different image of Crumpy resulted... Certainly NZ sheilas chortle about it - there appears to be a women's network sharing their amusement at the pretensions of the blokes, but only occasionaly do they let slip their cover. Offhand though, I don't know of any woman's remarks on Plato being assigned high status. So we're stuck with philosophers muttering through their beards. NickyMcLean (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Nit: Jo Walton. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Arizona

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Arizona, to which you are a member, may be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there haven't been much active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. I have begun a discussion on the projects talk page to see how the members of the project feel about this suggestion. Another user has added the project to the WPUS template and I added it to the list of supported projects in the WPUS main project page but before I take any further action I wanted to contact each of the active members for their input. --Kumioko (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

File:SycCanAz.jpg

Hello, if I understand correctly, you uploaded this picture (at right) of Sycamore Canyon, Az. I was just wondering, is this photo of the Sycamore canyon in Santa Cruz County or the other one? I am creating an article now about a historical event which occurred in the canyon and I would like to use this picture, but only if it is the right Sycamore Canyon. Thanks.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Proposal 2"

Perhaps it would best if you clarified which proposal you referred to in "I don't think Proposal 2 is a good idea." Mine or the one of User:NewsAndEventsGuy? Because I never proposed to remove people like Dyson, only to add some brief description of what happened after the skeptic made his views public. In Dyson's case there's a hint of that in his biography here: "Dyson is well-aware that his "heresy" on global warming has been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."" This is why I put the heading "stricter proposal" on top of NewsAndEventsGuy's text. [Feel free to copy this message to the talk page there, if you think it's more appropriate.] Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I was opposing the "Stricter proposal", and will clarify there. This is a rather confusing RfC! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UHI

This [6] surprises me. Since you've read it, can you say what source he gives for this claim? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WMC. Surprised me a bit, too. It's not cited in the text --not much is, which is a bit frustrating. I just checked the publisher's companion website, assuming I'd find endnotes there, but no joy. Perhaps I'll drop him a line -- I picked up his textbook after greatly enjoying his Plows, Plagues and Petroleum. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And see KDP's note at [7], which seems to settle the matter. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was going to remove the claim, as just implausible - I can't think of anything he could have cited to justify such a claim. But R is more of a palaeo / GHG person, not an instrumental T record person; so his opinion shouldn't be given much if any weight William M. Connolley (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monckton

Hey pete how goes it? I just removed a load of OR from Moncktons article, and the same with Joanne Nova. Can you keep an eye on them please? I will get reverted as scibaby obviously lmao. 188.227.160.244 (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitive?

Re [8]. If you don't want that kind of discussion, please lay off baiting other users with your "bias" talk. take it to an uninvolved admin - oh look, it already has been [9] - but you were too impatient William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comments there (and here) somewhat mystifying, but noted. Bad, bad page, imo. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Climatic Research Unit email controversy

I've reported you for breaking the 1RR on Climatic Research Unit email controversy at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tillman_reported_by_User:William_M._Connolley_.28Result:_.29 William M. Connolley (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments there. I think you need to offer a duration William M. Connolley (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you even bother with those pages? The protectorate has complete control and the rational world knows that they are just AGW propaganda anyway. Arzel (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Climatic Research Unit email controversy

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Tillman reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Climate change. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Begay

Nice job! I encourage you to do more. Still quite a few redlinks on that page. Even initiating a stub is productive. I urge caution in linking to commercial pages explicitly selling items. Amerindianarts (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's surprising how many first-rate artists don't yet have Wikipages. OTOH, it takes a lot of work to put together a decent one (as I just rediscovered). Good projects for bad-weather days.

I'll only link to commercial galleries when I can't find a decent noncommercial one -- and then only to low-pressure ones. But I take your point. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey Stick

Glad to see an experienced editor take a look at this article. Good luck! David.Kane (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going to try to do this without stirring up the controversy that usually goes with editing climate-change articles. I hope... --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable artists

If you ever feel brave, try tackling List of Native American artists. I tried to get people from the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America to look at it, but no one would. It's a complete mess! Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Heh. I'm mostly doing mineral photos lately -- see these for some teasers. Great stuff. Who needs artists? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=

Category:Shinkolobwe Mine

Thank you very much for these nice photographs of uranium minerals. Appreciated, :-), Cheers, Shinkolobwe (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yule Marble article - thanks

