User talk:Polargeo/Archive 7

Overview Of Bible

RIP Shot down in flames before you ever got started

Cheers bud, I had to do something.Where is WikiOpinions? (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)<Signing Off>

You requested that it be deleted and said you had given up on it. If you would like me to put a copy in your userspace for you to work on then I can do that. Polargeo (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Mind reading

Polargeo, you may think that you know what someone else intended, you may even have your own opinion on how things should be done... but don't claim to know what a case clerk intended. It is not your place to judge whether the fact that a party before ArbCom does not know what the policy on verifiability actually means is relevant information. EdChem (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought that this was a fairly obvious case as it has nothing to do with CC articles and is fairly murky. Exactly the sort of stuff not needed at all and previously enclosed by Amorymeltzer. Please defer it though if you wish to drag this out. Polargeo (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did you even look at the diffs? We are talking about comments made inside the last two weeks that clearly indicate a significant misunderstanding of WP:V, a policy on sourcing. Plenty of climate change arguments are about sources, and I doubt that an editor who doesn't understand what WP:V means in some other area is going to miraculously understand what the policy means in climate change articles. The original (collapsed) materials were, as you say, murky. The diffs I posted were clear and directly on the point of sourcing policy. And no, I don't want the case dragged out, I don't whether ArbCom have come to a view about the relevant editor, and I've refrained from commenting on the case previously because so much of it has been unedifying (to put it mildly). EdChem (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay so please look at the case then. There is evidence and evidence and more and more evidence and ................................................................. ad infinitum about Marknutley. Unrelated topic area marginal skirmishes on the talkpage are just not needed at this stage in any way at all. Polargeo (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have looked, and read. I have been watching the case, just not commenting. I also remember the Mantanmoreland case, where there was a tsunami of evidence which ArbCom could not see or refused to acknowledge... and consequently, I think that being sure there is enough evidence on a topic before ArbCom is unsupportable. Incidentally, in the MM case editors were begging to ArbCom to be told what areas they wanted more evidence, just as has happened in the CC case - and just like in MM, the pleas have gone unanswered. Also just like MM, there will be an outcry about the proposed decision, because there are some areas where the evidence is compelling from one perspective and non-existant from another. This case is going to be a mess, that is the only certainty I can foresee. I do get why you think the recent contributions aren't needed. I even get that you see the skirmish as a behavioural issue from another topic area, whereas I see it as demonstrating a stunning lack of comprehension of a fundamental policy. However, I still don't believe it was for you to make any decision on its importance. EdChem (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make a decision on it's importance. Amorymeltzer did in closing off the discussion completely [1]. However, people then decided to continue bickering about it on the evidence talkpage even after Amorymeltzer's edit. Polargeo (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perspective is a wonderful thing. I read that edit as collapsing together all of the evidence offered by the thread initiator, rather than closing the discussion. If there had been any replies collapsed in I probably would have seen it differently. The diff has 'collapsing' as the edit summary, where I would have expected something like 'discussion closed' for the interpretation you put on the edit. Recognising that both perspectives are valid (at least in my view) I can see why you felt justified in acting as you did. It's a shame Amory's edit wasn't clearer as to whether the intent was to close the discussion.  :( EdChem (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I will not seek to obstruct if you wish to open out the discussion again. I will only advise you that I think it incorrect from my perspective. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed, evidence and workshop are closed, and have been for weeks. Amory has been routinely removing or collapsing additional attempts to add evidence since then. If your new evidence is allowed to stay, then I and probably half a dozen editors will chime in with new evidence against others, and the page explodes again. I believe that's what Amory is trying to avoid. ATren (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Request to other admin

In the thread of my request to the other admin, I mentioned recusal. I figured it deserved the actual item of interest to be posted, so I am posting it here. This was the MN incident, and this seems to have been the subsequent decision which I was referring to. I understand your advisement, but as a participant who it seems may have to be careful of perceived biases, I was just opting for advisement from someone who did not have perceived biases to worry about --- I didn't mean any slight to you by it. BigK HeX (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The recusal is not anything to do with Marknutley but completely separate and related to the fact that I have actually edited some Climate Change articles, therefore some editors felt I should not act as an admin in climate change. That is a tricky situation and is currently a major arbcom case involving several admins. It does not affect my advice to you. Polargeo (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem

I am currently expanding the article further, currently they are two newspaper articles in my possesion that speak of brothel system, and numerous publications on rapes and sexual violence by German forces in WW2. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

