User talk:Yopienso/Archive 1

¡Oh Gloria Inmarcesible!

Hola, yo traduje los versos III a XI del himno nacional. Gracias por tus comentarios. Creo que tienes toda la razón en lo de las termópilas y ya lo cambié. Respecto a lo de la flor, no estoy segura...cuando se dice, "la flor estremecida mortal el viento hallando," el adjetivo "mortal" debe referirse al viento, no a la flor, sino se diría, "la flor estremecida mortalmente". Además el verbo "hallando" tiene que referirse a cómo halla la flor al viento, y la única posibilidad es mortal (por ello la flor busca refugio). Adiós, Rosa 19:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mace of the United States House of Representatives

Yopienso, I have not edited that article. I tagged the article's Talk Page as part of WikiProject Congress, but have not edited the article itself. I will work to revise it, but had nothing to do with it other than that. If you look at my edits from the last six months, you will find them well researched and cited. The plagerism comment on my talk page comes from an edit I made when I first joined Wikipedia over a year ago and didn't quite 'get it'. As for being a person of reknown, I assure you I am not. Thanks--Daysleeper47 13:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wagar

Yopienso, I've identified the"Wagar" referred to on the By the Waters of Babylon page. Rojomoke (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR and SYN

Hi, you've been here for quite a while so I'm sure you'll know that our WP:3RR policy prohibits edit warring at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed or any other article: good that you're talking the issues over. I've left quite a long comment at the section you raised at Editor assistance to try to explain the issues – the extended quote you propose presents a novel synthesis, in breach of WP:SYN, which had not been published in a reliable secondary source as required by WP:PSTS. It's a good idea to become familiar with the whole WP:NOR policy, or at least read it through when in doubt. Rather large and complex, but there for good reasons. Hope that helps, dave souza, talk 09:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave--I've answered you on your talk page. I learned the ropes once, but have forgotten many of the ins and outs, for which I apologize. Yopienso (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Yopienso. I've been following the Darwin quote issue, and I think it comes down to a small misunderstanding. The issue isn't whether or not you're right or wrong (and yes, obviously there is more to Darwin's original quotation than reported by Scientific American), but the issue -is- what we can and cannot include in the article. For that particular section, the main reference is the sciam article, and because scientific american didn't include the entire quotation, we cannot, either. To do so would be putting words in Scientific American's mouth.

My personal feeling is that SciAm made an editorial decision when choosing the length of Darwin's quotation, for any of a number of reasons, possibly even just to save space in their article. While context is important, editors often have to make these choices. Why stop at the paragraph? Why not quote the entire chapter or book?

SciAm might have made an error in cutting off the quotation where they did (though, in my opinion, Expelled was worse...they chopped up entire paragraphs and sentences, leaving out key words and phrases that completely changed the meaning of what was said, even to a casual reader), but that's not for Wikipedia to decide. SciAm is the source, we have to report what the sources say. I'm sure that if you could find a better source for that section of the article that could be cited, there wouldn't be an objection to modifying the article.

I hope this helps...Quietmarc (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk page, Yopienso, I've replied there at length to keep the conversation together. Agree with Quietmarc, the sources may not be ideal but we have to be careful not to misrepresent them or go beyond them, and a minor creationist film is unlikely to attract many peer reviewed studies. . . dave souza, talk 19:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dave--Nope, no edit warring from me.

Marc--Hello! Thanks for chiming in. You wrote, "For that particular section, the main reference is the sciam article, and because scientific american didn't include the entire quotation, we cannot, either." When I came across the article, it already had the two references that are still there, footnotes #'s 75, to the SciAm article, and 76, to the text of Darwin's The Descent of Man. I would not want to misrepresent SciAm, but I object to their misrepresenting Darwin. As Nerdseeksblonde said, if we can't complete the quote SciAm mined from the original, we should just drop it. But I think if I delete it, Dave will restore it. No point in that. That's why I'm going to try to go up a level. I still cannot for the life or me understand why a primary source is banned, unless maintaining political correctness is a greater goal than accuracy and truth. For example, in the Wiki article on George Washington, footnote #32 leads to Washington's original writing, not to a book or magazine or newspaper. That's all I'm requesting.

Is the difference between the Expelled... article in Wiki and the one in George Washington that one is a movie review? No, can't be--the reviews of Mary Poppins and Secondhand Lions, for two examples of Wiki reviews, are not so carefully footnoted. This is what leads me to the conclusion that it is to protect Darwin's legacy at the expense of suppressing what he wrote. Just take a look at Dave's talk page to see what a champion of Darwin and opponent of creationists he is.

Please show me where I'm mistaken if I am. Yopienso (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey again, Yopienso. I'm definitely not an expert on wiki policy, so I'll be following the mediation (or however this discussion continues). I still think that the quotation is fine as is, but the reason gets more subtle. If the article was on Darwin, or Darwin's views, then I would be siding with you, but the article in question is on a film, and this section is specifically about what the film says about Darwin and eugenics, and how the experts respond to the film's claims. Because Darwin couldn't have responded to the film (he's dead), we can't use his words. We have to use an expert's interpretation of his words.

It's a -very- small leap to guess what Darwin might have thought about eugenics given his entire passage, but in this case it is a leap, and that's where the OR and SYNTH comments come from. You're making an assumption (albeit one that's very natural to make), and on wikipedia, in this case, we can't let that assumption in. We have to use the assumptions and responses of experts, even if their perspectives are incomplete.

I really don't think that Dave et al are trying to "protect" evolution or obfuscate the issue, I think that they're trying to uphold a subtle piece of NPOV. But again, I'll be watching to see how the discussion goes....Quietmarc (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Out for a few days...

Hi - just to let you know I'm off for the weekend (it's Friday night here) so I won't be around to carry on the mediation until my Monday morning (Australia time).

I can certainly see both sides of the issue at the moment. I think you have a very strong point in that it is clear that SciAm misquoted Darwin in order to accuse Stein of misquoting Darwin.

However I also see the argument that anything we do that even hints at making that observation could be deemed as a violation of WP:NOR, and that could easily include extending the quote beyond what SciAm used. You are also basically at risk of appearing to comment on the SciAm article instead of the documentary, (this is why I asked about the "direct relationship" issue).

Of course mediation has yet to continue and I stress that I have NO authority whatsoever to "judge" the issue. I'm just speculating on how things might pan out, based on my years of policy experience. I don't think anyone is trying to bias the article in any direction.

I'd also advise you to avoid EVER using the phrase "common sense". Although I know exactly what you mean, this phrase has a charged meaning in Wikiland. Everything on Wikipedia now gets done in terms of policy, basically because no-one can agree on what constitutes "common sense".

While I am away, please look for a secondary source (eg. a different article) that illustrates this selective quoting by SciAm in the context of the film. If you can find one then this entire dispute will automatically disappear. (The web comment you found doesn't count, unfortunately).

Talk on Monday, Manning (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up as well as for your ear and advice.

