User talk:Awickert/Archive 3

Diffs
Those diffs you wanted have been added to the ANI discussion. Factsontheground (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. They are very useful. As you are currently blocked, I will be watching your user talk page in case you wish to reply to this. Awickert (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks
For reverting the spam on my talk. I haven't been on as much as I used to be. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Always happy to wield the pooper scooper. Awickert (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A matter of opinion
I have come to the conclusion that editors with less than, say, 20% article space edits, without good reason (e.g., categorising, sysoping, tagging articles for wikiprojects) are a waste of time and mainly cause unnecessary drama that reduces our communal effectiveness at making information freely available. I am thereby roughly restricting myself to making at least 2-3 article space edits for every non-article-space edit (including useful ones, e.g., categorisation, AfD, and the rare productive talk page discussion). Awickert (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what we're here for... ban the drama-mongers. :-) Vsmith (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Awickert (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds vaguely plausible. It will never make policy, of course, for all the obvious reasons. Mind you, my mainspace contributions have been thin recently William M. Connolley (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it will never make policy. I am simply protesting the waste of energy and server time; I don't like politics on Wiki and now I truly think that they are an abysmal waste of resources. That's especially the case when someone like Abd who (to be fair) has only a few fewer article space edits than I do but whose article space edits are 13% of his total as opposed to my near 50% (which I still consider to be too low personally) ends up in a giant arb case, I ask myself what (if any) utility the arb case is going to serve for the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. If it were two very good contributing editors at arbcomm, my feelings would be different. Of course, then they might actually be able to work it out without going to arbcomm, so by definition it may serve a less useful function. (And you've been sysoping which falls under category 2 section B.117 of admissible non-article-space actions, so you are safe from my wrath... for now :P.) Awickert (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Revised Pliocene glaciation
Well, all of the major glaciations are now in the Pleistocene, but there was plenty of higher latitude glaciation in the Piacenzian (Late Pliocene) from 3.2 to 2.8 mya. See, for example, page 275, column 2, in Applied Palaeontology by Robert Wynn Jones, who cites Thompson, R. S. and Fleming, R. F. (1996) "Middle Pliocene vegetation: reconstructions, paleoclimatic inferences, and boundary conditions for climate modeling" Marine Micropaleontology 27(1): pp. 27-49. --Bejnar (talk) 05:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for one lol
You haz bin blocked for 1lol upon your request. ;-). Just kidding of course, that thread was hilarious. — Ched :  ?  15:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to make another Wikipedian happy. (Darn it, Iz not can writes Lolcat. Iz haz not literacy in anudder language.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ping! Satellite Temperature Graphic
You wanted a reminder....SunSw0rd (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Argh, yes, thanks, I need these. Just did it, will comment on the appropriate talk page. Awickert (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)




 * Looks very good. I will respond on the talk page. SunSw0rd (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So -- it has been a couple weeks. Do you have anything remaining to do or are you going to post the diagram on the page? SunSw0rd (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgot to respond here, but I put it up. Awickert (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you will be "allowed" to post it. Atmoz removed it fairly quickly. SunSw0rd (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I will leave a message on his talk. [content removed] Awickert (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about GW. But not everyone's opinion is given the same weight. And you always seem to try and make peace instead of writing correct articles. That's a good way to end up with crappy articles. -Atmoz (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do like to make peace but what I was trying to do there was (a) get an updated figure for the new algorithms and new data (which is what I took from SS to be of importance), (b) make the axes to show all of the data, and (c) remove the trendline because the figure is pretty busy, I prefer presenting data without trends drawn over them, and I thought the trend was self-evident anyway. As a matter of fact, I think that the trend is more obvious without the trendline. I'd be happy to have no trendline and a linear regression reported in the bottom, or one trendline, if I do decide to get back to this.
 * Perhaps the issue is that I do not know as much about climate, and so I am more cooperative on the talk pages there because I do not have the knowledge base. Awickert (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The trend is not obvious to everyone. That's why septics never show it. If you want to see the type of graph SS would like included, browse through this page. -Atmoz (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see trends in those although the horizontal axes are stretched pretty darn far, "perhaps" intentionally. Awickert (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pig's Eye Brewing Company
A tag has been placed on Pig's Eye Brewing Company requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleavage and Foliation
Hi Andy,

I've expanded the cleavage page some and added some words about the terminology. Looks like another transatlantic disagreement. Tell me what you think about the new wording.

BTW I find that constructing pages in my own sandboxes keeps the speedy deletors at bay :-).Mikenorton (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I must just be lucky in that so far none of my stubs have been speedy nominated. But I guess that it's just that a geology stub can fly under the radar for ages, while one about beer will get noticed within the first minute of its existence. I'll look at your changes from this hemisphere. Awickert (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not just the speedy deletion that it avoids, it's all the other tagging that goes on before you've had the chance to finalise your new stub. I've had copyvio, orphan and unreferenced tags added (on different articles or I might start getting paranoid) within a few minutes of putting up a new page. The copyvio was difficult to get round, try defining a wackestone without matching an online definition pretty closely, I got there eventually but there are only so many words available to describe a limestone while staying faithful to Dunham. Mikenorton (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota Meetup
 2009 Proposed date: Saturday, October 10. Details under discussion.  Please share this with anyone who may be interested.  Delivered by Jonathunder (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ready....set...
See User_talk:Stephan_Schulz. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ...goooooo! ...gone... Awickert (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Popular media vs scientific papers
I appreciate your offer to help. It's just that a blanket ban on newspapers is not only against Wikipedia policy, but also counerproductive. Mass media often sythesizes scientific opinion. This is important for us becuase we're, supposedly, not allowed to to synthesize sources ourselves. Cla68 (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Will reply at your talk; like to keep things together. Awickert (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Note
Hey, sounds great. I did just punch the revert button a few times with the anon but I concede there is a legitimate argument in favor of "pregnant woman" and I have only put the articles back to "mother" that I felt were the most clear-cut toward in that direction while leaving the rest until I have time to address the issue on the talk pages. I look forward to your input. - Schrandit (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * About Alabama - those leads are ridiculous, highly unencyclopedic and unprovable. We will never be able to source a "maybe" and an article should never start out with one.  That, more than any feeling I have pertaining to the subject is what guided that edit. - Schrandit (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey!
Is this the Andy Wickert I think it is? :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is indeed the Andy Wickert you think it is. Since I've graduated, I've run out of things to occupy my time. How are you? Awickert (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

96.121.X
No worries, it happens to the best of us. - Schrandit (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and glad you noticed it. Happy Friday, Awickert (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia

 * Except Enescot is really pushing what I can say with certainty and what I'm guessing is the right answer. Help? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On the ice flow part I hope? I can answer that. I think you're alone on the econ part because you're the only one who knows anything. Awickert (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (outdent) That sounds good. Thanks. Trying to cleanup the prose and reduce duplication in "Environmental" right now. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. If you want a hand / a proofread, you know where to find me. Awickert (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL. Well what I was doing was kind of proofreading, done for the night, go ahead. Was looking at reducing Ocean acidification, paragraph four could replace parts of the bottom half of paragraph 3. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, when I proofread I usually add a typo or two (to keep everything in balance). I'll take a look soon; to bed pronto for me. Awickert (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (outdent) Wikipedia's new default skin. Since I manage quite a few templates, I guess I better opt-into the beta. Right now we're on the "Vector" beta (preview), next would be "Babaco". Also are you going to follow up on that sea level rise? :) ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, sheesh, the editing page already defaults to the different look. I know some go for a visual appeal, but I'm a real sentimental packrat - for me, nothing should change. It looks so Windows Vista-esque. I think I commented on the sea level thing, let me check what I was supposed to follow up on. Awickert (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did in fact respond on the talk! Haven't heard what anyone else thinks about it; would appreciate your comment as the sea level number is so important I wouldn't want to change things around on my own. Awickert (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Back from Wikibreak, saw your message. Copied and paste the old discussion above for reference. Here a link to the adjoining discussion on Talk:Global warming. This how I'm trying to solve it: although Pfeffer et al. takes into account dynamical changes in ice flow; the IPCC, being a pretty heavy document, hasn't included it. Well, one of the reasons is that the article is published in 2008, and AR4 was published in 2007. Now the question becomes which should be a footnote and which should be in the article's body or whether both of them should be in the body? I'm not certain, but I'm only reading the abstract. My thoughts are to have them both in the body, but what do you think? How did we end up with a massive quote about the Tibetan Plateau? The source isn't reliable, and it's poorly written — well... at least in my opinion. Good to see you back. :) ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello! Good to see you around. The fact is that the IPCC ignored glacier dynamics entirely, which means that their estimate must be cited as "plus changes from glacier dynamics". Tad Pfeiffer and others provide a range of estimates for sea level with glacier dynamics included, and so I think that they are better. The dates are important: Pfeiffer et al. published their study in response to the lack of inclusion of glacial dynamics by the IPCC. I would put the Pfeiffer one in the body and the IPCC in the footnote. If both are in the body, it should say "IPCC predicts X plus contribution from glacier dynamics, which Pfeiffer et al estimate to be Y". I haven't looked much at the Tibetan plateau, heh, except I did comment at talk. I haven't thought about its value, only about its sourcedness. It might be worth removing, will have a look, Awickert (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're probably right, I'll go you with your plan. Yeah, planning on going back to Wikipedia's climate-land. One problem I see with a proposal to remove the Tibetan plateau is that Scibaby has already tainted it. Shakes head. Now, I'll doubt that they'll assume that you or I are sock puppets, and if they did it'll certainly be an amazing fiasco; but it is kind of annoying to see issues polarized like this. I mean, it's like the middle-ground's being eroded, and we're either pro-Global warming or con. Well, that's that. Finished the upgrade for Template:Cnote2! What have you been up to? Busy? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been waffling on extracting myself from climate-land, but I don't think I will. It is indeed nastily polarized, but I think/hope it might be a bit better than "us against them". I've been reasonably busy lately: finalizing papers, submitting abstracts, doing research, etc., but not horribly so. The template looks nice; it makes me happy to see organized folks on Wikipedia. Awickert (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's been pretty hard for me. It's the time of year when they're trying to fail you out so only the "good" people move on. Last week was also homecoming and I got put in charge a couple of activities, so that makes doubles the trouble. Well it's finally letting up. Temple:Cntoe2. That one was interesting to write, had a lot of features for the "foot-note intensive" article. When I first wrote it for the article Global warming I really wasn't planning on it taking off as it did, and people already pushing it to the limit. I guess it kind of made me laugh to see stuff like this. Reminded me to write a "real" documentation with "real" examples (and recycle an old study I did). Wikipedia seems to be moving in an interesting direction, add yourself to the "expert" database, strategic planning. I'm kind of wondering what we did today will mean five years down the road. Maybe for once we'll put an end of the Britannica tyranny, or, ironically, as the current trend suggest, make them more money (I think Britannica is actually benefiting from Wikipedia). ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't do much wiki editing in undergrad; was too busy with the work-sleep schedule. Good luck with that, and if you have math or science questions, feel free to ask. It looks like the template must have really been needed if it got that much attention - good work! Not sure what the big stuff going on in Wiki is, so I'm clicking on the link and reading it. Is Britannica really a tyrrany? I mean, it's been a very useful resource for a long time, written by paid professionals. Of course I like Wiki (and am therefore here) but don't think the competition is that horrible :P. Awickert (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (outdent) Well, I think Britannica is benefiting from Wikipedia. Wikipedia popularized the notion of what an encyclopedia could be, attracted visitors, attracted criticism, Britannia becomes an alternative source. Secondly, while the print industry seems to be declining, rapidly, Britannica, especially its online version, seems to be staying afloat. Tyranny? Probably not, but it gives some psychological sustenance to have something to fight against. Here an interesting paraphrase, Oroson Scott Card, Ender's Game, "you enemy is your teacher". Well, for climate-land I think I'll hold off until the weekend. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I get what you're saying. I'll be out and about for a while starting Saturday, enjoy the escapades. Awickert (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess I won't be going back to climate land. You were right, I guess that this year's packed schedule probably won't give me much opportunity to edit. I always wondered, you went to MIT, how as it? ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was an undergrad at good 'ol Tech. It's an assload of work; my experience was frantically trying to finish everything so I could sleep, or giving up so I could sleep, and planning my few hours of free time a week in advance. However, I was working feverishly at all hours of the day and night with the vast majority of the neatest, brightest, most inspiring people I've ever met, which was really "wicked awesome". Also, Boston is great (one of my favorite places ever), but the weather is sort of... well, outside of spring and fall it's either hot and muggy or slush. If you're thinking of MIT for grad school, it's not that nutty - the grad students had lives and looked like they'd slept and dressed +/- well. Awickert (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (outdent) Yeah, I was looking into MIT, but my ACT Scores didn't make the cut (grades did). It was a also a bit to expensive and a bit too far away for my liking. Looking at Standford right now; doing some prep-work at a smaller not notable local college; won't know until probably next year on whether I'll get in. Hoping will. In other news, figured out that Boris is a professor at the University of Chicago. Kind of ironic I guess, so what schools are we missing? ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Stanford is a much smoother, more easy ride than MIT. What are you interested in in particular? It's also possible that if it's medical-ish (per your userpage) MIT is not the place for you. You've got the wrong university for Boris unless he's moved recently; you can ask him but I don't want to expose his secret identity. Awickert (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, Iowa State University. I'm looking at biology actually, micro-biology, but I'm not certain. That's also probably why I'm looking into Stanford more than I'm looking in MIT. I guess we'll find out in a few months, know for certain. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - MIT has pretty good molecular biology, and at the MD/PhD level there is a partnership where you do research at MIT and learn doctoring at Harvard, but it sounds like that might be off in the future possibilities. Anyway, you might want to check out public universities as well, many of which are cheaper and have fantastic medical schools and bio departments - it seems that you have a pretty good idea of what you want to do, so that should make it easy to find somewhere that has people that you'd like to work with (undergrad research is a blast IMO). And don't feel bashful about emailing professors about their research; they often appreciate hearing from interested prospective undergrads. Or if you don't email, at least check out their research websites and publications. Awickert (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that link to RMP. "He's a real nonsense kinda guy". :-) -Atmoz (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (outdent) We'll see. :) Yeah, too bad Atmoz isn't a sock puppet of Awickert. Gah! There are a lot of scholarships out there, just registered at Zinch, I'm eligible for over 250K (assuming I win every essay contest, ect., ect.), and it's not even scholarship season! Well, that's real life. Whether writing an essay, which pretty much says "I support you in [anti-hazing, nuclear energy, genealogy, other if applicable]" is meaningful work, I don't know. I like the way my friend put it, "just kiss butt." Well, in other news they're raising the size of thumb images from 180px to 220px, and I think I'm almost done with the Epidemiology of Ebola. How about you? Is climate-land still on fire? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Climate land seems to be back to normal. Lots of socks, but a good suggestion on the Talk:Global warming right now. Yeah, well, good luck with scholarships; look for local ones too (anything you're involved in) - I like money so I always snowball applications for things - scholarships, grants, fellowships, whatever, so that would be my advice to you so long as it doesn't take over your life. Good luck with those. That's exciting about the thumbnails. Well, I'm excited. The larger size will be very nice, but I will have to double-check formatting on the articles for which I'm the primary editor. I'm afraid I don't get the comment with Atmoz and I being "socks", Awickert (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Atmoz and Awickert looked so much alike I thought you replied. Do you subscribe to the Wikipedia Signpost? It's a weekly newsletter; short, simple, easy, sometimes a fun read—you'll get to know all the happenings concerning Wikipedia in five minutes or less. Guaranteed for a limited time only with a prize in every box. I think you might be interested. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I get it. As to the Signpost - thanks but nah; I look at it very occasionally when a new edition shows up on other peoples' talk pages. I just have enough way to distract myself from my work already that adding another thing to read at the moment might prove disastrous. Awickert (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