BitCoin

Hi, I'm going to start a deletion review into BitCoin, but it states first that I must try and get the administrator to take a second look, so I would request kindly that you take a second look into the deletion of the article. Thanks. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 14:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is that AfD is "not a vote" the keep arguments were extremely weak. You will not get the decision overturned. My advice to you is to develop the article in your userspace and try to make it stronger then get someone to look at it and give you feedback. There is nothing to stop you recreating the article if you can address the concerns but if you cannot then it will be quickly deleted again. Polargeo (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that you can put the old article in my namespace so I can work on it? Thanks. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 17:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course. I am very busy right now so I will do it later today. Polargeo (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 23:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I also came here to start a deletion review. prat (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Here it is. prat (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I have no intention of commenting there. I will leave it to the review to decide. I am a little disappointed that you are not helping Xenu to find third party sources and are instead looking at the high drama of a deletion review. Polargeo (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bitcoin

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bitcoin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Userfying articles

Hi. I happened to notice that you had userfied Bitcoin. There are two things you need to do after userfying an article: put {{userspace draft}} at the top, and comment out any categories. Just a heads-up - I've done them for Bitcoin. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks John. It's the first time I have done it and I did it in a rush. Polargeo (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove yourself from commenting at User talk:Lar

Unless the topic specifically relates to you, either as a party or an involved contributor, you should withdraw from opining at the above page; your comments do not result in the resolving of issues, since they often do not address the specifics but your perception of Lar's actions and their rationales, and neither do they contribute to an open and collegiate atmosphere. You seem incapable of not raising issues you have with Lar's manner of interaction, even though you have deposited many kb's of evidence in support of your stance at the ArbCom case.
I would confirm that I have raised this issue in precisely the same manner in which you earlier raised the matter of Lar's commentary upon WMC; you may choose to ignore or challenge it, as did Lar with your comments, or you may choose to example your preferred response. I would further note that I did allow myself to respond to hectoring at Lar's talkpage when signing up for withdrawing from editing CC/AGW related pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that Lar's talkpage is open. He regularly comments on issues of factions all over the place and includes me in this. Lar also recognises that his talkpage is an overspill of people not being able to comment at the arbcase and he is using it as such. You are not the policeman of his talkpage and veiled threats to me do not make you look good either. Polargeo (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also I have refrained from commenting at both the article talkpage and the GA review because of the current situation. That does not mean I am not following it with keen interest though. Preventing me from making any observations at Lar's talkpage is a little extreme and it is not your place to do so. Polargeo (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, from this point until the CC arbcase is resolved I will make no comment at Lar's talkpage unless it is directly to do with me or is in response to any replies to my comments currently already there. Polargeo (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of this request until just now. I understand where LHvU is coming from but I'm not going to hold you to this restriction. The only restriction I want to hold folk to is to not attack other folk on my page (other than me). Repeating yourself may not be effective but you are as welcome as anyone. ++Lar: t/c 15:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou Lar. I treat my talkpage likewise. Polargeo (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

TwoOne questions

It's a little weird how whenever I ask a specific person a question in climate science-related articles someone else responds. Anyway, I have two questions for you that I genuinely do not know the answer to and thought asking them on your talkpage might make it more likely for you to give me a response instead of some third-party who may not have known what you meant.

You stated that the three sources which I listed are not "peer-reviewed". Can you explain how that determination was made?

Also, can you explain how the "enforcement actions" work on global warming pages. Is there anything expected of me?Oops, I thought these were going into global warming enforcement, but instead they're going into Arbitration enforcement. I know how those work. So, really, only one question!

Thanks,

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the Energy and Environment source does not appear to be a coherent article but a just list of stuff so cannot really be classed as peer reviewed. The soundings article is an interview with the individuals not an article authored by them as a group. Hence the quotes on Watts are just opinions of George Monbiot and are presented as such. The other article I found was hosted on the academics own website and appears to be his submission to conference proceedings and as a scientist I read it as having a disclaimer that it is his submission rather than a peer-reviewed article (many conference/meeting proceedings are not peer reviewed and this should be the default assumption unless you have evidence to the contrary). Polargeo (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that's a reasonable reading. Peer review is a complicated matter and sometimes difficult to decide one way or another. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment removal from CC PD talk

I removed a bit a comment of yours from this section as Carcharoth asked only for comments on their own, not replies to comments to each other. You're welcome, of course, to rephrase into your own words. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no need to do this though. Polargeo (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Article for deletion declined.