Odd--official Wiki policy requires using common sense. I've edited my comment to show that. It seems the letter of the law here is violating the spirit of the law--obviously the intention of the policy is to prevent cranks from blathering on about all kinds of nonsense, or, conversely, hopeful writers from trying the public waters at Wiki first. I realize policy develops as situations are encountered and this clause may be obsolete. Too bad; it seems designed specifically for cases like this one, where I'm not making anything up but just want the whole context given. I think the very fact that people objected to including the last sentence reveals a bias they hold: Never allow anything--not even his own words--that could possibly be construed as casting Our Exalted Darwin in a poor light.

Policy can never cover every situation; therefore common sense is required. That's why we have the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution--no amount of legal logorrhea can ever cover every contingency. (Oh--you're Australian--they just basically say, "We couldn't list all the people's rights, and whatever we didn't take from them is still theirs even though it's not down on paper.")

I can't understand why I have to find a reliable article that comments on the biased SciAm article. Of course I won't find one. Who goes around writing things like that? I've never caught, for example, USN&WR second-guessing somebody else's article. Why not just ignore that article and compare Stein's quote to Darwin's original? There's no synthesis there--it would go, "Stein said blah-blah-blah. Darwin's actual text reads blah-blah-blah." I don't see how insisting on saying, "Smith says Darwin said" makes for a better encyclopedia than simply, "Darwin said." In fact, this whole process has taught me Wiki isn't half the encyclopedia I thought it was. Encyclopedia Britannica hires knowledgeable people to write accurate stories. During this process I've discovered Jimmy Wales actually said he doesn't care what the truth is; all he cares about is that his policy is followed. It's his site and he can make whatever rules he wants, but now that I know them I respect the work far less. At least I am fair warned and will be alert in the future when I consult it on any subject that has any PC issues: do not trust.

Just to check how correct my conclusions were, I very appropriately added some information to the article on Richard Sternberg. Shot right down. I'm not going to argue with the PC boys over there. Finding websites that contradict each other has been frustrating. I have given up knowing the truth about the Smithsonian-Sternberg controversy. Somebody or everybody is lying and I have no way of knowing who. Certainly have to take Wiki's PC stance with a grain of salt. Nobody cares that the Mary Poppins article is poorly sourced, nobody cares that an article I wrote on the Caqueta River is unsourced. No, there's an agenda here: allow all kinds of shoddy work, but strictly keep the PC gate.

I do appreciate all the excellent editing people such as yourself do, all the effort to bring order out of chaos, to revert vandalism and weed out cranks and take time to listen to honest but perplexed people, to say nothing of writing and correcting.

I will be very busy the next couple of days in preparation for a short trip Sunday and Monday, and may just have to drop this, which might be a mercy. I had originally planned to appeal all the way up the line to the very top but, honestly, I've lost my faith in Wiki and am losing the heart for trying to make sense of it all.Yopienso (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

PS It's 2:15 in the morning here and I'm drained and discouraged, feel like I've wasted days of my time. If later I regret being so morose I'll apologize. Have a great weekend!

Hi

Hi Yopienso, I only know about you because I copy edit Dave souza's article, such as History of evolutionary thought, Fertilisation of Orchids, The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, On the Origin of Species. I completely understand feeling morose. Don't lose heart! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi from me too, a clarification: History of evolutionary thought and On the Origin of Species are articles by Rusty Cashman, I've helped out a bit with these, particularly the latter one. Thanks for removing your remarks about Shoemaker's Holiday, my feeling was that it was worth going ahead with mediation without bringing him into the argument but his views will still have to be taken into account, however bluntly they've been put in the past. As for the issue of using primary sources, our aim here has to be to use secondary sources for any interpretation or selection to avoid introducing our own interpretation. This is the opposite of good scholarly practice for historians, but makes sense where editing is open to everyone and we can't check expert credentials. Some use of primary sources to back up secondary sources is welcomed, but of course it's a bit of a judgement call. Not always easy, as I've been reminded! . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Yopienso...I've been eavesdropping on the talk pages of Dave and Mattisse regarding the mediation, and have noticed that you seem somewhat deflated by how it's progressed. I'm hoping that we can continue this, as I'm fairly new at being active on wikipedia (long-time lurker), and this is one of my first opportunities to see how mediation works from beginning to end. From what I've seen, this is an ideal situation, where the editors involved are assuming good faith and are willing to devote their time to resolving this.

To digress a bit, I ended up "defending" wikipedia to my dentist this morning when he mentioned how the pages change every day. What I told him was that at least these articles are sourced transparently, but what I could have elaborated on (had his hands not been in my mouth) was that for every article, the development is completely transparent: the discussion about this relatively obscure point on a relatively obscure article is recorded...any user can read the Expelled article and, if he cares to, follow the discussion about Darwin's full quote, the SciAm article, and the questions of what those editing choices mean.

On many (evolution) articles, many of the discussion page comments are more about ideology than about improving the article, so it's refreshing to see people engaged in a sincere attempt to grapple with wiki policy and to make the encyclopedia better. This is not to say that I'll agree with you, but I've appreciated your honest attempts to follow through with this issue, and I hope you are able to find the motivation to continue. Quietmarc (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Yopienso. You have new messages at Bazj's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. Bazj (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

and again...

Hello, Yopienso. You have new messages at Bazj's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. Bazj (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've created a talk page for that user--wonder if he'll ever see it.  ???

I've never done a Talkback; crossing my fingers to do it right. Yopienso (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Latin America HDI

Hello there. Thank's for your help to translate the Spanish text. How do you can see English and Spanish aren't my primary language. I think that the editors should make a decision in this article. I already post a source saying what we can't make this list, but the user Prodigynet are very authoritarian and always undo my changes and he even tried to block me. I suspect that him has other accounts, like TownDown[1] and now PuebloUnited[2]. If it's true, it goes against the rules of Wikipedia. Why don't you review the page [3] or ask to editors to review? Thank's very much.--Italodal (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit

Copy edit means I go through the article to make sure it is well written, with no grammar or wording errors. I am usually not the content expert. I did not know there was a mediation over evolution. I do know from experience that mediation can be very difficult and draining. I was interested in you because I thought, perhaps, you are fluent in Spanish. Also, you have such a wonderful way of expressing yourself. I wish I could copy it! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

February 2010

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must respectfully yet emphatically disagree with you. As I said, I spent many hours working with a number of editors on this. I will not get into an edit war with you, a PC gatekeeper, nor a discussion here, as we both know what I said yesterday is true. If you want some history on my hours of work and good faith attempts, see archive 11 on the EE article and this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-07-07/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

Dave Souza I have found to be a respectful person. He and I are of different persuasions, but able to communicate intelligently and politely. He has integrity and follows the rules by his lights, as I do. Several other editors exhibited the same good character; a few did not.

Wikipedia is definitely PC and does have a strong controlling bias. As I said in the helpful comment you removed, once a user recognizes the bias, Wiki is doubly useful.