By being brief

Rather than using bolding or all caps for emphasis, move it to the beginning of your comment and keep the rest relevant. Commentary on the discussion doesn't answer the question, and doesn't directly lead to an edit to the article, which should be the focus of your comment. All it does is establish what you believe, which acts as a beacon telling other editors you have WP:COI while letting others off the hook.
 * I was planning on posting this on an anon's talk page, I keep tabs on Talk:Global warming, and I don't like where the discussion's going. Although WMC and Stephan Schulz's been able to keep things inline. Language affects consensus. And they should not assume that because they have the right answer, people will believe them. This was good insight. What do you think about the discussion? ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just starting to read it. Posting to let you know in case you want my input soon; should be done reading in (hopefully) 10 minutes or so. Awickert (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done reading the article and IP talk pages. Whew. (I haven't been keeping up with the times, it seems.) Your comment may be useful, or it may just end up with another voice in the fray (I don't really know, and am assuming that this is why you asked here). My best advice for heightening its usability would be to make the language be very nice, e.g.:
 * By being brief

Rather than using bolding or all caps for emphasis, it would be better to move the most important things you have to say to the beginning of your comments. Brevity and relevance to the topic at hand can also help your case and your communication with the other editors. Commentary on the discussion doesn't answer the question, and doesn't directly lead to an edit to the article, which should be the focus of your comment. All it does is establish what you believe, which acts as a beacon telling other editors you have WP:COI while letting others off the hook.
 * Awickert (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Although I'm thinking about an experiment. Language affects consensus. Let's try to understand it. Diction, tone, and PoV are the treatments. The hypothesis, H0: no difference in anon response, Ha: difference in anon response. I'll post the comment on the anons talk and you can post the one we've talked about above when you get the chance. When the anon responds, or if, we can attempt to understand the difference. To ensure that its blinded, and to remove the link to your user space, you can sign your comment like so: " Awicekrt ". Not rigorous, a case study or naturalistic observation, I know, but it strikes my curiosity to understand how language affects their attitude towards the subject, and perhaps to plan an systematic analytic way of doing so. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying but I (a) have no desire to get involved in this, (b) don't want to run an experiment on another user, (c) think that there will be a very large difference in the system between the first and second comments, and (d) think that it will just be weird to post practically the same comment, twice. But go ahead and try yours. Sorry, Awickert (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks anyway. Guess it won't be a matched-pair, but a two-sample t-test. Point b makes me think of ethics; c and d I guess would be part of the experiment, I mean you'd be seeing whether the order of the comments has an effect, and given two comments essentially the same, which one would the anon respond to and how. I think Psychology's getting to me, what did you think about social sciences? ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I like archaeology and ethnology, especially the connection between humans/cultures/civilizations and their physical environment. I think early hominin evolution is also really interesting. I don't know much about the other areas of the social sciences. I do want to take an economics class at some point, Awickert (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming the physical environment goes with geology, right? I've taken history, am taking economics and psychology, and looking to take sociology and linguistics. Interesting how certain words and habits spread like diseases, called memes, and how respond to these "outbreaks". About the anon, an experiment? Yeah, unethical, won't do it. I am getting sick of being "another voice in the fray" striking blind ears and achieving limited success. Have other thoughts in mind, going at another angle. What do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's kindly of you to offer to help. You mean you can has outbrakz? Geology for broad definitions of it - climate, natural resources, etc. I'm not sure which conversation we're having so I'll keep to the one scatterbrained sentence per topic. Awickert (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going at both. One about what you thought of memes and another about the anon; but I'm thinking more about the anon. Let's go with that. What have we learned from this conversation? I don't think climate-land should be on fire, I'm trying figure out what these anons really want, a way to depolarize the issue, and a way to forge a culture whose purpose is to improve the encyclopedia rather than egoistically putting views in. People shirk when you directly ask these question and search for these answers, so I chose a different approach this time than coming and saying: what do you want? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your listening to the anon, but it seems that (s)he has set views against the current science on the topic, and as Wiki is a non-creative endeavor, there really isn't any way to remove sources and rewrite the articles. The culture of the climate pages is to tell everyone to shut up and go away, which is understandable but bad, and contributors there (including myself, when I'm there) often seem to be very much on edge (again, understandable with the polarized nature of the issue, but a pain). How to defuse? I don't know. It's a vicious cycle of trolls and troll-bashing in which new contributors are often treated as trolls (because this is not necessarily a bad assumption) even if they are not. But all in all I am not saying much useful right now, and have intentionally lessened my feel on the pulse of wiki-climate-land, further reducing the utility of my comments. Good luck with the back-and-forth with the anon, though. Awickert (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"So, I've No idea how to tackle this problem" What do you think? You usually have a lot insight. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) It's a very likely a he. I think your comments are useful, you an attitude of attacking the problem in a very direct, almost anti-dramatic way. Follows the pattern: the answer, the source, the resolve. Which puts an end to the discussion quickly. Our comments actually follow the same pattern on the article's talk page, but we use different tones, where yours seem more friendly, almost encouraging. What I'm focusing on, what I'm looking for is what these anons really believe. Their comments are egoistical. They believe they are uncovering some truth or some philosophical enmity that justifies their hostile attitude. This is inflamed by the established editor's response, the polarizing nature of the topic, and sometimes by pure chance that they are inherently hostile. These anons fail in their stated objective, and in response they construct theories of why they fail. Because most discussions are resolved in a brutal manner (through banning, bashing, and belittling), these anons rather than learning through an introverted feedback loop (look for fault in themselves), instead turn extroverted (look for fault in others). We've seen evidence of this extroversion through the theories they construct ("group think" "ignorance/bliss" and through interpretations of policy — none of which focus on themselves), and through their consistency (they don't seem to change much). When I left my comments on 88.110.76.120's talk, I chose my words very carefully. The first part, "I'm from medical part of Wikipedia" removes me from fitting a WMC acolyte mold. The second part, "William M. Connolley has a reputation: you know, I know[..]" removes the focus of the discussion from being about WMC to what the anon really believes. The third part, "I want to help you" softens the discussion to to be: you don't need to put on a show of being strong or righteous. By narrowing the anon's response, the noise in his comment is reduced. By softening the discussion, his show for strength is removed, his belief unconfounded, and the results don't get clearer: "my experience has been that you don't get treated seriouisly unless you engage in some kind of full scale combat with shear numbers of editors counting for far more than common sense and tolerance and frankly that just makes me see red [...]"


