User talk:Raymond arritt

If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page. If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I'll watch your page and reply when able.

An important note on email: All Wikipedia-related correspondence should be carried on here, in view of the Wikipedia community.

Anti-vacation message

For the next few weeks I'm going to be very busy in the so-called real world (field projects and such), so may not respond promptly to comments left here. Raymond Arritt 18:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Sorry I wasn't here to take your call. You can leave a message after the tone.

Your notes

I did see your talk posts to me. It's just with a busted laptop and various brush fires on-going, I can't properly get involved with something else like Steven Milloy at the moment. Thank you for the thank you re the Global Warming comments. I also agree that if the policy becomes too silly it will ultimately be ignored; we need to avoid that at least. The idea that I'm going to treat newspapers equivalent to abstracts in writing taxa sections on mammals (which I've been doing a fair bit of lately) is just so absurd on the face of it, that it's difficult to respond to. Marskell 15:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've commented on SlimVirgin's pageWP:V but won't go any further because I can't risk irritating admins too much. My approach will be the same as in other walks of life; when confronted with a truly idiotic policy, I'll ignore it. Raymond Arritt 15:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Current policy proposal

Hi there, the current policy proposal Here should hopefully deal with your concerns. The sentence "Academic and peer-reviewed sources are highly valued and should usually be given most weight in areas such as history, medicine and science." in particular is an accurate reflection of how articles are actually cited at the moment and how we, as editors, assess the reliability of sources. However, as I'm sure you appreciate, more flexibility is needed in other areas and non-academic sources have their place in science articles as well, but as the new draft says - "The appropriateness of non-academic sources always depends on context and they should not be used as the sole support for extraordinary claims." Tim Vickers 15:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim, thanks for your response. I agree with the new draft but have refrained from commenting because I don't have any illusions that meaningful changes to WP:V will be allowed, regardless of any consensus in their favor. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised, but I'm not betting on it. One point is that it the draft must be grammatically and stylistically flawless or that page's custodian will torch us on semantics. I'd like to give it a bit of polish once the substance is agreed upon. Raymond Arritt 15:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue of BLP and Michael Mann

We discussed this on the BLP Noticeboard and no one agreed with you. The Dutch science magazine I quoted is a reliable source and there is no reason Mann's misconduct cannot be discussed on Wikipedia. RonCram 16:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Milloy article

Hello. Given ongoing developments (or lack of development) at Talk:Steven Milloy, I'm strongly considering opening a request for comment on the conduct of User:NCdave. I find his approach, at this point, to be tendentious in the extreme, and I think that outside input might help move things beyond the impasse at which we seem to be stuck. As I realized when exploring this option, this would not be NCdave's first RfC; that would be found here, having to do with NCdave's tendentious editing on Terri Schiavo. In any case, I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject. MastCell ^Talk 04:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In my experience RfC produces a lot of venting but rarely has a useful result. It isn't a complete waste of time, as it brings the problematic behavior to the attention of others, but I am not convinced that the effort will be worth it in this case. Review of his Terri Schiavo RfC shows that he was engaging in exactly the same behavior that he has shown in the Milloy article (see e.g., here). If an RfC and two years more experience have produced zero change in his editing behavior, I doubt another RfC will matter. The sad fact is that Wikipedia has no useful mechanism for dealing with tenacious POV-pushers who simply try to wear everyone else down. Raymond Arritt 04:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. However, I'm not sure how else to move forward here. I'm seeing a clearly tendentious editor, with a history of identical behavior on other articles, who's essentially on a single-purpose crusade on Steven Milloy at the moment. After extensive efforts, I'm despairing that any progress can be made via discussion on the article talk page. I think a community sanction proposal or ArbCom case might be an eventuality, but an RfC would at least establish that in the opinion of outside editors, his behavior is unacceptable. If that proves unsuccessful in improving his approach (as I'm afraid is likely), then at least I would feel better about pursuing more advanced steps in dispute resolution. If we don't address his behavior here, then it will recur. He'll get tired of Milloy, as he eventually tired of his relentless POV-pushing at Terri Schiavo, but at some point he'll pop up on another article with the same behavior. I think we should address it, through whatever less-than-effective means are at our disposal. MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