Esico_of_Ballenstedt Currently stands as no references, is not important and it must have references in order to be on Wikipedia. However, if you insists on having it here, you can leave it be. I just think it should be deleted. AboundingHinata (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This was a speedy deletion which I declined. I have replied on your talkpage and advised you what action I think you should take. Please respond there. If you take no action or need assistance I will be willing to help. Polargeo (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment

While deciding if a discussion should end or not is an accepted matter of opinion, moving another editor's comments is not. So kindly, please don't.(olive (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)_

That was a mistake. Sorry. I was simply trying to stop the closure of the thread. As you should have already noticed my last edit just removed the hatting of the thread. I don't appreciate the hiding of my comments based on the fact that someone likes to have their own little POV comment unhidden at the end so please do not patronise me. Polargeo (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is based on incorrect information and is assumptive as well. I made a comment and only saw after I had posted it that Jehochman had closed the discussion. We were obviously editing concurrently. My comment is most certainly a POV on this situation as is yours. You might check the time sigs in which case you'll see that my comment came before you unhatted the thread, and I didn't see that you unhatted it. Your tone is aggressive and your comments based on misinformation so you might want rethink attacking another editor, especially based on misinformation. I have better things to do than be attacked in this way so for me this discussion is over. Thanks.(olive (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

I notice you have taken my comments off your own page and then claimed "for me this discussion is over". A classic symptom of someone who has lost an argument. I have never done that myself to anyone and never will. Polargeo (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comments were rude and still are... I have never removed comments from my talk page like this, but I don't need to come to my talk page and see your attacks. There's no argument to lose here... you made assumptions that aren't true. I don't care about losing arguments I care about trying to work in a congenial atmosphere. Your comments to me were unfair and unpleasant. Don't need it. That's all. (olive (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

And I do not need people hiding my comments for no reason. Polargeo (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hazard-SJ

Hi. Are you aware that this user was declined at WP:PERM/R because of his recent misuse of rollback (and subsequent block, for a number of issues, at another Wikimedia wiki)? This user seems to have a habit of asking several admins until somebody finally grants the request. I just want to note my objection, as he's caused several issues and probably isn't mature enough to use this tool responsibly at the moment. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You've been mentioned here

If you would, could you comment here? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to wikipedia, you have been a naughty boy!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL, what you talking about! BTW, what is that comment for? AboundingHinata (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Something Polargeo asked me to do, in good humor. I know nothing about Polargeo at all, I hope he's not been a naughty boy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo. It has made my day :) Polargeo (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

caution

I've given you a caution on my talk page... please let me know if you aren't clear on what I was driving at. ++Lar: t/c 02:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay Polargeo (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• A post archive note on this case. The user I suggested was a sock on Lar's talkpage, and Lar thought this was a rude thing for me to do, has now been indef blocked as a sock. Polargeo (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Attention and participation

As you might know, The Signpost has been reporting on the Climate change case for the past several weeks. One of the drafting arbitrators is clearly unhappy with my reporting, and a couple of other users share a similar view. However, some users disagree (and on at least one occasion, one case participant disagreed with the objection raised (see this). Each user is obviously going to have their own opinion, but irrespective of the outcome, I think actual participants in the case (who are involved in the dispute or may be affected) should add their input. Therefore, I think your attention and participation is invited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for having the last word at my RfA, which has been closed as successful. It was a pretty good way to end the !vote. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amatulic

I would like to question the tone of some of your comments in this RfA. Regarding the Stanley Wagner article, at the time of the AfD, it looked like this. Note that the article used as sources at the time not just the NYT obit, but another distinct full-fledged obit article (i.e. not just a list of survivors and date of the funeral, but an proper obituary article) from a smaller newspaper. Also used was another NYT article from when Wagner was alive, where almost a third of the article was devoted to quotes from Wagner and comments about him. And also cited was the NYT obit which was reprinted in substantial part in another major newspaper outside New York. I don't agree the article should be described as a "farce" with respect to establishing Wagner's notability at the time, nor that one should say that Amatulic's arguments fell on "deaf ears". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, maybe my tone was a little strong but those obits are generally void of anything within them that would suggest notability and if it is mearly the existance of the obit that we are going on I am rather suspicious as it makes we wonder about advertising revenue. I would also like to note that the obit was only published in the NY regional edition of the paper so it cannot be classed as a national newspaper obit but only a local one. I would have !voted delete on this one . Polargeo (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I like trout :)

I eat it raw, or grill it, bake it, roast it, macerate it, fry it, saute it, boil it, stew it, braze it, fricassee it, ya name it i do it, so thx .....