 * Haha, well, if you think I "have a lot of insight", my insight would be that it's not worth your time. I think you completely understand the issue: the anon has a point of view that diverges from that of the scientists, it's clear who Wiki must cite, and William and the rest of the "mailed fist" make that clear in a mailed-fist-ungentle-manner. Which leads to anger, etc.
 * I think that the anons believe that they are correct and that the establishment is wrong. Having that belief—that you're the one who knows the truth in a sea of others that tell you that you're wrong—is extremely frustrating. Especially when everyone else who you think is wrong is playing keep-away with the wiki-über-megaphone. I'm not surprised that that makes them belligerent. But when you're way past words, it's fightin' time. Since an all-out physical brawl doesn't work over the internet and flame wars are lame (if occasionally entertaining), I just don't say anything at that point. And that's why I say that it's not worth your time.
 * If you want to learn more, go ahead and talk to him. But I think that you grasp the issue very well, Awickert (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC
Epa! Featured article candidates/Upper and Lower Table Rock/archive1 is right up your alley, in case you have time to wade back in at FAC. Saludos, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No sé nada de Upper and Lower Table Rock, pero voy a leerlo por la grámatica y la geología general. Thanks for pointing this out to me, I'll get to it sometime this weekend, Awickert (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Por nada; gracias! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * *Sigh* I lied. I'll get to it sometime in the next few days, Awickert (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem; I appreciate anything you can do (pero no sigues hablando mal de mi Universidad en California :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "...pero no sigues hablando mal de mi Universidad en California," Cuál, Stanford, arriba? No dije que es fácil, solamente que las clases y tareas no estan tan locos como las en MIT—sino trabajaste más que 100 o 120 horas por semana. : ) Awickert (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lo que causa pena es que tienes razon :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jajaja ... pero no es malo - en Stanford se tiene tiempo para dormir y para vivir la vida de un estudante en lugar de la de una calculadora :). Awickert (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * La verdad es que yo me lo pase de paranda :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Either my Spanish or my knowledge of Venezuelanisms is failing me (probably both are), though Google has not - is this what you mean by "paranda"? (It has 2 r's though and I still miss the point), Awickert (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct; it's two rs.   It just means to party hard, paint the town red.  If you didn't know the word, you may need to "parrandear" mas !  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)  And ... here's a wiki problem, two articles:  Parranda and Parrandas that need to be disambiguated, or something.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I think you're right. I've spent the night working on solving some equations using Kelvin functions and discovering the Meijer G-function. The math is interesting, but I need to get a real life. And yet I'm continuing to write on Wiki, hmmmmm... Awickert (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally got to it; it looks mostly OK except that non-chronological writing the writing confused me (so I might rewrite that). Awickert (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your answer on the Global Warming talk page. I was a bit tired and getting confused. Your answer was informative and helpful. It's an interesting subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thank you, Awickert (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at Garth Paltridge
Hi Andrew, a belated thank you for standing up for my right to not have my comments deleted in talk pages. The comments finally did get deleted (now restored at my talk page) which I don't really care about, but your help was appreciated in any case. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I almost forgot about that. Yep, no problem, I was pointed there from stalking William's talk and felt that the deletion just created needless wikidrama, so I restored it and tried to make things move on. I'm not sure if I succeeded or merely prodded the hornets' nest. Awickert (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Table Rock FAC
Just a friendly prod you asked for. :)  Little Mountain  5   15:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Geopetal/Way-up
Hi Andy, I've got myself mired in another terminological debate on Talk:Way up structure. After researching usage I'm not sure that I can any longer see the wood for the trees. I'd appreciate you dropping by to have a look. Mikenorton (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to worry, it's been opened up to WikiProjectGeology, so hopefully something sensible will come out of that. Mikenorton (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not getting back to you - I haven't been on Wiki much in the past day. I saw your comment and got partway through reading the discussion, but I've actually never used the word "geopetal", so my input probably wouldn't have been very useful anyway. Awickert (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is Scibaby
Question: Who is Scibaby? Y4spinmast8 (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, at least you have a sense of humor in spite of being a pain-in-the-ass puppetmaster. Or you watch Jeopardy too much. If your goal is to get material included: please stop using sockpuppets. While I am almost always happy to answer questions, I won't be answering yours and you are blocked on sight, so it is just a waste of time for everyone. If your goal is to annoy people, please stop because it's annoying. Awickert (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked.
Thanks and no hard feelings. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness and my apologies again, Awickert (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I'm starting to think that the entire check-user policy is a farce. I'll be glad to explain if you're curious, since it's sort of funny, but it's gotten so absurd that I've given up on being "anonymous" and decided to just make an account.  Since it's been tainted with the "death IP", maybe it'll also be blocked at random intervals, but I'm going to stay on the high road and take my chances. CarolineWH (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll back you up after all of this; I still feel pretty bad about our initial interactions. If you'd like to explain, go ahead, or just point me in the direction of what you're talking about... I have seen that there is a new spotfixer sockpuppetry investigation, but I see no connection to you. Awickert (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I doesn't have anything to do with me, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm safe. At this rate, I expect that User:Phil Spectre will be blocked and so will the shared IP, but since I have an account, I'll probably still be able to edit.  As for Ms. Fondue, she can log in at the library and make herself an account if she really cares so much about Indian pastries or whatever.  Nobody else around here is willing to admit to editing, but there are still a few edits that are unaccounted for, so there may be more collateral damage.  I'm going to do some more digging around and let you know what I find, but I don't expect much. CarolineWH (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Such is the unfortunate way things work. Thinking about this... so on one hand a majority of IP edits that I see are vandalism, and after that persists, the established editors tend to mingle "IP" and "vandal" in their minds. Which unfortunately makes IP editors second-class citizens. On the other hand, it really sucks to have all of these sockpuppetry investigations going around and to prevent IP editors from making positive contributions due to blocks... on the first hand, persistent sockpuppeteers need to be stopped, and IP address is a piece of evidence. So it's like a big game of Mafia, except a whole lot less fun. I'll poke around the checkuser case and see what I can see; might make a comment if I can come up w/ something useful to say, Awickert (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I can't keep up with all of the accusations and history, much less some of the technical details, but one thing that's pretty clear is that User:Phil Spectre is not a vandal, edit-warrior or anything else that's harmful to Wikipedia. I don't know whether the article they inherited is truly notable, but I do know when the fix is in.  Just like User:208.80.104.2, he's going to get gamed by being identified as an already-blocked user on the basis of the questionable conclusions of the RF:CU star chamber.
 * My conclusion is that WP:SOCK is a broken policy, especially when WP:DUCK is the basis. We should just take people at face value and apply the golden rule. However, that's only how things should be, not how they are, so there's not much point getting involved. CarolineWH (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, all sort of nuts. The golden rule would be ideal, and would avoid all this garbage, except that it can't be used as well as we'd like because of the people who intentionally game the system. Of course, I spend too much time around climate, which often involves wading through some of worst cesspits of Wikipedia, so I may have a too-cynical point of view. Awickert (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No doubt climate is a politically charged topic that attracts more than its fair share of loons, but then again, so do abortion, evolution, and gay rights. Wikipedia hosts numerous cesspits and what they have in common is that they each attract their own specific brand of crazed ideologue.  These endemic loons are united in their absolute certainty and their willingness to push their point of view at any cost, never letting rules, facts, or common sense stand in their way.  Allowed to take over the Wikipedia crazy house, they would make it a worthless mass of bias, like Conservapedia is.