let me just opine that you should be grateful for NCDave. He is removing a great deal of libellous material from wikipedia, which has been posted in breach of WP:BLP. His arguments may well be correct. I think the reality is that you do not like his viewpoint, and are not prepared to recognise your own partiality. I definitely recalling you [mastCell] supporting stuff on wikipedia which is demonstrably untrue. Peroxisome 10:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there are some areas where NCdave has had a positive impact and improved the article. Those areas are far outweighed by his tendentious, polemical, and utterly unconstructive approach to editing Wikipedia, which is why I suggested the RfC, and why he was blocked. What he's removing, for the most part under the fig leaf of WP:BLP, is well-sourced, notable criticism of a figure he supports. As to accusing me of "supporting stuff on Wikipedia which is demonstrably untrue", I'll let that entirely vague and meaningless accusation slide. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Pleased to meet you, I'm sure.

Did you even consider the possibility of approaching me privately and asking me to discuss? and then perhaps trying to mediate? Or did you simply dismiss any possibility that I might believe that I have a legitimate concern?

I'd like to think that I'd have shown you the respect of approaching you first, before I went off to escalate the situation.

No hard feelings, just an observation. Perhaps we'll meet in mainspace and get to know each other some day. Peace.Lsi john 13:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but what on earth is this about?? Raymond Arritt 13:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your post (back on june 25) calling me a pest. You're welcome to ignore it (this post). I just wanted to say hello and toss out an idea that you might consider for the next time you are in a similar situation. Peace.Lsi john 13:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I just saw it (your post), so my post to you is a bit delayed. No worries. Peace.Lsi john 13:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sheerness‎ FAC

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Sheerness‎ article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Peratt

I've started an an WP:AFD on the Perratt article here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Peratt. Since you've contributed recently to the article, I thought you might want to participate. semper fictilis 22:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

commented on my p. DGG (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

Re: your request that my edit be brought up in talk pages before I re-add it. I raised the issue in talk long before making the edit - its all there. I have defended my good-faith edit twice now, once accused of vandalism, once reverted with a "huh?," and no one defends their reverts on the discussion page. Your revert is the third one without any discussion. Karbinski 03:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wobegon University

Thanks for bringing this up properly--it does need discussion. I left a long comment at WP:PROF. (I'll tell you my bias--my experience is mostly at Princeton, & I have by now internalized their standards). DGG (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I have closed the FAR but I don't do many and couldn't find a guide so I may have got the templating/transclusion wrong. I leave you to tidy or let me know. --BozMo talk 07:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not an admin?!

Holy smokes - you're not an admin? This is a situation that needs to be remedied. I very rarely make RFA nominations, but would you object if I nominated you? Raul654 13:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Go on, accept the nomination William M. Connolley 15:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the vote of confidence but am inclined not to go through the process. I've PO'd some highly-placed people and the remarks on my user page probably wouldn't be seen favorably. But I'll think about it. Raymond Arritt 15:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, think about it. You'd be great, though you're right in that anyone who's taken a stance on controversial issues can have a bumpy ride at RfA. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. You are a much stronger candidate than many existing admins and although there is always a risk of a mob on a bad day I cannot see you'd be that contraversial. --BozMo talk 20:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a whirl. I've nothing to lose but my dignity and self-respect... Raymond Arritt 14:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, you have my full support. Tim Vickers 17:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Raymond arritt Raul654 00:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, can you please write an acceptance notice on your RfA, and answer the questions? People are fighting over whether it should be on the RfA page because you've not done so. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no rush, take your time. The battle seems to have subsided :-) --Deskana (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Raul, your attention to what will best serve Wikipedia is usually spot-on; I cannot imagine how you missed accepting a nomination or self-nominating. This is an uncharacteristic slip on your part, which thankfully Raul has caught and corrected. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job at quickly blocking the spammer. I know you will be a great admin!Brusegadi 01:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