Happy Valentine's Day! Yopienso (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop referring to Wikipedia as "wiki". "Wiki" is either a Hawaiian word meaning "quick" or a type of software. Wikipedia is a wiki. It would be like me referring to you, randomly, as "editor" and expecting everyone to know I meant you, specifically. Its nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the faux pas

I am still trying to get used to Wiki etiquette. Thanks for your advice. I am hoping that there is a chance that Wikipedia could be better. I agree with you that there really isn't much out there that isn't biased one way or the other. But I think that it is possible to make Wikipedia better, even with the current rules and the biases of the senior editors.

I made my changes to the Richard Sternberg article and will move on the Expelled after a few days.

I am not asking you to get involved, and I think that I can win when I move my debate back over to Expelled. But I am not asking for your help. I just thought you might be interested since you had a similar experience as I.

Anyway, God bless you and let's keep in touch.

Math Mathezar (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Souder Report included in Wiki article

Yopienso, I thought you might be interested to know that I think that I will be able to get the McDiarmid quote from the Souder report included in the Richard Sternberg article. Then I will take the debate back to the Expelled discussion page. Some editor tried to use an article from Scientific American to "prove" that the report was unreliable. But failed to read the entire article which stated that the quotes and appendix of the Souder report ARE reliable.

Anyway, I think I have won this round. I expect that when the Sternberg page is corrected all heck will break loose when I move the discussion back to Expelled. Thanks for your advice and pray for me as this debate heats up, as I know it will.

God bless, Math Mathezar (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I see your contribution has been allowed to stand, but unfortunately, the link to the BSW journal has died. Suddenly. Mysteriously. I was independently visiting that site myself yesterday in regards to the intelligent design article, and copied and pasted the the very same link into a document so I wouldn't lose it. Dead. Soon after I posted this link on Feb. 15, 2010,

http://souder.house.gov/system/uploads/31/original/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf?1254246064

the page went from being the full report with appendix to just the cover page of the report.

C'est la vie.

Absolutely no problem about any faux pas. Yopienso (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Etc.

Thanks for broadening my perception on the use of "Climategate."

You're a climber--cool! My son climbs mountains, frozen waterfalls, rock cliffs. I manage to climb out of bed in the morning! Best, Yopienso (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, may I suggest it's useful to bear WP:TL;DR in mind. On climbing, I don't do rock climbing, but Scottish hillwalking involves going up rather steep and tricky mountains, so "walked" rather understates that particular hill. Your son would probably have found it fun, but might have gone up the crags we skirted around! . . dave souza, talk 19:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, thank you, Dave. I conducted my own poll today and found the people in my immediate vicinity are quite unaware of the whole flap. Perhaps I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. Of 20 adults, 3 recognized both "CRU hacking incident" and "Climategate." The others recognized neither, but half of them were dimly aware of some trouble over some hacked emails somewhere in England that allegedly show scientists fudging data. This was a very casual, unscientific poll, but it did make me think I'm attaching too much importance to the issue.

"Omit unnecessary words!" The humorous part is that Strunk uttered that dictum thrice in a row for emphasis! As I have done on several occasions. Will try to practice what I preach without being a gruff Hemingway.

Here's my son a few years ago on a hike with two friends, one of whom created the pamphlet for the Park Service. My boy's wearing the black "jumper," as I think you call them over there. http://www.nps.gov/wrst/planyourvisit/upload/Skookum%20Creek.pdf Best, Yopienso (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

To whom it may concern

You are most welcome, and I greatly appreciate your acceptance. I will try to figure out how to archive comments, as I have absolutely no idea how that's done. Today I'm short of time in real life. You have already archived your talk page and removed your name from my comment about titles on the article talk page. The only other place I know of is above on this page with Dave Souza, on your notice above, and right here. Dave just may come by and at least point me to the instructions on archiving. If there are more comments you'd like me to remove, please advise. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The easiest way is to create a subpage of this page - click on User talk:Yopienso/Archive 1 and cut'n'paste the conversations you wish to archive there, noting in the edit summaries that you have done so. When that page gets inconveniently large, just start copying to /Archive 2. The full instructions as well as alternative methods are at Help:Archiving a talk page. Personally, I use MiszaBot| to automatically archive stale discussions. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Apollo 13 did not explode

The NASA pages you refer to were written as public relations and are not authoritative. Please read the Apollo 13 article which corrects the misconception and refers to the official NASA investigation. The word "explosion" is never used there; they determined that the tank ruptured or burst in response to the pressure, as it was designed to do, not "exploded" as ground control feared at the time (which is why they were afraid of engine or heat shield damage which never occurred.)

It doesn't matter if the whole world calls it an "explosion"; they are wrong.

A similar thing happened when the Space Shuttle Challenger was destroyed; it certainly looked and sounded to everyone involved like an "explosion" but the official investigation determined that was not what happened, and the Wikipedia article is very careful to avoid calling it an explosion. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This, "the tank ruptured or burst in response to the pressure," describes an explosion.

b. A violent bursting as a result of internal pressure. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/explosion

I'm curious as to why you want to avoid the word. WP is not a technical journal but an encyclopedia for the general public. At WP, it does matter what the whole world calls it. Please don't be pedantic. Yopienso (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is, why are you on a cruisade to keep the word in, and only in this particular incident? The world probably still refers to the "Challenger explosion."' Why aren't you equally concerned about Space Shuttle Challenger disaster? The exact same situation applies there, and the public perception of an explosion must be even greater. The technical analysis says it did not explode but rather disintegrated, and Wikipedia reports it as such. (Even I, myself was surprised by something I missed in the popular press.)

• The word "explosion" carries biased emotional connotations of serious danger, damage, and injury, usually involving fire and fragmentation into shrapnel. One would expect (emotionally) an "explosion" to do much more physical damage than occurred on Apollo 13. As it was, the damage was limited to the oxygen tanks and the fuel cells which killed the power; that was quite enough. The danger to the astronauts was that of suffocation and being entombed in a high earth orbit.
• I added the appendix to the review board's report as a citation, the same as is used in the Apollo 13 article in the section which explains the misconception.
• Are you familiar with the fallacy of requiring one to disprove a negative? Where is the citation that it was an explosion? Ron Howard and Tom Hanks aren't reliable sources. :-) The Review Board's report of course didn't get much popular press coverage at the time, and I don't think most people thought about it much over the last 40 years, until the movie came out, which I think reinforces perception of "explosion".
• Yes, I agree that technical details are beyond the scope of a biography; but technical ignorance of the public doesn't trump facts, and technical, scientific and historical facts are not out of scope of an encyclopedia. That said, it really ought to be unnecessary to go into the details here, which are covered in Apollo 13. But there seems to be a bit more in this section that is redundant to the article, including the sound link. Maybe Lovell's missions should be converted to main article links accompanied by brief descriptions, and this style should be used for all astronaut (and cosmonaut) biographies (in the classical space program; it obviously becomes impractical for Shuttle and ISS.) What do you think? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Justin. I would ask you to retract the word "crusade," however. Due to my accidentally posting on your page and my page rather than the article talk page, you may have missed my recent post on the article talk page with a link to an msnbc debunking of a Challenger explosion. I will put my comments on that page. Yopienso (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Accusations

You have made some pretty serious accusations of dishonesty against me. I have asked you for sources. Please supply the sources that you claim I have "ignored", or retract your accusations. Guettarda (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have been writing each other at the same time, so this may be redundant. 1. The sources are on the Archive 30 of the CRU talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_30#List_of_reliable_sources_which_use_the_term_.22Climategate.22 in several places: first, in a collapsible file at the top, then in a table further down the page. I have more recently posted two from the BBC and one from the UEA, which I will reproduce here. I'm surprised you didn't see it when I originally posted it; it still hasn't been archived, and is in the "Jimbo Wales' editorial status" section.