 * The real problem is that there's no end to them. You can block one, ban another, but this only creates a vacuum that others will fill.  The only thing that stops a new nut from chiming in is that their intended role is already filled.  Once we make room for more, we can't prevent them from showing up or shoot them on sight.  After all, WP:DUCK not withstanding, there's actually no provision for blocking editors solely on the basis of their views, and there can't ever be unless we want to throw out WP:NPOV and intentionally drop to the level of Conservapedia.  All we can do is persistently reject changes that harm articles and -- when those editors cross the line into edit wars, insults and worse -- block them so as to encourage them to either play nice or go away and make room for those who will.  The nature of the Internet makes enforcing a community ban impossible, unless we don't care about collateral damage (or, worse, are happy to use an existing ban as an excuse to ban others just because they have similar beliefs).


 * Fundamentally, we have to respond to people on the basis of their behavior, not tenuous links to foes from days gone by. If Schrandit woke up one day and decided to stop making sneaky changes, I'd hold my nose but work with him.  This is a lesson that User:Wolfkeeper has yet to learn.  For reasons that even he can't explicate, he opposes MurmurHash, but the term gets tens of thousands of hits on Google, so it's only a matter of time before someone else notices that there's no article and tries to recreate it.  If I understand correctly, Wikipedia actually runs on this program, so it's not something that can be kept secret.


 * Wolf's current strategy is to abuse WP:DUCK by using it as a tool to treat new opposition as a recurrance of the old. It's worked well: he got rid of User:208.80.104.2, even though they were very obviously not User:SpotFixer, and he's likely going to do the same to User:Phil Spectre.  Maybe he can do it to the next few editors, and when that fails, go back to claiming they're all User:Aappleby.  But, in the end, all he's doing is harming Wikipedia.  If the article truly isn't notable, it should be easy to convince people of this without the dirty tricks.  But, hey, without dirty tricks, this wouldn't be Wikipedia, now would it?


 * In the end, the golden rule isn't naïve or pollyannaish: it's the only thing that actually works CarolineWH (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, I've decided that a lot of people who state their opinions the loudest are the least qualified to have them. One piece of good news is that the train of trolls has diminished in recent weeks, and those skeptical of global warming are established users who are much more reasonable to work with IMO.

In most cases, I'd agree with your assesment of the golden rule. But in some cases, the user's behavior is so obviously the same that it's a clear block-and-go; see User:Scibaby and "sockpuppets of scibaby" page to see someone who attacks climate articles at least half the days out of the week. It's just revert-and-block on sight.

So while I'd agree with you for most cases (e.g., without a persistent puppetmaster around), after the 50th time or so a particular argument comes up, I kind of lose the motivation to write a decent response, and it becomes "revert, block, goodbye". Dealing with your case definitely showed me that there are issues when I take that experience to other areas of Wikipedia where much more assuming of good faith is needed. So perhaps WP:DUCK should be reserved for the 50th+ unambiguously known sockpuppet. For the rest of the time, we should probably go with what you say and assume good faith, Awickert (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, so let's say we community ban Schrandit for continuing his motherhood crusade. Then what?  Either he comes back as a sockpuppet, or someone else shows up, notices the distinct lack of motherhood, and picks up where Schrandit left off.  The problem isn't that the new editor is or isn't Schrandit, it's that their behavior is unacceptable.  The reason to block this editor would then be the bad behavior, not the fact that they're really Schrandit.  On the other hand, if Schrandit pretended to leave Wikipedia, came back under a new name, like NotSchrandit, but started editing with honesty and integrity, I would welcome him back.  The same applies if he were community banned and then evaded the ban under the new name of NotSchrandit; so long as he doesn't do anything deserving of a block, there's no reason to block him. On the other hand, if someone else acts like Schrandit used to, they deserve a block even if they're demonstrably not the same person.  In the end, whether or not it's Schrandit has no consequence on what we ought to do.


 * The advantage of this policy is that it can't be gamed by people like Wolfkeeper. They could still defend an article against vandals or POV pushers, but they could no longer eliminate the competition by pretending that everyone who they disagree with is the ghost of a banned user.  Based on this, I think we need to not only kick WP:DUCK to the curb, but send WP:SOCK to the dumpster. The only way to eliminate sockpuppetry is to make it irrelevant. CarolineWH (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is that oftentimes banned users come back and do things that are not ban-worthy. If nothing is done, the act of blocking someone is pointless; if something is done, it might be wrong. So either we give up blocking people and sockpuppetry investigations, or we give up neither.
 * Another issue is that sockpuppets sometimes just try to waste everyone's time; doing anything but a revert/ignore/block allows them to succeed.
 * Also, I think that there is no chance that Schrandit will get blocked for the usage of "mother"; I read some documents while your IP was blocked and they used both terms ("mother" and "pregnant woman") interchangably.
 * Maybe you should bring up this issue of sockpuppetry/blocking on some Wikipedia noticeboard. Awickert (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that's exactly what it comes down to: a catch-22. The solution, which Jimbo will never accept, is to require editors to log in with proof of identity, such as a credit card in their own name.  This way, if Schrandit is banned (for his edit-warring and baiting, not for his love of motherhood), then the ban will stick.


 * That's how we do things in the real world: we use real names. Without this, banning is already pointless, and blocking is mostly counterproductive.  With it, there won't be any more cases where someone claims to hold multiple doctorates while being a drop-out.


 * I do understand that some vandals are here to have fun at our expense, but the solution has to be safe and effective. Currently, it is neither.  As for participating on a noticeboard, but I hope you can understand why I'm not convinced that this effort would be worthwhile. CarolineWH (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand your point precisely, which is why I use an abbreviation of my own name as my username and make my identity obvious on my userpage; I feel that it is important to take ownership of one's successes and fumbles. But there is a long tradition of allowing anonymity, which can be good for the internet-worried but is an unfortunate vehicle for the abusers of the system. I have no good solution or suggestions, and I'm afraid I'm already running out of useful things to say beyond, "gosh, wouldn't it be nice if nobody gamed the system and ruined it for the rest of us". Awickert (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I'm going to sit back and wait for the star chamber to rule on Specter and declare him a sockpuppet for reasons we will never know, and perhaps even ban me again just for the fun of it.  In the meantime, would you like to hear how I determined that User:208.80.104.2 couldn't be Spotfixer? CarolineWH (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like to hear; do you think that it might be an important piece of evidence to take to the checkuser group to overturn their ruling? Awickert (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt it, since CU is immune to oversight and has no reason to be honest, but I'm sort of proud of myself so I'm eager to brag. I might have very limited computer skills, but I'm tops at research!  I clicked a few links here until I got the company name behind the IP (which I won't mention here in case they Google), then found their phone number on their web site and gave them a call.  All I had to do to get their cooperation was explain who I was, including my role in the student paper, and say that I was researching where our recent graduates went off to and how they're adjusting to the real world.  I didn't say so, but I'm sure the receptionist assumed it was for a story.


 * Now, we know Spotfixer graduated earlier this year, almost certainly with computer-related degree. It turns out that this company has three departments where those skills would be a good fit, but she was sure that none of them had hired a recent graduate in the last year.  This rules Spotfixer out.  She seemed genuinely sorry that she couldn't help me, so I didn't pump her for any more details.  As it was, I had enough to rule Spotfixer out.  I still wanted to see if Phil Specter worked here, so I called back and used the directory to check for anyone whose last name started with SPEC.  Assuming he was honest about his name, and we really have no reason to doubt this, he doesn't work there.