Hello and thanks for the edit to the Yule marble article. I am wrapping up my rewrite of the article. When I have finished, I hope you will come back for a indepth review and edit for I want the article to be of top quality. I will post a talk note when ready for a serious review-edit. At some point, I want to submit the article for a rating OneHistoryGuy (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed my rewrite OneHistoryGuy (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of copyediting, and will spend more time on it later, probably next week. Thanks for making the effort to greatly enlarge and improve this article! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your time to edit the article and I do look forward to your future edit. Your enlarging to 400 pixel and relocating the Lincoln Memorial photo to the top is much better. I have enjoyed writing the article and it has been a pleasure with the editors who have come to the article. I have reached the point with the article where I am not sure if what I am reading is the monitor or in my head. I was curious how you came to the article? If you would rather not say....that is ok. I am just glad that you did. By "Cheers" I was wondering if you are British, maybe Australian or possibly New Zealander? OneHistoryGuy (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a geologist, and something of a ghost-town buff. I vaguely recall visiting Marble, 40+ years ago. Still haven't made it to Crystal....

I grew up in Oklahoma! Anyway, look forward to visiting the new museum, maybe next summer or fall? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC), Taos NM[reply]

Groundwater

As a geologist, do you know anything about groundwater? Viriditas (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some. How can I help? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the groundwater in Oklahoma. :) There appears to be something in it. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water? <G> I'm a former Oklahoman -- tell me more! Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High Bridge

I live in Taos and have never heard it called this. Do you have a citation for that? Given its recent history, it's more likely people are calling it "Suicide Bridge". Yworo (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see "High Bridge Overlook on US 64 northwest of Taos", one of many. I live here, too, and that's what I usually hear it called. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Pete, your persistent WP:BLP violations against climate scientists are getting out of hand. An experienced editor like yourself should know that policy forbids using blogs as sources for BLPs.[10] Take this as a formal notice if you like. I absolutely loathe getting involved in stuff like WP:AE but if you can't see fit to control yourself I will. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boris: I'm well aware we can't use blogs as sources in BLPs. I'm unaware of any policy against mention of blogs on BLP talk pages, as background info. If you're aware of such, please let me know. So IB you are incorrect in your assertion of " persistent WP:BLP violations against climate scientists." More at Rahmstorf talk (when I have time). Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you sit down quietly then, and reread WP:BLP. Because BLP applies to talk-pages as well. Quote:

BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories. It does not apply to the deceased or to corporations, but see below for advice regarding those areas.

This btw. is nothing new. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim: Policy isn't very clear (to me, anyway) re linking to blogs on talk pages -- WP:BLPEL would seem to apply. Note that SR's BLP explicitly links and discusses his activities at the RealClimate blog. Common sense would indicate that the opinions of such professionals as von Storch and Pielke Jr. are pertinent to the discussion of the lawsuit against SR. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, dave souza asked me to take a look at this. I would happen to agree with the concerns raised by a number of editors. Even if one grants that it is acceptable to use Pielke as a background source on a talk page, I hope you would agree with me that it is firmly established practice that such a source would be inappropriate to use such a source in the article itself. Therefore, I'm not sure I see the purpose in your linking to it on the talk page. If you restrict yourself to only using high quality sources even when discussing what content to include, then I would think that the content you wish to add will naturally turn out to be a more neutral reflection of what only the best sources say. NW (Talk) 20:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NW, in general I would agree. In this specific case, which you might want to take a look at: [11], there's not a great deal of info available in English, so Pielke's discussion is helpful, I thought. We are trying to work out what to say re the lawsuit against SR, and it's not clear (to me) exactly what happened with that. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with using Pielke as a source even for understanding the background is that he has his own biases that are likely going to show up in how he presents the facts. If you try to use him for background, you're going to having to work around that somehow. The better thing to do, I think, would be to collect any longish pieces that you can that are written in Stern, Focus, etc. and get an uninvolved German speaking editor like SoWhy to help summarize the content in a paragraph or so. It's unlikely that much more than that will need to be said, considering how short the article is right now. NW (Talk) 21:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. The actual court ruling is online, linked at one of the blogs I think -- I'll see if I can find it. I've stumbled through a couple of the articles with my very bad German (+ Google), but have had little time for this with heavy RL committments.... Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging that you have read this message. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Messages to User talk:Mattisse

I noticed your message on User talk:Matisse, I think you didn't notice that said editor has been permablocked for a over a year, and hence cannot possibly rewrite the section you're asking him about. Merry Christmas, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! No, I hadn't noticed -- but someone else fixed the problem. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:HaydenAZ.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:HaydenAZ.jpg, which you've sourced to Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0). I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civility....