"Sir Muir Russell is currently conducting an Independent Review of the issues surrounding what has become known as ‘Climategate’ and we very deliberately made our handling of FOI requests part of the terms of reference. I look forward to receiving his report and as I have said before it will be published and I will act accordingly if he finds there is indeed substance in these allegations." http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/vcstatement

2. Please specify the perceived accusations.

I hope, if unable to come to an agreement on the issues, we can amicably "agree to disagree." 22:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As I explained in the section you linked to, these sources do not discuss usage of the term. The fact that you linked to that section makes it pretty clear that you are not acting in good faith. I'm fed up with your [Vulgarism deleted by Yopienso.]. Find someone else to harass. Guettarda (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, I am not interested in arguing with you. Please come by anytime you should wish to outline the issue to me in a friendly way. Yopienso (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Floppy Disk Drives and Media

Since this doesn't actually belong on the Floppy Disk page, Talk or not:

A selection of 3.5" USB floppy drives that you should be able to hang off any laptop or desktop with a USB port. Windows is certainly supported, but you might need to verify driver availability for other OSs:

http://www.cdw.com/shop/search/results.aspx?wclss=T8&cx=0

And some 3.5" media selections:

http://www.cdw.com/shop/search/results.aspx?wclss=T45&pCurrent=1

Rwessel (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness and helpfulness!  :) Yopienso (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul Hudson

The discussion in the article talk page is already getting fairly long but in case you're still confused, I thought I'd post a simple bullet point version here:

• Did Paul Hudson receive some of the e-mails that were contained in the hacked archive?

Yes.

• Who sent Paul Hudson these e-mails?

It is unclear precisely who, it may be multiple parties, it is clear it's someone who was part of the discussion and therefore had legitimate access to these e-mails.

• What did several blogs, the Daily Mail and other sources get wrong?

They imply that Paul Hudson was aware of the hack early on. This is clearly untrue, since PH had no way of knowing that the criticism he received as part of his everyday work, by people involved in that criticism would later be stolen and illegitimately release. Some even go as far as to imply that he was sent the entire hacked archive early on which is clearly nonsense since some of the e-mails are from after PH received thhe e-mails.

• Why didn't Paul Hudson speak up earlier before the hack?

Paul Hudson was planning to write an article or blog on the feedback he had received relating to his article, however as explained above, he had no knowledge there had been a hack, so there was nothing to speak up upon. There is no reason why he had to mention he had received feedback including criticism of his article.

• Surely Paul Hudson should have realised the e-mails he received were going to later be stolen and released by some third party?

Sorry Paul Hudson isn't psychic so he had no way of knowing that criticism he received as part of everday journalism were going to later be stolen by a third party and released illegitimately. If he was psychic he probably would be living in luxury with his lottery winnings and not worrying about all this shit.

• Okay even if he isn't psyhic, surely he should have realised that if people were criticising him, someone was going to get angry enough to hack into their computers and steal and release their e-mails including that criticism of him to try and embarass the people criticising him?

Paul Hudson is probably not that arrogant. Also Paul Hudson would be disappointed if he was, since few people even care about the criticism of Paul Hudson. Also, we have no reason to think the hack happened because people criticised Paul Hudson.

• Why is it necessary in the FAQ?

Several people are still confused by this point, including apparently you and the chairman of the ABC and still think Paul Hudson received part or the entirety of the hack early on, as explained above this is untrue, Paul Hudson knew nothing of the hack until he read about it.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Hi Yopienso

You wrote this on the ID page.

"This article covers a lot of great material and it helpfully summarizes the scientific consensus. But it seems like WP:NPOV is beginning to slip through disregard of WP:UNDUE. Noting in the lead that ID is "not science/pseudoscience/junk science" is totally appropriate, doing so five different times seems like a bit much--more than a bit really. Saying that there is a clear scientific consensus against ID is likewise totally appropriate, saying that the consensus is "unequivocal" seems like slight over-reach, especially considering the statement is connected to a footnote that states that "over 700 scientists" support ID. Also, some of the counter-points in the sections dedicated to the specific ID arguments give the impression that any stick is good enough to beat the theory. There must be better responses to "specified complexity" than Richard Dawkins' amateurish forays into philosophy that were met with chagrin by professional atheist philosophers like Thomas Nagel... not to mention the almost gleeful refutations by Christians like Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig. And Victor Stenger, against fine-tuning, really? The issue of fine-tuning's appropriateness on this page aside, given Stenger's marginal standing in the field and open misotheism, why in the world is he the go-to critic here and not someone like Martin Rees or David Malet Armstrong? I'm afraid that the FA quality of this article is in serious jeopardy. Please, regular editors, get the article in shape so it can keep its FA status. Eugene (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)"

I just want to say I appreciate your engagement against the nasty treatment of ID. Thanks. COMDER (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, someone named Eugene wrote that.  :) Yopienso (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review and Sternberg

I saw the little bit you had in here. It's a valiant effort, but I found there was a surprisingly high amount of obstinate thinking. For example, I found the "Sternberg paper was not peer-reviewed" questionable, and I noted that the citation allegedly supporting this claim did not actually support the claim (you can see how that went here). Incredible as it may seem, this fell on deaf ears, as did many other reasonable objections on various Wikipedia writings regarding intelligent design. Even now, this sentence, "Sternberg's claim of following proper peer review procedures directly contradicts the published public statement of his former employer, the publisher of the journal, that the proper procedures were not followed resulting in the article's retraction" still has the attached questionable citation.

Bitter opponents of intelligent design seemed almost immune to reason. While I can understand how one might not like the theory, the loathing goes to far as to (however unintentionally) distort the facts and ignore inconvenient evidence against dubious claims. --Wade A. Tisthammer (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia's like that, and there's nothing a person who tries to be neutral can do about it. Except try to be rigorously neutral and unfailingly polite. The rules are very good, explaining about verifiability, undue weight, fringe views, etc. It's the Wiki-lawyering that I object to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikilawyering Yopienso (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Scotch-Irish

Hello, Yopienso. You have new messages at ZScarpia's talk page.
Message added 02:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Consensus

Tony, and I tend to agree with it but fall short of endorsing

Right at the beginning of the thread, Tony says: "refrain from your proposed edit...Some severe flaws have been noted and to my knowledge they have not been addressed." How can that possibly be spun as an "agreement"? Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please AGF; I'm not "spinning" anything, but trying to cooperate with fellow editors in order to improve the article. Tony's later comment reads,

I'm quite happy if the lead summarises the known facts: hacking, death threats, ridiculous accusations, authoritative refutations, and ongoing investigations that have so far merely reinforced the ridiculous nature of the accusations. The fact that some sources are still pushing discredited accusations should certainly be mentioned, but only in the context that they have been discredited. Tasty monster (=TS ) 03:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I interpreted that as meaning he supports it as long as discredited accusations are shown to be discredited. I'm going to ask on the talk page, so if I misunderstood, he'll clear that up. Regards, Yopienso (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Hi Yopienso,

I am a PhD student at the Open University of Catalonia. I am currently preparing a research project about the governance processes in online collaborative communities, and I would like to kindly ask for your collaboration based on your experience in Wikipedia. Interested in participating? Please drop me a note in my talk page. This would take around 20 of your time.