FAR

No, my mistake. I should have known about the closing procedure but I had a reasonable look and couldn't find it documented anywhere. --BozMo talk 20:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be one of those "everybody knows" things that isn't codified, or at least isn't made as prominent as it should be. Sorry for the mess but that discussion has gone on for too long, and the signal has fallen below the noise floor. Raymond Arritt 01:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

Blogs by qualified individuals can be used as sources about various material if it is not a BLP. --Theblog 04:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:We aren't Citizendium

I became aware of this excellent essay in reviewing your contributions for your ongoing RfA. Alongside your excellent answer to SlimVirgin's optional question, this gives me a lot of confidence that you will be a very good admin. I wonder if, after your RfA is concluded, you might be interested in contributing further to developing policy in this area? Whether that would best entail developing the essay into policy or continuing to develop WP:V, or both, I am not yet sure. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the subject. Anyway, best wishes to you, --John 17:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

I just wanted to tell you that I really appreciate someone who's applying for this thankless job who actually edits articles, participates in contentious discussions, and, frankly, has a strong NPOV position (although I'm so unwilling to bend on the SPOV position, it causes me more problems than it does you). How you stay so nice is beyond me...I can't possibly be that nice. Orangemarlin 19:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better I'll set up 50 abusive sockpuppets, replace the main page with a shock site, and indef block Jimbo if I get the admin bit. Yin and yang, the balance of the universe and all that. (Seriously, thanks for the kind words.) Raymond Arritt 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So you're planning on scaling down from the 66 socks you have used so far? ;-) --Stephan Schulz 17:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, don't you know anything? Those are meatpuppets, i.e. a bunch of real people all conspiring to push a common agenda.  ;-) Dragons flight 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'm still waiting on the bribe money...

Ordinarily William is the puppetmaster, but he's on holiday. (Regarding your P.S., put it under the "incidental expenses" column on the expense report. HTH.) Raymond Arritt 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, given recent events, I am suspicious that User:Raul654 is a sockpuppet account that Raymond uses while at work. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good point! Notice how, for all their cunning, they fell for the old initials trap: RAymond, RAul. Also, both are white (15% chance) males (50% chance) from the US (5% chance) editing the Wikipedia global warming article (0.000001%, generously estimated). The chance that all this is true for two different humans is only one in 375 billion! Coincidence? Methinks not! --Stephan Schulz 19:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

White? Last time I saw a picture of either they were far too hairy to make out a skin colour... --BozMo talk 09:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet another "concidence"...? Raymond Arritt 14:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OH NO, I AM UNMASKED! HOW DID YOU FIGURE IT OUT? Raul654 19:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't escape the power of MathMan! --Stephan Schulz 19:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree

I agree that I was wasting my breath. But if even a tiny bit sinks in, then I've helped. She drug me into arbitration simply to get vindication and 'clear her name', and thats an abuse of the system. Peace.Lsi john 17:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, where were you when she was tossing out accusations about me? Where were you when she was calling me a liar?, a long term sneaky vandal? Where were you when she accused me of off-line collusion? Where were you when she accused me of MEAT puppetry?

Don't think I'm ungrateful for your helpful advice.. I'm just wondering where you were when she was attacking my reputation? I'm quite good enough to attack my own, I don't need her help. Peace.Lsi john 17:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved per your request