 * At this point, it doesn't much matter that the sockpuppet conviction on the person who edited from that office is bogus, although it's not particularly surprising, either. Just as our confidence in the courts has never recovered from the effects of Project Innocence, my own experience with sockpuppet accusations has made me deeply cynical about the entirely process, and it would not surprise me in the least if a large portion of convictions were just as false as these two.  In any case, the innocent person that they banned seems to have given up on Wikipedia, which I have to admit is an entirely reasonable reaction to this sort of mistreatment. CarolineWH (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's good to know. I'm somewhat less cynical, so maybe you should put it up there. CU can be subject to oversight; for example, you were unblocked (sure, it can take a while). I unfortunately have to take off for the night, too much work and too little time, Awickert (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been kind of burnt out by all this so I've avoided Wikipedia and avoided talking about this craziness. Even after the roll of the dice spared Specter, the sheer capriciousness of the process combined with his apparent departure made me ill.  But he's back, and he's completely unflappable.
 * Even though Wolfkeeper has kept up a one-man campaign that sunk as low as fake numbers and sockpuppet accusations, there's hardly a peep from Specter except for some dry remarks about the direction of the consensus. No drama, not even a hint of irony, nothing.  He's not human!  That's my new theory, and I'm sticking to it: he's a borg. CarolineWH (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not noticing this right away. Thanks for letting me know. Better watch your conclusions: we all know that the Borg are a single hive-mind, and are all sockpuppets! However, I'd appreciate if in the future you make your comments about other users more dispassionate. Difficult, probably, but I'd like my talk page to remain a place free of gossip about unwitting third parties, thanks, Awickert (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a fair request and I'll do my best to honor it. CarolineWH (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK; thank you! Awickert (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pole shift analysis Mediation request
I have offered my services as a mediator for the Pole shift analysis mediation request. Discussion is currently undergoing at the talk page and your input would be appreciated before we go any further. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just commented there, thanks, Awickert (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it was in part
a remark on your talkpage that led to this, I thought you ought to know about the following --Paularblaster (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, I may take part in it, but probably after the Thanksgiving holiday, Awickert (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, just commented; figured I'd get it out of the way. Awickert (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you were dragged into this, and more sorry that this drama seems endless. Would you say that this qualifies as a complete apology?  If not, please let me know what I'd need to add. CarolineWH (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's my own fault for getting involved; no need to apologize to me. Thanks for the apology to Schrandit: I think it's fine. Awickert (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:CarolineWH
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/CarolineWH. -- Paularblaster (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

K
. Oh dear. It is a poor paper that has been ripped to shreds. It is definitely minor, which I'd hoped would do. Now we have to painfully go through why it is also stupid :-( (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/global-cooling-wanna-bet/ etc etc) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; I made the mistake of believing the abstract of a nature paper. So I actually skimmed the article and decided that it is probably stupid (the abstract is inconsistent with the text, which is inconsistent with the plots), so I wrote that on the talk page. Awickert (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I have to strongly censure you for changing your mind based on evidence. This is strictly forbidden for anyone who edits GW related articles :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct again my good man. I'll make sure that in the future, I restrict my thought processes to my brain stem, strip down into a loincloth, and apply war paint in patterns that look uncannily like plots of the historical temperature record. In my hands, I will carry a spear that I name Gore, Al Gore, though only on weekdays. On weekends I will take the potion that transforms me into Mr. Hide's first cousin (twice removed), and brandish a large wooden thwacking object inscribed with the Oregon Petition. Only then will I be able to obtain the title of the true POV warrior who can swing both ways! Awickert (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

accident
messy edit conflict. I will put it back. --BozMo talk 20:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Touchet Formation
Thanks for your excellent comments on the Touchet Formation.

Since this is my first GA experiment, and I'm learning a fair bit, I'm not quite ready to shoot for a FA, but when I have a cahnce to rest up from this one, I may be back to take you up on your kind offer.

Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 00:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh sheesh! I completely forgot to keep up with my comments over there. I'll check up on things, Awickert (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Would like to put this GA review to bed and Polargeo indicates, "I will wait for you to have a look at the comments of Awickert (a real geologist unlike myself) before completing the GA assessment..." I've tried to incoporporate your comment. Can you take a quick look and correct or confirm, please?
 * Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 04:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll get on that before I go to bed tonight. Better watch "real geologist" though: I'm part soft rock, part geophysics, which should make me doubly despicable to the hard rock crowd. Awickert (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

<=== & back to the left margin Excellent. Nice improvements. Appreciate your work on this. Think it actually improved quite a bit as a result - and I learned a small bit of geology.

The geophysics part is real geology - but I have no idea what soft rock geology might be unless it is study of chaulks, limestones, shales, mudstones, sandstones and maybe conglomerates and clays. Sounds a bit rocky to me...

Looks very good to me. I'll give Polargeo a heads up.

Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 00:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Soft rock" is generally surface processes and sedimentary geology - so you are right. I was mostly being self-depreciating.
 * I mentioned on the article's talk where I got stuck; I'm still trying to get unstuck via reading the articles, but am on a working vacation, so won't have as much time to tackle this... sorry for the delays, Awickert (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent changes to the article - particularly the tephra discussion - and the professional tone which results from your knowledge of the subject really shows. You made a very significant difference. I appreciate this. If you think you're completed editing it, you might mention this on Talk:Touchet Formation/GA1 - Polargeo was going to "...wait for Awickert to confirm he is happy or not ... before taking a final look."


 * Also appreciate your doing this while in grad school. Back in the dark ages, I don't think I could have kept up with the course work (or research) and edited Wikipedia. You obviously enjoy your subject.


 * Finally rather intrigued by your choice of glaciology and erosion. This is a pretty exciting time for glaciology, with a lot of room for rapid growth in understanding. Think with the recent progress in modeling erosion (references in bullets below) there is a lot of promise for a geophysical model that quantitatively explains glacial erosion reshaping valleys into the classic U, as well as explaining the overdeepening caused by glaciers. Wishing you well with your research and will watch for your publications.
 * Dash2006 -
 * Murton2006 -
 * Rempel2007 -
 * Rempel2008 –
 * Peterson2008 - ,
 * Walder1985 -

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 01:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Bill - thanks for the nice comments, though they do me too much credit. As for the GA review page, I already wrote this on the talk page; if that isn't obvious enough I'll do something more, like archive my section of the review. I can also write up something on the GA candidate page and promote it, after Polargeo reads it, if you need someone in that capacity.


 * I do like glaciers, though I have yet to go into classic glaciology (my userpage should be update at some point, it was based on plans more than reality). I'm currently finishing up old work on fluvial/depositional systems and some newer work in including glacial-hydro-isostatic rebound in paleogeographic reconstructions. Eventually I will be working more directly with glacial-fluvial coupling, or at least I think I will...


 * As you say, the U-shaped valley problem is an important one, and the only papers that I know of have assumed a uniform distribution of tools in the glacier to do work on the bed, instead of mechanistically watching them be plucked, moved, and abraded away. A friend of mine is hoping to tackle that problem soon, and we certainly have much better glacial models that we can combine with clast detachment, erosion, and transport rules.


 * If you're interested in glacial erosion, you might want to check out a paper by Kessler and Anderson (the latter being my advisor, so shameless promotion) in Nature Geoscience's first issue. It's called Fjord insertion into continental margins driven by topographic steering of ice.