Thanks! Aresj (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I saw your reply. Don't worry about the boxes, it'll be ok. Thank you so much!!! Aresj (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A la orden! I have a soft spot for students; my daughter did a survey for a college class a few years ago. The response rate was low but she learned a great deal about setting up a survey and all the legal responsibilities entailed. May be simpler in Spain. Good luck! --Yopienso (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. She's a Spanish major and an artist; had hoped to see Gaudi's work in Barcelona. Hasn't happened. Hope you take advantage of your opportunities. Yopienso (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Yopienso. Actually the UOC operates as a distance learning university. I've been several times to the campus, but most of the time I stay in Brussels, which is where I live. So, unfortunately I don't get to see Gaudi's work every day. About the survey, as you probably noticed is an early phase and quite open ended where I am trying to collect different ideas about governance. It's been quite interesting so far, and I expect to use the outcome in a more quantitative survey in a few months time. About legal responsibilities, I don't know if you are referring to the US. In Europe -at least Spain and Belgium-, the only ones I am aware of are the local variants of the EC's Data Protection Directive, but I've never seen a university trying to comply with them. In any case, there are ethical committes and guidelines that require, for example, not publishing personal opinions next to the name (even nickname) of the person that expressed them. Aresj (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Civility Barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar! I'm honored to have received it from you. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you're very welcome; your civility prevented my rudeness. And now I see how to format those things--you're my first awardee! Yopienso (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to the part about Darwin's allusion to Galton, I admit that was a hasty edit late at night and poorly executed. The fact, as we all certainly know, however, is that extrapolations from Darwin were used to found and further eugenics, which in its turn was so disastrously cabbaged onto and distorted by Hitler. I will make a better attempt to include that information.--Yopienso (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not without a reliable source specifically linking it to Expelled. Eugenics is a complex subject, not exactly based on Darwin's work, and of course Hitler got his ideas from Sparta rather than from Galton. Note also that Darwin referred to Greg and Wallace, and was critiquing rather than promoting their ideas. All of which is offtopic for the Expelled article. . . dave souza, talk 20:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sparta? California!

"Information about the California sterilization program was produced into book form and widely disseminated by eugenicists E.S. Gosney and Paul B. Popenoe, which was said by the government of Adolf Hitler to be of key importance in proving that large-scale compulsory sterilization programs were feasible.[28]" Compulsory_sterilization#United_States

http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/offSiteArchive/www.sfgate.com/

http://motherjones.com/media/2003/09/supremacist-science --Yopienso (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Good links, note the SFC mentions early ideas like "race and blood" which had nothing to do with Darwin, and "Galton's ideas were imported to the United States just as Gregor Mendel's principles of heredity were rediscovered. American eugenics advocates believed with religious fervor that the same Mendelian concepts determining the color and size of peas, corn and cattle also governed the social and intellectual character of man." This was the Eclipse of Darwinism when Mendelism largely discarded Darwin's views. Galton had promoted positive eugenics, encouraging good breeding, the US programs were negative, stopping "undesirables" from breeding. As for Sparta, the practices there were well known long before Galton, and Hitler praised them.[4] The Nazi eugenics article has a well supported quote from Hitler's Zweites Buch of 1928 about Sparta. . . dave souza, talk 12:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are always appreciated and reflected on; thanks. Certainly Hitler was influenced by many streams, just as we all are. Cambridge calls Darwin Galton's mentor in the last paragraph of this page. Besides being cousins, they were friends and correspondents. Darwin wrote a laudatory note to Galton after reading part of Hereditary Genius and hearing an enthusiastic report from his son about the rest. Let me reiterate that I am ascribing none of Hitler's abuses to Darwin nor suggesting Darwin would have approved of his cruel methods. You may want to review the amply referenced fifth paragraph of the overview of our Eugenics article. Yopienso (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Same page?

I wonder if we are on the same page. My comment here was not a criticism of your points, but a criticism of the cryptic comment by user:Kindzmarauli. I interpreted that one word comment as suggesting that comparisons to other articles were invalid comparisons. I thought your points were quite valid, so my point was to try to explain why they were valid, and invoking the OSE essay fails.--SPhilbrickT 15:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we are on the same page. My thanks were directed to you, and the rest to Kindzmarauli. After much consideration, I would be as happy to have the article merged to Al Gore and the environment as long as there is a redirect and it comes up near the top of Google. People will be looking to WP for info on the Gore Effect, and we should provide it. Regards, --Yopienso (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Another option

I am hesitant to totally remove, but how about using the html features to hide it:

off topic text hidden by consent of participating authors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
off topic text

Oh, that's cool! That must be what they mean by "putting a hat on it." Is the last tag supposed to say "hab" or "hat"? Only problem is that part of what I struck is in the middle of a paragraph. I could leave that as is and close off the "Oh, rats!" portion.

Thanks for getting back to me! Yopienso (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Yopienso. You have new messages at Diannaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please stay off my talk page

Please don't link to smears like that from my talk page. I don't want crap from you on my talk page. More importantly, I have asked you to stay off my talk page, at least until you retract your attacks against me. Guettarda (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Guettarda, I am sorry you took offense at my well-intended remarks and links. I understood you were seriously interested in whether the video was viewable. I am not promoting those videos, and I did not enjoy watching them, commenting to you, "The humor eludes me." I have again reviewed this and cannot discover what you perceived as attacks against you. If you don't tell me, I'll never know. I bear you no ill will, and my invitation of 24 March still stands. --Yopienso (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Taking comments from other editors out of the archives like you did here is highly frowned upon. Please stop doing it. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That was not WP:DE.

Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of

* disrupting progress toward improving an article, or

* disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia.

I was working toward improving the article and toward building the encyclopedia.

Who frowns on it? You, at least. I'm sorry you're unhappy. In an attempt to cheer you up I've deleted my direct quote and cast it as from an anonymous editor.

My understanding of archives is that they are preserved for future reference. This is the future, in relation to a comment from March. If I am mistaken, please point me to the appropriate rule. Causing frowns isn't fun for me. --Yopienso (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:TPO and WP:EQ. Proper procedure is to start a new thread and to raise the issue anew. Nobody pulls the comments of other editors out of archives and reopens old, contentious discussions in the middle of different threads on a current page. I think you did this to get my attention and to draw a reaction. This is generally referred to as "trolling". Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. I was familiar with WP:EQ but not TPO. I didn't find anything that deals specifically with a complete and direct quote from the archives. I did find "Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text," which would apply to my deletion of that part of my post on the Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy page. Was that OK with you? You have my permission to revert if you choose.