I moved the discussion per your request to here. Thanks Taprobanus 21:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For all your fine work, everywhere. MONGO 00:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

blush Well, thank you! Raymond Arritt 00:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an administrator - and with unanimous support! If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 01:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo - congrats - couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. --Kim D. Petersen 01:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Now my evil side can come out... I left it in a drawer somewhere, I think. Raymond Arritt 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I was hoping to see you go past 100 supports, but still, no opposes says a lot...fine job.--MONGO 02:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the mop club. Just don't let those new powers interfere with your good editing. Congratulations! Vsmith 02:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that no one opposed you tell's me that the community has complete trust in you. I am exicited that you are now a Wikipedian admin. I wish you luck in all admin descions. Politics rule 02:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. The unanimous approbation with which the community responded to your RfA is almost enough to restore my faith in the fundamental sanity of this enterprise. The extra tabs are well-deserved. If you're interested in checking out WP:SSP, let me know. Most of the cases there are pretty open-and-shut, but every now and then one pops up that requires some sleuthing. About adminship, I've found the learning curve to be a little steep, but as long as you don't block anyone you're arguing with and double-check potentially controversial actions on WP:AN/I, you'll be fine. I have no doubts about your judgement; I just hope admin responsibilities don't cut into your excellent contributions as an editor. MastCell ^Talk 02:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. In fact I was just checking out SSP and noticed you were active there. I'll have some questions for you about that later. For now, I've really got to finish reviewing this manuscript that's due tomorrow, so I'm going to power down the computer to avoid temptation to exercise my newfound powers... Raymond Arritt 02:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that I deeply resent the timing of this RFA! Not only didn't I get to support you as one of the first, now I'm also late with congratulations ;-). Good mopping! --Stephan Schulz 05:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Very glad to hear this, as I'm just now getting back from vacation. Knowledgeable and level-headed make for the best admin combination. Live long and prosper. --Skyemoor 04:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Mwahaha - he has come over to the dark side. Raul654 15:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Raymond - well deserved. Tvoz |talk 04:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto congrats from me too William M. Connolley 08:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Eagles / Don Henley

I'm sorry I don't follow you. I don't have a problem with the edit you quoted, its the later edits that take out ALL fansites regardless I am querying. For example [1] [2] [3] [4]. As far as edit warring goes, I've only done 2 reverts on each page and explained my reasoning on the ips Talk pages as well as leaving a message on the Talk page for the site. I am trying to resolve this in a civil manner but when the other party(s) ignore my messages and just keep reverting there is not a lot I can do. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Kelpin 17:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The bit about taking your own advice was only meant to say "be careful" and not as an accusation; apologies if that was unclear. Believe me, I know editing here can be frustrating but things tend to work out if you're flexible (and the facts are on your side). Consider whether your fansites have official status or otherwise are noteworthy, e.g., have been mentioned in the mainstream press. If the other parties violate WP:3RR you can call them on that but it's best for things not to escalate to that point. (PS: I saw the Eagles live back in the early 70's in a concert with Yes. What a mismatched double-bill -- I still recall the two bands sniped at each other, with the Eagles going on about Yes being pompous in their "fancy duds".) Raymond Arritt 17:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - someone has now explained their reasoning on the Talk Page - it was all a bit of a misunderstanding on my part so its all sorted now. I've seen the Eagles 4 times but the first time was in 1996 (I was only 11 when they split up the first time!). I like Yes as well - I'd have loved to have been at that concert! Kelpin 17:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

3rr decision

You did fine. Raul654 02:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Raymond Arritt 02:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Prechter

This bad-faith proposal which tries to turn a sarcastic remark by Malkiel into praise (while glazing over the most damning criticism with ellipsis) is precisely why we need administrator intervention. I don't mind editors with a COI editing, but ludicrous attempts to POV-push need to be dealt with.

Separately, on Elliott wave principle, I did not intend to remove the cite to the Wiley publication (which was already elsewhere in the article); it was a side-effect of reverting a POV-pushing edit that happened to include one legitimate cite addition. I've inserted the cite back. THF 21:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Record Task Force

Dear Raymond Arritt,
Thanks for your input regarding the climate change denial afd. I hope you will consider signing up with a task force several editors have recently started--we could use your help.