I like it too Polargeo (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like your prodigee is following on your footsteps :). Jrod2 (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have had no contact with "my prodigee" I only asked you as an admin to assume good faith particularly if you are going to lecture others about it. Polargeo (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Due respect, Bro...when did I give lecture on good faith?? Matter of fact I apologized to him before ya gave me your silly token which i took no offense cause i love fish, aight. Peace out Jrod2 (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing :) Polargeo (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Barber

Don't let him bait you. He has a long history of this (although much of that history is obscured by a username change) and he's really very good at it. Just ignore him. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I saw that username change. On another note why do we have to deal with and be polite to "users" like this? Polargeo (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Because good Wikipedians treat all users in exactly the same way. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Even when they call for you to be banned, blocked and desysopped based on some minor disagreement which was so minor I had even forgotten I had the disagreement with JWB. No JWB has passed any AGF with me. Polargeo (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Especially then. Grappling with assholes just covers you in their shit. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I found the thread title here funny. If I started a thread with that title, odds are the rest of the post would land me quite a long block. :-/ Delayed reaction due to my not following the big-waste-of-time case.-Atmoz (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting and good to hear

In devotional service there are certain activities which are called determined, such as fasting on certain days, like the eleventh day of the moon, Ekadashi, and on the appearance day of the Lord. All these rules and regulations are offered by the great acaryas for those who are actually interested in getting admission into the association of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the transcendental world. The mahatmas, great souls, strictly observe all these rules and regulations, and therefore they are sure to achieve the desired result. .. Observing Fasting on Ekadasi In the Brahma-vaivarta Purana it is said that one who observes fasting on Ekadasi day is freed from all kinds of reactions to sinful activities and advances in pious life. The basic principle is not just to fast, but to increase one's faith and devotion for Govinda, or Krishna. The real reason for observing fasting on Ekadasi is to minimize the demands of the body and to engage our time in the service of the Lord by chanting or performing similar service. The best thing to do on fasting days is to remember the pastimes of Govinda and to hear His holy name constantly. .. One who hears this Bhagavatam on the Ekadasi or Dvadasi day is assured of long life, and one who recites it with careful attention while fasting is purified of all sinful reactions. .. One has to perform devotional service in full tapasya, austerity. One should fast on the two Ekadasi days, which fall on the eleventh day of the waxing and waning moon, and on the birthdays of Lord Krishna, Lord Rama and Caitanya Mahaprabhu. There are many such fasting days. .. According to Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, tapah, austerity, means that one should observe vows such as Ekadasi-vrata, in which one fasts from grains and beans twice a month. The word japtam refers to chanting the holy names of the Lord, such as Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare/ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has further pointed out that one can offer one's wife, children and home to the Lord by converting one's family into devotees of the Supreme Lord. Rather than becoming artificially puffed up in the pursuit of so-called status symbols, one's family should be trained to understand that they are eternal servants of the Supreme Lord. And when the entire family becomes dedicated to the Lord's service, a very beautiful situation is created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.87.253 (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

AGF

You might want to tone this down a bit. The last sentence seems like a bad faith accusation that is likely to draw heat. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right. But it is not actually a bad faith comment more a result of months of experience of Lar's actions. Polargeo (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It is clear where Lar stands in this topic, which is why it is impossible for Lar to act as an impartial administrator. Your new language is better. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I do wish to be fair to Lar because I do genuinely think he is doing his best so thank you for putting me into line. Polargeo (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change case

Just a note to say I've collapsed the Scjessy discussion thread, please don't add anything more to it (although I don't mind if you strike anything). Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

3rd opinion please

I userfied this-- User:Tunafish24/sanbox after CSD'ing per G4, as the creator disagrees strongly with the deletion. One of the problems is the lack of reliable sourcing in the article. They're all primary sources from the manufacturer. Could you look at the sources listed at User_talk:Tunafish24#MyGreenPC to see if they meet WP:V/WP:RS? Thanks Dlohcierekim 13:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WUWT