And thank you for telling me what you found offensive. It was only a matter of chance that the comment I quoted was by you; I would have used any comment from any editor who asked for a link and then ignored it when I provided it. So far my today's comments have been ignored, too, not only by you, but by those who deny "Climategate" is the most widely used term for what WP insists on calling the "Climate Research Unit email controversy." Maybe within the next 24 hours there will be some responses. It's too soon to conclude everything will again be ignored.

I had no intention of "trolling" you or in any way annoying or irritating or offending you.

I'll ask Dave souza to take a look at this when he gets a minute and tell me what I should have done and how to proceed to work constructively with you and others. at title, as one editor called it. Sincerely, --Yopienso (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC).

Response here to keep the discussion together: I'm sure Yopienso acted in good faith, but it's a valid point that reintroducing parts of old discussions acts as a diversion from the current discussions to improve the article. To support the statement that previous evidence has been ignored after requests, it would be better to summarise the points taken from the previous discussion and link to the archive section, while making a new statement on how you want things to go. Pasting large sections tends to lead to arguments about the earlier discussion rather than about the subject of improving the article. StuartH makes a good point that it's a balance between neutrality and common usage,[5] you've responded there so I'll try to add a comment. . dave souza, talk 08:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. This: "...it would be better to summarise the points taken from the previous discussion and link to the archive section, while making a new statement on how you want things to go," is exactly the sort of useful advice I've learned to expect and value from you and will try to remember if for another occasion. (Notice that another editor copied an earlier quote by Jimbo Wales and I don't find anyone raising a fuss about it.) Regards, --Yopienso (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Last word

It looks like you're determined to have the last word [6]. I think the argument is sterile, so you can William M. Connolley (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You asked a question, so I answered. If the question was rhetorical, I missed the nuance; sorry. Please, be my guest and have the last word, both here and on the other page. The agreement we came to on "Newsweek" was encouraging, and I'd like to continue in that direction.

Each individual edits at WP for his own reasons. Some think it's a giant online game, some like to see their words in "print," some are crusaders for "The Truth," some are more altruistic and generously contribute to the collected sum of knowledge, although I suspect there's an element of feeling good about themselves that's involved. I like to think I'm a selfless contributor, but what really keeps me here is the fact that the more I read and participate, the more I learn. Sometimes I bungle the information and sometimes the relationships and often the dratted footnotes; sometimes I'm pretty good!

You are far more knowledgeable about climate change than I, and I have learned from you. Recently a friend--a geologist who graduated from Yale before I was born, and you are the same age as my "baby brother"--told me about a newsletter he receives weekly, Fred Singer's. Thanks to you, I was able to tell him that some of the "staff" are no longer living and that it's largely Fred himself running that show. So, I'm sort of a "professional debunker," but actually not a pessimist. Not an optimist, either, but a realist, I hope. When I get to being a know-it-all I try to consider how I'm coming across to others and try to step back. That's what it seems I should have done with you. I'm sorry for my insensitivity.

I have no axe to grind, no job to lose, no reputation to win or keep, no money to make from good or bad science, but I would like to know the facts as nearly as they are ascertainable. Complicating my quest is the simple fact that people even more knowledgeable than yourself, such as Patrick Michaels, draw far different conclusions than yours. I like to imagine my understanding of the science and politics of climate change and the United Nations may help leave a better world to my grandchildren, but that would be true only if each of millions of grandparents collectively find the facts. That most likely will not happen.  :-( But at least my ignorance will not be willful. And, truthfully, I'm just naturally curious. Cheers! --Yopienso (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The openness issue is trivia. It is what the "skeptics" are reduced to when all the actual allegations have been rebutted William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

CRU Talk page mistake

I accidently reverted your comment, but immediately self-reverted to put it back it in. It was not intentional, I was on my phone and my fat finger apparently hit the wrong link. I apologize for doing so and assure you that it had nothing to do with your comments. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 11:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by. Absolutely no problem! --Yopienso (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

ID collapse

Ya, I've no problem with you collapsing the long quotes, it's a good idea I meant to do myself but never got around to. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming by. I'm working on a comment right now. I appreciate working with you and want the article to be informative, concise, and focused, neither omitting pertinent facts nor overlapping other articles. --Yopienso (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: The right and tabloid sources

iPhone won't let me respond to your last point on the CRU talk page because someone appended another discussion to the bottom, so I will very briefly respond here if you don't mind. Your last response brought up the "right" and the use of tabloid sources. In a way, you have touched upon the crux of the problem. This is not a left or right issue at all, but some sources are making it one. Tabloid sources that are focused on infotainment (such as middle-market sources) should also not be used. Please try to focus on writing an article that adheres to the timeline, and you'll find most of these problems will vanish. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Viriditas, and welcome to my talk page!

• No, I didn't bring up the right; I was responding to ChrisO, who brought it up and emphasized that this is a "partisan controversy." See his comment of 20:34, 24 July 2010 on the CRU email c. talk page. I largely agree with him; see my comment of 01:22, 2 July 2010 and Tony's immediate response at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_34#Penn_State_clears_Mann_of_all_wrongdoing.
• No, I didn't bring up the use of tabloid sources; you did. As long as the Daily Mail is on our list of reliable sources it may be used, regardless of our personal opinion of its format or contents or target audience. But we could throw that resource out and still document the fact that the cry of "Whitewash!" has arisen, whether the cry is true or not. So I'm fine forgetting about the Mail in this instance. I'm not fine with your peremptory claim that it can't be used.
• I don't know what you mean by adhering to the timeline.
• Old business: Please don't jump in and edit a passage under discussion like you did here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=374925329 Join the discussion and work with your fellow editors. Ignoring my two civil requests that you self-revert did nothing to promote a collegial atmosphere.

Hope you're having a pleasant day--it's 57 degrees and drizzly here. Best wishes, --Yopienso (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there's a language barrier here. To "bring up" something does not literally mean or imply that you were the original writer. This is conversational, not formal. I am using these words only to point to your reply and provide a context for my comments, as I cannot post to the thread. I know exactly what you were responding to, so that's not the issue. Your reply reads as a deflection of my concerns, so I will touch upon them again: This is not a left or right issue. Sources that attempt to paint the topic of climate science as coming from the left, are using this topic to push a POV rather than address the issues, such as the criminal breach, the attacks on climate science, and the coordinated and manufactured controversy spread throughout the media like butter on toast. There are issues on law, science, journalistic ethics, and the role of special interest groups who interfere with and manipulate the public discourse. Lots of things to talk about here, none of which require the opinions of tabloid sources or partisan editorials. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I respect your opinion that this is not a right or left issue. ChrisO, Tony, and I--and many more--have a different opinion. I'm not getting what this has to do with my contributions to the article. I'm not denying the criminal breach, the attacks on climate science, or that the controversy has spread throughout the media. Do you agree there are allegations of a whitewash? Do you think they belong in the article? Why or why not?