You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

Warm regards, Cyrusc 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage and blocking the vandal! - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. People shouldn't have to put up with stuff like that -- let me know if he comes back. Raymond Arritt 04:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal on Nantes page

The anon editor is clearly not looking to engage in discussion and consistently reverts and then writing messages like this [5]. in fact they are going close to the 3 revert rule [6]. it is clear that this user has no intention to act in a civil manner or gain consensus. another user has requested semi-protect but I believe it would be better to block this individual user. Please reconsider. Michellecrisp 04:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wp:vand#What_vandalism_is_not, e.g. "stubbornness" and other negative behaviors. If the editor violates 3RR or tries to game it (such as reverting three times each day or making a fourth revert at 24 hours plus one minute), that's a blockable offense. I can sympathize with your frustration having been through similar experiences myself, but there's nothing actionable yet. Raymond Arritt 04:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your response. the user has actually violated the 3RR rule but was not warned on the 2nd revert.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nantes&curid=67453&action=history what should I do? Michellecrisp 05:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Give them a warning and see what happens. Note also that 3RR is a little confusing; it means editors can't go over three reverts, so it's actually the fourth revert that triggers action. Again, trying to game the system is just as bad (or even worse) than violating 3RR outright. Raymond Arritt 05:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Advance apology for possible accidental 3RR violation

[7] I made a total of three reversions on the main article today, but when I started making the linked change in the talk page, you deleted the post I was responding to before I finished. I saw the edit conflict when I went to post, thought that it was someone editing another section, and restored my changes. If this accidental revert on the talk page coupled with the three prior edits to the main article pushed me over the limit, then I wanted to take this opportunity to apologize. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I just couldn't believe that rambling, off-topic screed from User:Rktect about the Spanish-American War and so forth, so reverted it. Apologies if you wrote something constructive that got caught in the crossfire, but please don't encourage such nonsense by responding to it. I'd block the guy for disruptive editing if I weren't involved in editing the article. Raymond Arritt 02:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In my post, I've just said that I'm done talking with him. You won't have to worry about it anymore. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you were gonna talk about me if you would include me in the conversation. Taking things out of context, characterising them adversly and ignoring wikipedia guidelines on civility doesn't help the global warming article.

The global warming issue in which the Spanish American War becomes germane is the world wide competition for control of resources that are viewed as having national security implications.

Global resource wars to control raw materials and trade routes have been ongoing and continuing for over a century. One tactic used to control resources is destabilization of governments through coups, assassonations and covert actions.

The vested special interests who are willing to go to war over oil have invested considerable funds in downplaying global warming and alternative energy. Their strong representation in world governments has institutionalized a system which is not easily remediated.

That isn't anything more than a reminder of why funds are being cut for scientific research on the topic and alternative theories such as global cooling are being pushed forward as fair and balanced by petrolium engineers

Censoring that issue by not responding to it is counter productive. The article should disscuss the reasons why funding for NASA weather satelites and other resources necessary for scientists to properly study global warming is being cut.Rktect 19:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

E-mails

Hello. You say you reserve your "right" to publish e-mails. Please note that if you do this, you are violating policy and an ArbCom ruling (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2#Private_correspondence). Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 18:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I'll just disable my email then. Problem solved. Raymond Arritt 18:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Great! Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 18:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Eddie has given you a mollusk! Mollusks somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 18:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm... mollusk! Raymond Arritt 00:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued arguing on Talk:The Rocky Horror Picture Show article discussion page

What does it take to get these two to stop? I have offered apologies and compromise both times that there has been a dispute, but this time Atropos and Kww are flying in the face of what you as admin have directed. They continue incivility towards me with every post I make on the talk page. Atropos feels that admin has no authority. (I'm not just saying that to make him look bad, he said that in a reply on that talk page which is archived)

This has gone on long enough and is now just becoming personal attacks on me. I have attempted speaking peaceably to both on their own talk pages with no success. I am getting very angry now and extremely upset.--Amadscientist 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got some very pressing real-world business to attend to but will have a look later, perhaps tomorrow. If you're getting angry and upset it's best to cool out for a while -- grab a beverage, crank some tunes, whatever makes you feel good. Editing when you're flustered is not a good idea as I know from personal experience. Raymond Arritt 00:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Best advice I have gotten in a long time. I will do so and stay away from the page for a while. I think I'll spend some time with friends.--Amadscientist 00:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Checking in