The material in question is being actively discussed in talk. There is no consensus to remove it. Additionally, a large number of edits have both deleted and reinserted it. It's rather revealing that you, as an involved editor, and immediately after threatening me with a topic ban, post an edit warning against me, ignoring other editors who have been more active in regards to this section. Is this your official or unofficial stance? Fell Gleaming^talk 15:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reported your edit warring at the arbcom PD page because of the current limbo. Polargeo (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want that to count as an official notification, provide me the link. I have no idea what an "arbcom PD page" is. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Done on your talkpage Polargeo (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Polargeo. I should probably inform you of this post to 3RRNB. You're not the "reported user", but I do mention you in my post, specifically your query asking whether FellGleaming is IP 99.144.248.213 and also your denial here of the counter-query. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Are you in fact editor ScienceApologist? I think its important to clear this up immediately. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

He can't be ScienceApologist because I'm ScienceApologist. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No. That was easy wasn't it, next question please. Polargeo (talk)

Are you two going to bicker all day? Should I find an administrator to give you a time out? -Atmoz (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm off home now. If you think admins should give editors blocks for bickering then you have a different view of wikipedia than I do. Mind you you have more experience of this than I do. Polargeo (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking they could force you edit only Pokemon articles for the next month. >:-) -Atmoz (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I like Pokemon but it would drive me nuts. Polargeo (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello Polargeo, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi. Thank you for approving my reviewer request. ~ Elitropia (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And me too

Thanks for voting in my RfA Polarego... Appreciated your presence there. Sincerely. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 08:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bitcoin

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bitcoin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Robert Horning (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats![2] Guettarda (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Polargeo (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Relax

Last time I tried to calm you down (see "Barber" section above), my efforts were used to construct a case against me. I shall be more cautious this time and just tell you to relax a little bit. I sense your stress levels rising as you try to deal with this FoF/remedy nonsense you are facing. Many editors are being treated unfairly in this case, but I'm afraid there is little that can be done about it. Let your good behavior and quality Wikipedia contributions demonstrate your good faith and good intentions, and things will improve. Roger kindly offered me a reasonable, non-prejudicial solution to my difficulties that I think will be a benefit to both me and the project. Perhaps you can come to a similar arrangement if you sense your protestations are going to fall on deaf ears. In the meantime, my advice is to </stress> and focus on your baby daughter. Congratulations, by the way. :-) -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see any problems with my editing. A topic ban is therefore completely nonsensical and I am not about to beg Roger for a solution. I am honestly going to retire from wikipedia should this silly nonsensical topic ban come to pass. Polargeo (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations with your baby daughter! I also agree with Scjessey. Just think of Wikipedia as just another website. The adminstrative/ArbCom system is neither the supreme authority, nor is it perfect in its judgement. So, if in your opinion, you are treated unfairly, just consider it part of the learning process that Wikipedia has to go through, just like your daughter when it grows up.

My opinion is that at some point Wikipedia has to adopt some version of SPOV. There are no websites I know of where you have well informed discussions on climate change where moderators do not impose a very strict SPOV policy. The reason why Wikipedia has been able to function without SPOV is simply because politically motivated garbage on scientific topics supported by significant fraction of the population is very rare. Perhaps creationism comes close, but even in the US, it is not politically correct to support creationism, not even in the Republican Party.

The community has previously rejected SPOV, so before they will change their mind, they have to see that the system they believe in fails; if this ArbCom case fails, that may be enough for the community to change the rules. Count Iblis (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're wrong about the "rejection" of SPOV. Look at our sourcing and NPOV policy back when Dunc wrote that essay, and look at it now. WP:SOURCES and WP:UNDUE exist because WP:SPOV became policy. Also note how often people pushing fringe positions rail again WP:UNDUE. Often groups of editors choose to ignore WP:UNDUE...to some extent, it is systematically minimised...but most of what Dunc wanted when he wrote that essay is policy today. All that was rejected really was the name. Guettarda (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the problem has been more or less been fixed in a different way, so we do have "effective SPOV". But I hope that this railing against WP:UNDUE will be recognized by the arbitrators (suggestions that Kim was idiosyncratic in the way he cited this looks problematic to me)... Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) - I also don't see any problems with my editing. At best it could be said that I made one or two inflammatory comments, with perhaps one or two more when I got frustrated at being unfairly attacked. No edit warring or disruption or anything like that though. ArbCom is trying to fix the problem by amputation instead of medication - a common approach in huge, drawn-out circumstances. I urge you not to retire from the project, regardless of what happens. I'm not suggesting you beg Roger for help. All I'm saying is that ArbCom is much happier to see voluntary measures to help resolve difficulties than be put in a position to impose remedies. In due course, it may be more beneficial for you to seek such an approach instead of waiting for the hammer to fall, regardless of how unfair it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbcomm has a long history of doing the wrong thing. But for now, it may be worth noting that the "R3" options are only getting support from 2 arbs William M. Connolley (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, if you don't see anything wrong with your editing then that in itself is a serious (and unsurprising) problem. To Polargeo, I perfectly understand where you are coming from and am approaching the situation in a similar way. Of all the people on the AGW side up for topic bans I think you shouldn't be there (others should though). It would be a shame for you to retire, but it is certainly your decision. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the textbook example WP:BAIT. Your opinion is noted and filed in the appropriate place. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No, "baiting" involves going around telling people that their god is dumb and they are dumb for believing in him. The fact that you still don't see a problem with that sort of behavior is, as I said, a serious problem. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