SS. Need I say more? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More information needed about File:Carson Waterfall.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Carson Waterfall.jpg. However, it needs some more work before it is okay to use on Wikipedia.

Please click here and do the following:

Add a description of where the image comes from (not what it is) and who the creator is. Please be specific, and include a link if you can.
Find the appropriate license from the list of free, non-free media, or public domain options. Copy the license template and paste it in the file's page, and save.

If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the media copyright questions page.

Thank you for your contribution! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

blog vs blog vs blog vs blog

Hi, Being new to the blog battle between you and Dave S, I think it is centered on ClimateAudit, but if not please correct me. Proceeding with that understanding, I am curious how you compare the reliability between ClimateAudit, RealClimate, ClimateProgress, and SkepticalScience? I think they are all WP:BLOGs, and would not be eligible for citation use unless consensus determines that some exception to that policy exists. Setting personal opinion aside, for each of these four, do you think it is an acceptable WP:RS according to wiki policy, and if so, under what exception to the general rule that blogs are unacceptable? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 4, Steve McIntyre/CA could be acceptable as a RS, imo, but is unlikely to ever be so certified, because there are active, influential CC editors who despise his work. RC is acceptable with limitations as a RS, IB. ClimateProgress is Joe Romm, with all that implies, and SkepSci I don't have much experience with. I presume you are +/- familiar with the WP:SPS limitations.

I've made 1 or 2 tries, over the years, to get people certified as "recognized experts" who don't have the usual credentials. Almost a hopelessly uphill battle, ime. HTH, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good start but too ambiguous to be meaningful. Please elaborate.

(A) When you say "could be" with respect to Steve Mc are you saying that in your opinion he qualifies for a wiki exception to the general rule, and if so, which one?

(B) Please elaborate on Real Climate, specifically, under which wiki policy is it useable and with what specific limitations?

(C) What does Joe Romm "imply"?

Thanks in advance for filling in the details NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE Skeptical Science: came across this recently : [12]

-- and I recall seeing similar claims before. But, as I don't use it, no personal experience.

Re RealClimate: I regularly see complaints regarding their moderation policy -- the most serious complaints are that they have denied people such as McIntyre space to rebut their claims about his work. Hard to have a fair debate if you censor one side's replies! There are some CG emails that pertain, see forex: [13]. Of course it's their blog and they can moderate however they like, but....

As far as using RC as RS: this is for individual scientists under the "qualified expert" bit at WP:SPS, IB. From my viewpoint, McIntyre would also qualify for his areas of expertise: the paleoclimate proxies, the reluctance to share date, via polite requests and FOIA, the CG emails & such. But I think the chances he would ever be approved at WP are remote.

Re: Joe Romm. He is (IB) widely considered to be a shoot-from-the-hip partisan, but I pay him almost no attention.

Is this the sort of thing you have in mind? Where are you going with this? My slow reply is mostly due to RW business, but I'm not very interested in pursuing certifying controversial blogs, or people, at WP. Life is too short. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had wanted info by which to assess your advocacy of Steve Mc's blog at Talk:Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy, and the info I wanted was to pick apart your reasoning for blanket approval of that blog, and then see if you could apply the same analysis in a NPOV consistent manner to these other blogs. But, in light of your remark in the prior comment that you are "not very interested in pursuing certifying controversial blogs, or people, at WP" my interest in this question seems to be rendered moot. After all, I think you just said you intend to cease pushing that controversial blog on wiki talk pages. So never mind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oil fields

Hello,

why did you remove the sentence that the largest (oil)fields are in siberia and only left the middle east? There is no reference for the middle east as well. Russia is the biggest oil producer in the world since 2008/2009, producing over 160 million liter of crude oil more EVERY DAY than Saudi Arabia, and yet only Western Siberian fields are online, not all but the big ones. Middle and Eastern Siberia is not developed really yet (the Vankor Field which went online 2009 is one of the first steps to increase middle- and eastern siberian production, vankor is one of many giants in (East) Siberia, close to existing pipelines/infrastructure for export to China thats the reason why it is being developed, production is increasing fast and already over hundred million barrels have been produced and exported to China in 2009 (only some months since the field was opened in August 2009) and 2010 alone from Vankor!