How's adminship treating you? I'd have sent an email, but I was afraid you'd publish it. :) Looks like you're keeping the banhammer nice and shiny. What good are the buttons if you don't use them, anyway? Seriously, looks like you're settling in well. Keep up the good work. MastCell ^Talk 03:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I became involved. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Nyuk nyuk... Probably for the best that I got rid of the bit about the email. I couldn't figure out how to word a disqualifier "this doesn't apply to you if you're sane", seeing as how the kind of person for whom the warning was intended will assume that they have The Truth^TM and it's everybody else who's misguided.

While you're here -- I'd be interested in lurking on IRC to see how the old hands approach things, but the admins channel needs an invite. Do you know how to arrange that? I've tried emailing a couple of the folks listed as operators but haven't heard anything. Probably best to discuss this offline (and no, I won't publish your email as a full-page ad in my favorite newspaper. Raymond Arritt 05:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've emailed you. By the way, the off-the-wall and profanity-laced emails are, I find, one of the highlights of being an admin. I collect them. You're missing out. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Toonami Page

• Thanks for locking the page =). I took the liberty noting on the request page that you completed the request for us. Enjoy your vacation =) --Knighthammer 04:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for the effort at helping keep Wikipedia accurate. It is difficult when others change things and ruin the creditability of sites like this one. --Bigddan11

Glad to help. Raymond Arritt 05:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:138.67.44.41

Hello Raymond, just wanted to let you know that WHOIS indicates that the blocked IP address belongs to a school. You might just want to leave the {{schoolblock}} template on the IP talk page to alert those who will be affected by the block. Seems like the guy was simply making use of his school's IP address.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Sometimes I forget to check. Raymond Arritt 18:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on becoming a Wikipedia administrator. I became aware just recently, otherwise I would have voted yes for you. I also want to say thank you. Not only are you one of the few who have understood my work here as an attempt to make it a better place, you've also defended me on multiple occasions when baseless attacks were made. For this I thank you. While I feel you are misguided on my position towards global warming, because I am willing to point out flaws being made, you've still given all due respect. You've made my time here worthwhile. I recognize your contributions here as exceptional, deft, and especially perspicacious. Keep up the good work. I wish you the best of luck on your future endeavors on this project, even if better spent elsewhere. I hope to work with you in the future, perhaps in other, more productive places. My deepest regards. ~ UBeR 02:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind words; they are most appreciated. I recall you are from the Twin Cities area -- hope all is well with you and yours given recent events. Raymond Arritt 02:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we're all fine. I was near the bridge when it collapsed though. For now, I, like so many other Minnesotans, lament those lost in this tragedy. UBeR 19:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Advice