Would you like to explain to me what you mean by "adhering to the timeline"?

I may ask Dave souza to look at this. He's made some largely ignored suggestions about sources. Maybe some of them, along with the NYT, WSJ, and CJR can form the basis for "Media reception." --Yopienso (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sticking to the timeline means writing about the data points we can all agree upon. Disagreements arise when an editor tries to spin it in a way other than what it simply appears to be, based on giving undue weight to a certain POV. The Climatic Research Unit email controversy article has many similarities with the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article and suffers from the same type of problematic editors. The same arguments that claimed there was a "whitewashing" of Obama's birth certificate are now being recycled to say the same thing about the CRU and climate scientists. No amount of evidence will ever be enough for the birthers or the rabid climate denialists, so their continued harping needs to be given the weight it deserves. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Lolwut?

Climategate. It has largely lost its pejorative sense

How did you come to that remarkable conclusion? Can you summarize with a brief statement? Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When Nature News.com, the BBC, the NYT, etc., use it as a neutral noun to name the idea/event/hacking/scandal/whatever with no intent to criticize or pontificate or besmirch, it tells me it has largely lost its pejorative sense. :-) --Yopienso (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Just click on some of those links that were dutifully compiled.

We have sources saying it is pejorative. Do you have sources saying it has lost this sense? Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There don't have to be sources that SAY it's not pejorative, there just have to be sources that don't USE it pejoratively. Consider this one: "I am not so naïve as to think it will go away. Years from now we will still be hearing the same baseless accusations of fraud and arrogance that made Climategate the non-scandal that it was." http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/07/12/128465098/climategate-closed-lessons-at-the-edge-science-politics-and-the-future Adam Frank is not using the word in a bad sense, but thrashing the people who brought it on. Did you check out any of those articles we list compilers claim use "Climategate"? It's impossible that you not be aware of this if you have looked. --Yopienso (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Yopienso. You have new messages at StuartH's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

request

Could you comment on whether i've quoted you correctly, and captured the context of your comment, at the bottom of this thread? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I had a bit of trouble once over failing to extend that little courtesy. I hadn't realized it was expected, and never expected it myself, since every page declares, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." This is the first time I've been asked--also possibly the first time I've been quoted!--and it is an agreeable nicety.

OK, I didn't take the time to read that whole contentious page, but, at a quick glance, I think you understood my thought and quoted me correctly. Have you seen my second comment? What confuses me is Jake's removal of the tag July 1. --Yopienso (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you understood my thought and quoted me correctly.

Are you quite sure of that? KDP asserts you support his contention that the "2 uses" of "Gore Effect" are the "same subject". Based on your comments, I'm not confident that's accurate. Is it? Either way, your comments in the dispute resolution section would be welcomed.

What confuses me is Jake's removal of the tag July 1.

Of the editors who elected to comment in the dispute resolution section, NONE supported KDP's assertion. After a week, I regarded that as a "consensus" resolution to the question and, based on that determination, removed the tag. Upon KDP's assertion that "consensus" had NOT been attained, I re-inserted the tag. As of yet, there has been no support thus far for KDP's assertion either from KDP in comments specific to the issue or from other editors. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So, do you think the tag should be there or not? I'm saying it shouldn't be, and I've interpreted your comments to say it should be. I really don't have anything different to say than what I wrote on the talk page under "factual accuracy" 15:59, 4 August 2010. Feel free to copy any of it and paste it elsewhere.

If I'm not understanding you, please explain again. --Yopienso (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So, do you think the tag should be there or not?

Your question somewhat puzzles me. When the issue is resolved by consensus (which it apparently has been save for KDP's sole assertion), I will remove the tag. As you are aware, I had already removed the tag on July 1 and considered the issue resolved by consensus until KDP objected.

I really don't have anything different to say than what I wrote on the talk page under "factual accuracy" 15:59, 4 August 2010. Feel free to copy any of it and paste it elsewhere.

A simple yes or no will suffice. KDP contends that you support his assertion that the "2 uses" are the "same subject". Yes, you do or no, you don't? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"NONE supported KDP's assertion" - sorry but as has been pointed out before, once you keep repeating things, and start ignoring what people have said in other sections - then people will start ignoring your comments/sections, Since they have already given their opinion. This was such an instance (and it was pointed out to you). That is why people keep pointing you at WP:STICK --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A section has been established to resolve the dispute in question. Neither your reticence to discuss the issue there nor your apparent suggestion that other editors comb the archives for the purported (and non-existent) evidence of support for your assertion is going to wash. Whether you defend your assertion there or not is your choice but, pending no further editor comments in defense of that assertion, I will remove the tag as consensus-resolved against your assertion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The subject of the article is "The Gore Effect" - that particular subject has several meanings (sub-subjects), one of these is the humourous one, and another is the effect Gore has had on the debate. As simple as that. You've been arguing over several sections that this isn't so - including arguing that the AfD close was supportive of your interpretation. Others have disagreed - including - but not solely (as evidenced) me. And that is what you are ignoring. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not expected, but i think that it was necessary in this particular instance. And yes, i did see your comment - but am still getting "up-to-date" again after a small vacation :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, maybe I get it now:

• Jake thought the tag was unnecessary and removed it on 1 July.
• Kim can't bear an article that could in any way be construed as critical of Gore/AGW, even as a tongue-in-cheek pretended meteorological phenomenon--and says the article gives undue weight to what is, in fact, it's subject. (Wow!)
• A POV scuffle ensues.
• Count me out! I've commented at the article talk page. --Yopienso (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - i think you've misinterpreted me - but thank you for your comment, since it did exactly what i requested: clarified your view. Sorry for having bothered you (and even more sorry for having given this impression - its a bit of a long story to catch up on, i guess.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yopienso, you're almost there...but maybe not all the way. It was I who initially applied the {{dispute}} tag in the first place...then initially removed it on July 1...and I would appreciate an answer to the yes or no question I posed above if you can see fit to do so. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can count me out of the picture for the next couple of weeks [7] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was a little curt last time, huh? My apologies to Kim if I wasn't diplomatic enough, a recurring failure of mine in real life.

Jake, since this is more complicated that it looked, I'm a little nervous to "give a simple yes or no answer"--ironically so, since in real life I sometimes demand one. I'm just afraid I've still not got the question straight and will agree or disagree with something I misunderstood. There's an overly-nice distinction here between "title or term as subject" and "idea as subject." Since I really don't want to bat this back and forth, I'll restate the questions as I understand them and give simple answers.

• [Q] Is the humorous application of the "Gore Effect" to cold weather during AGW conferences the subject of the article? [A] Yes.
• [Q] Are there other applications of the same term, the "Gore Effect"? [A] Yes.
• [Q] Should note be made that the term has other applications than the humorous one? [A] Yes.
• [Q] Should the other applications of the term be given equal weight in the article about the humorous application? [A] No.