 * As far as the help while in grad school - no problem. AGU's fall meeting is coming up, which is why I'm busier at the moment, but I'm really much much more free than I was as an undergrad. But still - sorry for making you wait so long, Awickert (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do very well. I've flagged to Polergeo. Once this is done, it will be time to move on from the Touchet Formation to work on something else.
 * Interesting to see how much progress there has been in geophysics & glaciology in the past 20-30 years. I'll take a look at the Nature Geosci article early next week (on the road and don't have access here).
 * Skål & tusen tak - Williamborg (Bill) 18:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great - hopefully we'll be able to help you wrap this up. At least relating to things that I am familiar with (landscape evolution, mantle convection, whole-Earth response to glaciation), the whole computer modeling industry has really blossomed... though in landscape evolution at least, we really need to find better real landscapes to validate the models. As for glaciers, I'm waiting for some genius (probably not me) to figure out sliding :-). But as I'm only in my 20's, I have no real perspective.
 * "Skål"... Norwegian? Awickert (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

<== Norwegian, no. Norwegian heritage, yah, fer sure, you bet’cha.

I see your poster session on channel reoccupation Wednesday afternoon. Here's wishing you a great AGU meeting – and good luck deciding which of the sessions you want to attend.

You reference an interesting article. Particularly intrigued by the correlation between overdeepening & the altitude of the surrounding mountains. Think that this conclusion is a correct insight – high altitude gradients do indeed drive overdeepening. But I also think it is only part of the full story - there are a number of fascinating overdeepenings in other locations - particularly near the terminus of the glaciers (e.g., see deep glacially formed lakes like Hornindalsvatnet, Salsvatn, Tinnsjå, Mjøsa – all of which extend substantially below sea level). But my favorite overdeepening example is Lake Pend Oreille, which lay at the end of the relatively flat Purcell lobe glacier and has a lake bottom that lay below sea level even though the glacier terminated over 500 river-miles from the sea. I think Lake Pend Oreille provides strong evidence that there are processes at work which cause overdeepening beyond simple altitude change.

Myself, I’m betting that you geologists/geophysicists will determine overdeepening results because the annual glacial cycles cause periodic ice lens formation in the subglacial bedrock which accelerates basal-glacier erosion rates – summer glacial movement frees the till - summer water flow flushes the till toward the terminus – and the already overdeepened area grows deeper. Since there is evidence that “overdeepness” has limits, this process presumably continues until a critical depth is reached at which the process shuts down – it could be something as complex as the ice lens generation process shutting down when Ice-I goes to Ice-III (or Ice-III to Ice-V … or ice-V goes to Ice-VI or Ice-VI to Ice-VII) or something as simple as the summer water flow being so cooled while it flows downward that it must freeze as it moves upward, so the overdeepening process shuts down through till accumulation.

Ah well, we’ll leave these speculations to those of you who research the area & wait with bated breath to see what the actual mechanisms are. But do get on with your research – I’m interested in knowing.

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 17:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "I see your poster session on channel reoccupation Wednesday afternoon" - you statistically hit the mark - I had something on Wed. morning and something on Thurs. morning, so you split the difference : ).


 * Overdeepenings are neat, and the lakes are beautiful.