ROFL. Nice try. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that laughter a psychological defense mechanism or a sort of mockingly derisive laughter meant to provide the facade of defense where none exists? As I said, until you can recognize your problems they will continue, but perhaps wikipedia is the perfect place for you just like conservapedia is the perfect place for others. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that false dichotomy just another form of baiting, or something to provide a façade of a position of intellectual strength? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It was the two likely options - the real truth somewhere in the middle of the two. Any other questions or have you managed to sufficiently distract the conversation away from your behavior? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is inapropriate. This page is for discussion with Polargeo. Unless he affirmately states that the two of you should continue flailing away at eachother, stop. Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

<reply type="childish">He started it!</reply> -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for all of your messages. I am completely happy for any discussions to take place on my talkpage. We should all try to calm things down though. I have had a generally positive dialogue with The Good Locust and indeed with most editors on both sides of the debate. Therefore he is welcome to comment here as you all are. Polargeo (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hi, I just wanted to congratulate you on your new baby girl. Enjoy her in good health. They do grow quick so remember that when you are tired from the lack of sleep you are feeling now. ;) Seriously, I hope you and your wife have a fun, happy and healthy time with your new family. I'm waiting for an announcement of a grandchild which is supposed to happen early next year, at least my fingers are crossed for an announcement. Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic a grandchild, I have my fingers crossed for you too. You must have started early. Anyway, this is my second daughter. So I now have one who is 18 months old and one who is 2 weeks old. Sleep is not too bad as the second one is a far better sleeper than the first one was at the same age. Polargeo (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations! As Crohnie says, time goes quickly (though it doesn't seem that way when you're up at 3 a.m.). They'll be borrowing your car and credit cards before you know it... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

CrohnieGranny? :) . Count Iblis (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Now now! She had me fooled. Polargeo (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! These are the important things in life, worth giving your full attention. As the others also say, these years go past really quickly. . . dave souza, talk 22:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

CrohnieGranny, now I love that, I keep waiting. Polargeo, I was 23 when I had him not too young. I was young though when I got together with my husband of 35 years but it was worth it. My DIL had a shot for the chicken pox or something about a month or so ago so they have to wait at least 3 months before giving up on birth control. I am anxious and waiting though. I figure it was expensive and a lot to raise a good adult which we did so a grandbaby should be a lot more fun. :) Enjoy your babies. I love kids so I am a tad jealous. ;) Good night everyone, CrohnieGranny (I definitely can get used to this name Count Iblis, thanks) --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Saw this a bit late - Congratulations :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi, this is just a suggestion but please reread this before it too ends up as a dif on the PD page. Two-faced back stabbers isn't the way to say it if said at all. Just a suggestion. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was both humorous and conveys exactly what I want to convey. Besides it is not directed at anyone or any particular topic so how it can be construed as a personal attack/ incivility or even CC battleground I would be interested to know. If it is then this simply backs up my assertion that plain honest speaking is being cracked down on. Polargeo (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking that User:Two-Faced Back Stabber would be an excellent username. Surprised it hasn't already been taken by a Grundle2600 sock LOL. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What a fantastic idea. Polargeo (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

All the deletions in your user space are worrying. Hope it doesn't mean what I think it does, but if it does, I'd like to wish you all the best! Guettarda (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Polargeo (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)