Wise decision, Kim, and one that makes me realize how foolish I would have been to have rushed over there and ripped that tag off myself. This response about exhausts my time and thought on this subject. Cheers all around! --Yopienso (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your considerations thus far and I'll not pursue this with you any further...but I'd be less than honest with you by not pointing out that you are apparently not grasping the significance of KDP's reticence to either A. discuss the issue to consensus resolution beyond stating his position and B. his concurrent obduracy in insisting that there is, therefore, no "consensus" on the point in question.

While your observations are appreciated and somewhat helpful, they do not really address the nexus of the issue which is KDP's assertion that the "2 uses" are the "same subject". That contention, were it to be consensus upheld (and just so you are fully aware), would close the door to ANY separate treatment of "other uses" under WP:POVFORK...which is KDP's stated position. I am aware of your opinion that RS sourcing of those "other uses" would not currently support it's own article treatment but that opinion is not shared by at least 3 editors (myself, Mark Nutley and Hipocrite) and probably several more.

Assuming no further input on the question from those who might support KDP's position, I will shortly be removing the tag (tagged since June) and declaring a consensus resolution against KDP's assertion. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much, Viriditas. --Yopienso (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Yopienso. You have new messages at RadioFan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI - Courtesy

For your consideration, please be advised that I have referenced your prior comments to Talk:The Gore Effect. While I believe I have accurately represented your prior contribution, please contribute any further clarification that you might deem to be warranted. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. You may have noticed I'm not around much these days; too busy in real life. Best wishes! --Yopienso (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

AD v CE

Thanks for the heads up. Not sure how I got the impression that this was a settled issue. de Bivort 17:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Guess you missed it when I posted it on the Vinland talk page in June. :-) Best wishes. --Yopienso (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Ball

As you can see, the article has been deleted by User:NuclearWarfare. Too bad we hadn't placed bets on which administrator would decide the fate of the article... Anyway, thanks for all the work you did, it was a pleasure meeting you. (I was looking forward to the criticism section, it would have been a learning experience for me.) - Josette (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Josette. I enjoyed meeting you, too. I was shocked by the decision, which does not begin to reflect consensus. Does just one Grand Poobah make it alone? Serves me right for stealing time from more pressing real-world duties to indulge in a fun hobby. I've learned my lesson and won't waste time like that again. I'll stick to fixing the little things I run across as I read articles for my own information. --Yopienso (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you this and this? How the drama abounds! - Josette (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal Society

You may have missed my talk page entry explaining why I removed a paragraph about an affair involving Michael Reiss from the article. I messed up putting it there and somebody messed up cleaning up my mess. It's back there now. --TS 22:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for AGF. I didn't see the talk page entry, but it's not much different than the edit summary. Imho, the point is worth noting. As far as "recentism," I've seen that term on talk pages, but can't find a WP page on it. To me, something 2 years old isn't recent, but it's entirely possible misunderstand the term. I apologize for failing to check the article talk page and for reverting before discussing. I'll self-revert and give my reasons there for including the paragraph. --Yopienso (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just so we can keep discussion together, would you copy the substance of your comment above to the article talk page? --TS 00:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM - it is a fairly popular essay expressing the point that due weight needs to be considered in a historical context. When a news item hits the media, we sometimes get a bunch of people helpfully adding the material and fleshing it out until someone who happens upon the article might think that the organization or person in question was hardly notable before last week. There are also often issues with being able to represent all sides fairly or provide caveats and context from expert analysis. This occurs, for example, when a press release about the latest scientific breakthrough gets spread uncritically by the media, but we should not represent anything as more than preliminary until the results have been replicated. Responses from people other than the study authors are also essential for explaining how a result fits in with the broader theoretical and research framework.

No comment on the actual article here so I can finish sewing my costume for tonight. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and comments. Please look at the article if you can find time; Tony seems to have never gotten back to it. I'm thinking something appropriate would be, In keeping with its historic secular orientation, the Society only reluctantly accepted a priest as Director of Education and gladly received his resignation after comments he made about addressing questions students might ask about creationism were misrepresented in the media. A footnote could link to the story. I'll paste part of this into the article talk page.

Hope you had a fun party! --Yopienso (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Raw milk

Was the link there not working for you, or was there something else wrong with it? It works for me, but I might have a persistent cookie from yesterday or something. The link you found works too, so no worries - I am just curious. If you like the big blue quotes, use {{cquote}} - {{cquote|your text here}}. Set off and italicized is perfectly clear, so I have no preference either way except in-article consistency for similar quotes. ttfn, - 2/0 (cont.) 17:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

On this page from yesterday, footnote 13 Department of Justice (2007-12-02). "Democrats Seek Perjury Charge for Attorney General". Department of Justice. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C.R.C.-C.870/FullText.html leads to:
Internal Server Error

The Web server cannot perform the request. Please try again later or contact the Web server's administrator if the problem persists.

You may access this web site through its home page.

What I inserted goes to the statute. Had a dickens of a time finding it.

About the big blue quotation marks, I actually prefer them gone to be consistent--don't know why they were there in the first place--but I tried to avoid being so bold as to remove them. Cheers! --Yopienso (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal Society

Thanks for your invitation to a discussion on the Royal Society article. As luck would have it I bumped into Ironholds today off-wiki and he reminded me of the situation. I told him what I'll tell you now: the Reiss affair belongs at his biography if anywhere, and I don't think we'd be wise to import American "Culture War" ideas into articles about the most cherished and conservative of Britain's scientific institutions. The rest, from my previous comments, you know. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I suppose you have a reason for telling me here instead of on the article talk page. (My posting on your user page was entirely a mistake; I've sent an apology.) This is WP at its best: widening perspectives. On this subject mine has been entirely from the raging American culture war, and I appreciate your pointing out how limited that is. You've perhaps only a vague idea of how pervasive and Important it is here. And bitter. I have no desire to argue with Ironholds, however rude and arrogant he may be. You and Dave souza somehow avoid what seems to be typical with knowledgeable Brits. Guess I should get over it. And I suppose I should delete this tomorrow, but to me saying somebody who demands "a metric fuckton" of RSs and declares, "I WROTE the article" is rude and arrogant is not a personal attack, just a statement of sad fact. --Yopienso (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

PS--edit conflict there--you're as obsessive a tweaker as I! :-) One of these days I'm going to have to learn how to selectively archive this page; it's getting too long.

On second thought, this IS an overt attempt to keep the Royal Society's name unsullied, regardless of its biases and actions, right? Proper British victorianism, some things we just don't talk about? I dunno. Oh well, best wishes. --Yopienso (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Really it's about the historical perspective. Just because newspapers are filling up with pop stars, tits and football, and competent science correspondents are as rare as hen's teeth, I see no reason to dumb down Wikipedia's coverage from the standing point one of the world's great encyclopedias.

But I also want to make a clean break with a topic on which your path and mine have overlapped recently. I feel a need for a few months of quiet contemplation before considering whether to return. I'd rather our paths diverged from this point, as far as is reasonable. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Take care. --Yopienso (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)