 * We never get to high enough pressures for the higher ices in the subglacial area; what stops freeze-thaw is typically freezing itself - when an area gets significantly below 0 degrees C for a long while, the multiple cycles of freeze-thaw (and therefore cracking) stop. Plucking of bedrock is still a rather poorly-understood process though, as far as I know, except for that in roche moutonnée. Awickert (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Paleoclimatology
Talk:Paleoclimatology  Sp in ni ng  Spark  20:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree with your argument, done, Awickert (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Kohala at GAN
Kohala is at GAN and according to the reviewer needs an outside copyeditor! Are you up for the challenge? :D Res Mar 00:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. But I'll do it.... Awickert (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Make amends
Hi Awickert ... I overheard where I may have offended you .. I suspect it occurred here. Please accept my blanked apology and help me clarify the issue for specific resolution. Sincerely, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I accept your apology. As I'm sure you've discovered, those pages can get quite heated, Awickert (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree ... I've appreciated your input. Please don't hesitate to ask me to reconsider something.  Kindly.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue that I face on climate-related things is that the amount by which I care is often not enough to slog through a nasty debate. I am better-rested these days so I will certainly do my best to be kind. Though the usual trolls can be dealt with by a swift revert and ban, I think we need a little a lot more civility with editors who stick around... and that that would speed up things considerably as much time is wasted in back-and-forth insults. But unfortunately the concentration of the usual trolls is usually so high that everyone is always on red alert, shooting at anything that moves. Awickert (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree "trolls" and particularly indignation are a nuisance. In a dignified wiki world, calling the talking assembly to rules of order, without attempts to stack the rules, could help prevent a tyranry of the majority and a disruptive minority. Maybe one day. :-) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. And I think that the continued "global warming = hoax" trolls and sockpuppets really hurt the skeptical side by swamping the main editors with insults and garbage. After dealing with that, it's hard to be reasonable with potentially-reasonable skeptical editors. I don't see order in that mob in the foreseeable future, but I share your hope. Because of my cynicism though, I'm happy to host productive discussion on my talk page if the global warming talk becomes too much of a nuisance to deal with, and I try to be prompt about responding. Awickert (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Likewise, on the other side of the mob are the causes created by a stacked IPCC mission. ( In which the IPCC may have a tyrant may leading the way.) I assume that will be addressed before wiki or the world improves order.  Have a nice holiday.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How is the IPCC mission "stacked" and what "tyrant" are you talking about - and where is it "leading the way" to? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My comment was intended to illustrate how the IPCC may change for the better before wiki does. The IPCC mission is excessively focused on "human-induced" causes as a preset political goal under which they control. Rajendra_K._Pachauri has the marks of a tyrant, upon my full training to recognize them. The current IPCC path, although intended and recognized for peace (as was recently portended at the convention ####) by all my discriminating wisdom, will take the world onto the path of WAR!!! Anyone who sincerely prays for peace, must open the heart of the IPCC to compassion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really know whether i should chalk it up to being unable to comprehend, if i should laugh or cry or simply just commit myself..... But anyways Merry Christmas to you both. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I likewise have a hard time understanding your comments, the IPCC's conclusions are the synthesis of the available science, so they are necessarily what the encyclopedia (another distillation) should be about. I consistently support increased civility in discussions of heated topics, which applies in general (to both side of the debate). In that regard, I take issue with the characterization of a fellow editor as a "tyrant". To clarify on my side, by "trolls", I mean those who go on the global warming pages or their talk pages and post their blog entries and tell us that we suck... consistent contributors are (per my definition) not trolls. Awickert (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not mean to imply I have encountered tyranny by a single wiki editor. "Pain-in-the NPOV" and "tenacious negativity" I have met here in the climate change articles. I agree with your troll assessment. The ones who have survived to stalk their adversaries are worst. For any troll to truly grow, they change to protect their friends, as if an elf. I have encountered many forms of wiki fauna, and a troll who's reformed to protect wiki principles has a unique life on wiki. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Feliz año !!
Thanks for the FAC review of Featured article candidates/Hawaii hotspot/archive3! Espero que recibiste el año nuevo lleno de paz, alegria, y repleto de amistades ... me lo pasé con las compas en Miami ... con demasiado champan, y las clasicas quejas del famoso mono destrosando el pais! Que recibas todo lo mejor para 2010, y gracias de nuevo para tu atención a FAC. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Y también a ti: feliz año nuevo! Desafortunadamente estaba enfermo, casí pulmonía, pero por fin siento mejor y creo que voy a esquiar mañana. Creo que ResMar ahora me odia; es la problema de ser un "expert" (más o menos) en Wiki sin tanto tiempo para hacer todos los correciones antes de que un articulo llegue en FAC. Awickert (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No te das mala vida por tus commentarios en FAC :) Espero que estes mejor ... que susto !!!  Que gozas esquiando ... donde esquias?  Me gustaria ir p'alla este invierno, si me es posible ... tengo tiempo que no voy.  Tienes algun interes en ayudar con Featured article review/Music of Minnesota/archive1?  Saludos, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Estoy equiano en Minnesota ahora, dónde pasé mi niñez (por fin siento mejor - gracias). La nieve es perfecto, y la terreno aquí es perfecto (esquio "cross-country", especially "skate", no sé cómo se dice en español. Pero ahora vivo en Colorado, y también esquio allá. Me gustaría ayudar con esto, pero voy a estar viajando (trabajo) desde pronto hasta las 10 o 11 . . . pero lo pongo en mi lista de cosas para hacer. (Yeah, yeah sorry for the crappy Spanish; back late after being out with friends and just checking email and Wiki messages before bed.)
 * No me molestan las commentarios en FAC. El problema es que para mí es dificíl decir que el trabajo otra persona es mal sin sentir como estoy arrogante, etc. Voy a trabajar con ResMar en todo el tiempo que tengo para mejorarlo.
 * Sí quisieras esquiar, pudiera darte recommendaciónes - de mí (Nordic) o amigos (Alpine). Pero por email - doy mucho información personal aquí, pero no todo : ). Awickert (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No te preocupes por el miedo de arrogancia; los prepotentes suelen ser inconciente de ese problema :) Y Music of Minnesota puede esperar tu regreso de viaje, por si tienes tiempo despues; los FARs tardan más que las FACs.  En cuanto a Colorado, me voy a Vail cuando quiero juntarme con las panas de Caracas, y Beaver Creek cuando quiero más lujo, pero ultimamente, me estoy gustando a Utah.  Espero que no hayas tenido el placer de esquiar sobre hielo en el Este de los EU :)  Mi e-mail esta siempre a la orden, y me alegra que ya estás mejor y disfrutando de las temperaturas de tu niñez!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He esquiado en el Este, jaja; por el nórdico, prefiero el Medio Oeste. Utah es hermosa - los desiertos y las montañas. Preguntaré unos amigos de locaciónes para esquiar. Las temperaturas aquí - bellísimas. Tan frio que las dientes se duelan, para que se sabe que esté en vivo :). Awickert (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Berrrrrro ... para eso, inventaron el Sensodyne! No hay nada como tener los dientes frios! Y yo conjelandome en Florida a los cincuenta grados ! Por lo menos, comí mis arepas y cachapas :)  Bueno, pa'lante ... que disfrutas!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tengo celos de tus arepas; otra cosa interesante es que en las 12 de la tarde ahora, el sol aquí es 22 grados arriba del horizonte. Qué mundo : ). Awickert (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * La harina pan se consigue ya en todos lados ... comprate una TostyArepa de Venezuela, y las puede hacer cualquier! Hasta Wiki lo explica!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gracias, pero ya lo sé. Es que mi TostyArepa es en Colorado... poop. Awickert (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, pues! Conformate entonces con una Malta Goya, por si los hay en Minnesota!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Malta Goya, jajaja. Todavía tengo Toddy, y con esto, todo está bien. Awickert (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ah, pero yo tengo Cocosette, Toronto, Nucita, y varias chocolates de El Rey y Savoy! Y un muy buen restaurante en mi zona que hace todo (faltando solo el queso blanco).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahora entiendo - quieres que tengo celos por la vida en el sur : ). Que pena que se falta el queso blanco - por lo menos hay cheese curds en Wisconsin. Pero también he oido que hay gente en Miami que hacen queso fresco. Recibiste mi email? Lo mando a tu dirección de yahoo, Awickert (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Si, lo tengo ... pero estoy disfrutando demasiado el vacillon aqui :) No estoy en Miami ... fui solo para las navidades a ver a mis comadres ... te mando el menu del restaurante venezolano de mi zona para que te de hambre!  En el rato que estuvimos hablando, has podido rehacer la Musica de Minnesota! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trabajar es contrario a mí compulsión ser flojo. (La verdad es que estaba escribiendo entre haciendo mi trabajo... nuestra conversación fue un "mental health break".) Awickert (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just catching up from a killer week. Thanks for the help there; you've been most generous! ResMar had a hard time accepting the closure of the last FAC, so your help is most appreciated! Just now reading his comments on the FAC about his lack of access to journal sources, I've left a note on the FAC. I can't promote unless your concerns are resolved, but am willing to leave the FAC open since you've so generously offered to work on the issues. In the meantime, Music of Minnesota is moving along; I do hope you'll be able to glance at it in the next few weeks or so. I owe you an e-mail on Venezuelan food-- will get to it as soon as I'm caught up from killer distractions this week! Glad you are safely home, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for leaving the comment on the FAC page. I just left a note on ResMar's talk: I'm going to go full steam ahead if I have his help, but I can't handle the whole thing alone in a reasonable FAC time-frame and will request its close if I'm going to be the only one making edits. I'll make time to read through Music of MN and try to improve it. Awickert (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii hotspot
Hello. I've just been reading the FAC entry for this article. It looks like you were volunteering to look at bolstering some marginally reliable source(s), and I was just wondering where this was up to. I want to review this article at FAC, but would prefer to wait until you were done with whatever improvements you were looking at making. Let me know. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I got some of it done a couple of days ago, but while I improved the representation of the science, I think I disimproved the layout of the article. I've got several thoughts and have been waiting to hear back from User:Resident Mario, who hasn't replied to me yet, and who actually hasn't made any comments since I started working on the article itself. If I don't hear back from him soon, I'm just going to overhaul some additional portions myself. The problem is that I basically stripped out a whole section on "controversy" which was sourced to an online article of a scientist whose beliefs around hotspots are the epitomy of fringe, and whose statements were in some places just plain wrong. But after going through that section, its whole original premise (of citing controversy around hotspots) was very much diffused, and the section should probably go somewhere else. But that involves messing with the whole article and while I know that this is a wiki, I usually like to avoid that on FAC's until I talk it over with its principal nominator. That, and the fact that just got off an airplane and proceeded to drive 14 hours, is the reason for my current holding pattern.
 * How about this: I'll ping ResMar once more, and if I don't hear from him in the next few days, I'll start in on the article. If I do hear from him, he and I will work collaboratively. Either way, I'll let you know when I'm satisfied with the factual accuracy (at least) and the writing style (if I can be so hopeful). Sound OK? Awickert (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all great, and sounds very thorough. If format and style issues result as side-effects of the edits, others of us might pick that up and help fix them anyway. I'll keep an eye open and hopefully the article will be improved sufficiently to get it promoted at FAC. Your assistance in ensuring the reliance on peer-reviewed sources is much appreciated. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy to help and sorry it took me so long. Fortunately, my travel is now at an end and I'll be able to push forward with this. Your assistance with format and style are very much appreciated. FYI, I requested ResMar's input here. Awickert (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, Awd, you can do whatever you want, its not like I own the article :) Sorry for not getting back... Res Mar 16:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nooo problem; didn't want to mess with you system (if you had one). Thanks! (By the way, why am I "Awd"?) Awickert (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Awickert, whenever you get the chance, can you take a quick peek at Featured list candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive1 to check that the information is in order (no obligation, of course). It would be great if someone with knowledge in the field could give a stamp of approval for the list. Once again, only if you have the time. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll check it out, though I bet it's OK as it's considerably less technical than the hotspot one.
 * As a general public service announcement, volcanology is far from my areas of expertise in geology. Awickert (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Closer than me, that's for sure ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Closer than many, unfortunately. I'd reckon that User:Black Tusk knows a lot more than me, but I know enough to be able to help with the list. Could take a day or two though... I have a backlog of work to get through here (sorry!). Awickert (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)