There are also 30 giant oil fields from Russia in the List of (largest) oil fields, followed only by Kazakhstan with 10 fields (Kazakhstan is also part of Siberia or at least very close to it). The existing fields are the reference and the production of ~12 million barrels from Russia and Kazakhstan alone! This is the production of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates together! Maybe check this again.

Greetings and sorry for spelling errors -- Kilon22 (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another look when I have time. Do you have access to some sources for the big, undeveloped Siber fields? Good news, if true. Sorry for any errors, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See what you think of my revision. And do add to the table, if you have good sources! Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

just opened the list again and when I saw this new sentence you added I remembered (is remembered really correct english?). It looks much better yes ;) It looks like the countries you added are not sorted since Russia is the last one, Venezuela being the second. Good sources... I have to think about this ;) Sources of course would be better, but for the moment it is ok since the List is the reference itself ;) The sentence is just a summary in the introduction :) Infos about undeveloped fields are very hard to find, if they are not in an country where "western" oil companys are the main producer and detailed information are not censored like in the Middle East. But I will check, there is a quite new project in the north where Russia and Norway both claim that its their property, the production was not profitable for decades, but now it is and they made a 50/50 deal, Norways Statoil is representing Norway.

I created in German Wikipedia an article about the Timan Pechora Basin, it is a good example, but I think there is no name for the oil there. I added production figures from LUKOil, the largest oil company in Russia which is not owned by the state. The figures in the German article are showing that production in the basin almost doubled between 2004 and 2009, you can check the German article. I can check, data for 2010 should be available now. In 2009 almost 160 million barrels have been produced there... -- Kilon22 (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson Mountains

Hi Pete, I've reverted a direct copyvio on Tucson Mountains by a sockpuppet, see this. The user, User:Tortolita Mountains, had added a cut-n-paste copyvio from the book (or at least the Amazon.com blurb for the book [14]). The content added could be re-written to avoid the copyvio and re-added. Do you have access to the book? I'd rather not write based on an Amazon blurb. I've re-added your new Gates Pass image. Vsmith (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, and all my AZ books are now in storage -- we sold our AZ house earlier this month (at a horrendous loss). Anyway, the copyvio stuff looked fine as to accuracy, fwtw. Hmm. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gleick confession

You said « I removed a reference to the incident from the lead on the grounds of recentism, but it may well belong there.» I say: how can in a biographical article an actual confession of a crime by the bio's subject be deleted on such flimsy grounds as "recentism"? I agree this needs to go in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.46.241.77 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused -- you're quoting TS = Tony Sidaway (sp?): see -TS 04:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC). But I agree that it's best to proceed with caution: see WP:NOT#NEWS. Thanks for your comment, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct! I confused you with TS! My apologies, and thanks for the civility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.46.241.77 (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dooh-Dah, 1979.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dooh-Dah, 1979.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 03:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:BAND beam exb.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:BAND beam exb.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another bad block by Bwilkins, in my opinion. He seems to be making a habit of it. Yworo (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so Yworo, you condone his behaviour of harassing another editor? Good to know. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got a diff? Arkon (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a hint: it's an admin whose name starts with "G". It's as obvious as the nose on my face without even that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So your answer is no? Wonderful accountability there. Arkon (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed BWilkins, asking for an explanation. I'll let him give his, but it appears to me that User:Guettarda asked BW to block me, over alleged "low-level harassment" at G's talk page. In part, G's complaint was when, after continued rudeness and PA's by him, I asked him to stay off my page: [15]. Odd reason for a block, I think. Note that BW didn't bother to ask for my side of the story before imposing the block. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my e-mail was quite clear that NOBODY asked me to block - it was through monitoring of a few different talkpages that led to the block. Don't make stuff up. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But "it's as obvious as the nose on my(your) face", right? This is getting pretty sad. Arkon (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Although I do not typically accept unblock requests by e-mail, I have received confirmation that User:Tillman will not harass User:Guettarda in the future. As the intent of any block is prevention, there appears to be nothing more to prevent at this time. As such, I have lifted this block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have no clue why you were monitoring my (dull) talk page. I suggest that, for next time, you contact the person you propose to block first, to get their side of the story. Editor Guettarda's nom de guerre suggests his general pugnacious atttitude, ime. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by the comment about his username. It appears to be related to Guettarda, a species named after Jean-Étienne Guettard. BTW, I have no need to discuss a block if I see any prohibited action in process if my sole intent is to protect the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]