I have been having trouble with an [User:Spartanad|editor] in the article Arnoldo Alemán. It has been reduced to an edit war. The article has been edited by three users in the past few days; the editor mentioned before ([User:Spartanad|Spartanad]), one other editor who reverted Spartanad's edit once, and myself (I have taken upon the taskk of removing POV.) The article is a bio of a leaving person, so just now I took care that all sources were placed in the right spots. There is also information the seems incorrect but I have left it in because it provides positive information about a living person, thus, I have only added 'fact-needed' tags. The editor has also failed to discuss anything in the article's talk page; although she has made a few comments on my talk page and on her talk page. I am not used to this type of scenario so I would like to know if you could give me some advice about this. Thank you very much, (feel free to answer here or on my talk page) Brusegadi 07:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that such discussions should be conducted on the article's talk page, where the issues will be seen by other editors interested in the article. I have left a message to that effect on Spartanad's talk page. A quick look at the article shows that you are indeed using reliable sources such as NY Times. Raymond Arritt 15:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Spartanad continues to make the same blanket reversion despite additional sourcing and numerous pleas on the talk page. Some of the his/her concerns seem valid, but she/he's using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. At this point, it's descending into an edit war. Could you help out? Notmyrealname 18:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have cautioned User:Spartanad about removal of properly-sourced material. Also it appears there is a new player on the stage. Sometimes the addition of new perspectives helps when articles reach a sticking point. Let us see. Raymond Arritt 19:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your action. I was trying to be a voice of reason there as well, but with limited effect. I'm hoping that once Spartanad understands the rules, he/she will start making more constructive edits. It would be appreciated if you could keep an eye on this for the next day or two (since you've already been roped into it). Notmyrealname 19:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh bother. Now User:Idpounder is pulling a Spartanad on both the talk page and the main page. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same person. Notmyrealname 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Idpounder is a brand-new editor to Wikipedia. In reviewing his(her) contributions I would be surprised to find that he was not a sockpuppet of User:Spartanad. I suggest that you file a report at the suspected sockpuppetry noticeboard to that effect, noting in particular the use of a sockpuppet to evade 3RR. Raymond Arritt 20:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sometimes it's hard to figure out where all the appropriate noticeboards are. There's another one as well that's just popped up. I had really hoped to avoid all this. Notmyrealname 20:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've taken care of this. Spartanad appears to be a fairly amateurish sockpuppeteer; see [8], where he accidentally comments from a sock account as if it were his main account, then tries to cover up the mistake. I've blocked that account, and Idpounder, as socks, and blocked Spartanad (talk · contribs) for 72 hours. No need to drag things out. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for stepping in. Raymond Arritt 20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Having just read this thread I am going to ask for unprotection, and with new blood we should be able to sort this out, SqueakBox 21:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

PRESS TV

I'm not entirely sure of their back story. I was just recently drawn to this topic from a noticeboard post. It seems that Perspicacite has an anti-PRESS TV bias and until recently did not use the talk page to accompany his reverts. Vitalmove seems to making an exaggerated claim of wikistalking to me. A PRESS TV-related AfD did not involve Perspicacite, and this user normally edits on topics related to Islam in Angola. It seems their paths first crossed here. Perspicacite reverts the article, and Vitalmove has developed a bit of an ownership complex. I don't think there's much to the charges on either side; just a typical revert war. Cool Hand Luke 22:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently he has not gotten the point as he is now personally attacking Zntrip from his talkpage.[9] Perspicacite 00:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts

Vandalism? Should I issue a block? Raul654 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. A quick check of his contribs shows the guy is a sporadic but constructive contributor. I'm guessing he's just a bit mixed-up on time scales, probably because his contributions show an interest in ice core work, i.e. long-term changes, which requires a different perspective on forcing compared with recent warming. Raymond Arritt 19:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe WP:VANDAL could help you. ~ UBeR 03:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, he's not a vandal. (If he is, he's certainly fooled me.) Raymond Arritt 03:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's my point; he so obviously isn't. ~ UBeR 04:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Guess I need to send my irony meter in for recalibration... Raymond Arritt 04:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility in side talks to the article on Michael MANN and William M.Conneley talk page

I have redirected your warning from temporary user IP page 82.243.22.25 to my logged-in page Xavdr. I have provided there explaination on what is happening in the edditing war on Michael MANN page dealing with "Hockey Stick" graph. I am quite shocked by the behaviour of the pair William M.Conneley and Kim D. Petersen acting as censors on this page, with underinformative, false and/or misleading arguments.

As an expert of statistics / data analysis, together with all experts of this field, I see the "Hockey Stick" world-wide famous shape as an artefact of a flawed analysis method.

However, the above mentioned pair protect the article on Michael MANN, the first of them simply reverting the changes, then in case of argument triggering immediatly the second of them (who is in personal conflict of interest on this page given his association with Michal MANN e.g. in their site RealClimate) inserting dilatory misleading rejections, so as the current biased content of the article is kept. See my talk page for more precise answer on the (un)civility aspects, about which I shall mention William M.Conneley's words "admit that you just made it up or copied some septic propaganda", "old tired nonsense", "total twaddle", "badly wrong" whereas his critics finaly appear to be mostly dilatory.

A few responses:

• Please sign your contributions using four tildes, like this: ~~~~
• If you feel Mr. Connolley has a conflict of interest, file a report on the conflict of interest noticeboard rather than simply using it as a point of argument. This principle applies more generally: either take action in the appropriate manner, or stop making accusations.
• Regarding Mr. Connolley's supposed incivility, saying something is "badly wrong" or the like may simply be a statement of fact. In any event, such tu quoque arguments do not absolve your own incivility.

Finally, you need not spell Mr. Mann's surname in all capital letters. Raymond Arritt 02:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a tu quoque argument. If anything, the fallacy would committed by the fool who asserts that because Xavdr did it, Mr. Connolley is excused. ~ UBeR 04:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt : OK. (among other points : "septic propaganda" is definitely not civil from William M.Conneley ; full upper cases are for all names in my writting convention but I will take care of not using it in Wikipedia side Talks)

UBeR : not OK. Fallacies (either plainly wrong or misleading) come from William M.Conneley e.g. about the graphs "un"available for IPCC 2001 : see talk beside the article on Mann for more details including William M.Conneley part ackowledgement facing pointers to other graphs. The current article is not balanced since it is proudly focussing on the "Hockey Stick" in spite of the fact the very shape of the "Hockey Stick" graph in an artefact of flawed statistics and this very shape made it (and its author) famous worldwide much outside the scientific community : you can read my user talk page as an expert in data analysis for more details (I assume you already know most of them ; maybe you do not know yet that in my field the "Hockey Stick" is used as a pedagocical example of flawed procedure).

--Xavdr 12:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry; I already recognize the controversy surrounding the graph and I recognize a few partisans here are unwilling to discuss them and will use all means to disallow any such discussion to occur within the article. Sadly, I can say with experience that your time here on Wikipedia is futile, and your time spent on subjects closely monitored by Mr. Connolley will prove fruitless. Email if you wish to discuss more productive endeavors. ~ UBeR 12:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh - and who is that? Btw. the proper forum is Hockey stick controversy. --Kim D. Petersen 13:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:WPP - ROC/Taiwan Related Article

Hello Raymond Arritt. May I ask why you declined this request: [10]? Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 17:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

When weighing these requests we have to consider the extent of the vandalism by some IPs and the amount of constructive edits being made by other IPs. On the pages that I looked at there was only sporadic vandalism from one or a very few IPs. It is a judgment call but for my part I would not semi-protect unless there were several instances of vandalism per day, from different IPs, repeated over a period of several days. Furthermore on most of the pages this was outweighed by constructive contributions from IPs. See Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection. Raymond Arritt 01:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

THF

I have every right to remove my own comment, that misrepresents me, and I wish as an admin you would confirm that to THF, or remove it yourself. He removes your warning, but leaves the comment - how old is this dude? --David Shankbone 01:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in principle; that was one of the points that I had hoped was implicit here. But consider whether you might be better served by letting it slide. Raymond Arritt 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have let it slide as I'm not continuing to remove it; I'm asking for admin help and to educate Ted Frank. He's the one in the wrong here, and since he has such a contentious and questionable edit history, I don't want my words to show any support for it. --David Shankbone 01:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, I was threatened with an indef block when I used an editor's full name after she changed her user id. THF 01:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you wanted to hide your real-life identity, but now that you're making that clear I'll gladly delete the comment. Raymond Arritt 02:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please email me

About an off-wiki emailed threat I received from a user using the Wikipedia mailer. THF 02:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Thanks Raymond. I was actually looking at Prester John and the other editors on that article when you messaged me. I've blocked him as well. Cheers, Sarah 05:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)