User talk:Heyitspeter

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

—RuakhTALK 00:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Logic
Another response to your message has been added on User talk:BlueNight. --BlueNight 06:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucretius as a scientist
Hi,

You used the following remark to your recent edit note to your recent edit of On the Nature of Things:


 * Accusing Lucretius of not claiming to be a scientist - a word coined by William Whewell in 1833 - doesn't help to contextualise his work.

My spin on Lucretius is that of a historian of science. If we go by the definition that no one before Whewell was a scientist, we rule out Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Ptolemy, and Aristotle, all of whom occupy major places in the literature of the history of science.

I maintain that when Lucretius claims that we can't know the reasons for eclipses and the phases of the moon, when his predecessors had already made good scientific demonstrations of those reasons, he is making a scientific claim. Any article about his work should evaluate that claim, within the criteria of his time. --SteveMcCluskey 21:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at what I took out, I think you'll see that our views aren't particularly opposed. I deleted this chunk-


 * "Actually, Lucretius was a philosopher. As a poet he was competent. But as a scientist, he never claimed to be one, nor did his work claim to be scientific. "De Rerum Natura" is an epistemological foundation for what should be studied, not a study itself."


 * Philosophy and Science were viewed as synonymous during Lucretius' time. The author of the above text is claiming that, because Lucretius never explicitly referred to himself as a "scientist", his works cannot be treated as scientific. I agree with you that he made "scientific" (if that word means anything) evaluations of his surroundings. I think the article discusses this adequately, but it could be expanded, of course! Thoughts, concerns, criticisms?--134.10.121.56 03:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * p.s. I made those edits while logged out; accidentally. I've copied these comments and pasted them to my talkpage. This is my username.--Heyitspeter 03:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I got your message; your point was well taken.


 * As to keeping track of replies, I prefer to keep replies in one place and usually put pages where I've posted on my watch list for a while.


 * I agree that De Rerum Natura needs work; I see the problem as one of putting some balance in the article's presentation. As I've mentioned in the past on its talk page, the article focuses almost entirely on the ethical side of L's writing.  From reading it, one would scarcely know that most of his book was about the physical world.  --SteveMcCluskey 03:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I'll try to help add as I have time. The article is on my watchlist as well, now. We'll see where it goes!--Heyitspeter 04:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing. -Midnightdreary 16:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard Rorty
Thank you for that link. It is, as you said, a beautiful article. Cheers, Iknowyourider (t c) 04:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it to my attention! There's so much hate directed towards the post-modernists, it seems. It's nice to read an article by someone who can understand them, and is empathetic.--Heyitspeter 18:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins
Thank you for the "public service announcement" from Richard Dawkins :) I'm sorry about the late reply (this is the first time I've actually logged in before viewing wiki pages since the end of October). I think Dawkins means well (at least in his mind) but comes off just as fundamentalist as any sect member.  I also appreciated your comments on whether or not Dawkins' criticism of postmodern work is relevant, and the witty idea to include his comments in the "postmodernism is boring" section :) His empty remarks had no place in that article. Feel free to send me more funny youtubes on R. Dawkins' crusade for science. Take care Timeloss 21:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your Message
I might get an account but I prefer if the material speaks for itself. On looking at your above comments I presume you are referring to the postmodernism addition I made. The stuff I added was all referenced, the article had given the impression that PM began in architecture of all things, one of our more conservative arts-- though for that reason a good indicator of entrenchment! It also left out the fact that the word was used as early at 1870 and a number of other uses, eg Pannwitz from Nietzsche in 1917, and others that the OED showed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.45.210 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, whatever works. At the very least it'll be a good experiment. Maybe I'm the first to demonstrate unconscious bias against unregistered users! In any case, the Postmodernism article definitely does need work, and hopefully we'll get more like you (or even from you) as we go on. --Heyitspeter (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PROD tag
Hello,

As an FYI, PROD is actually only for article space, not talk pages. The correct way to flag a redirect for deletion is db-move. That said, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity is actually the correct title as book titles normally have all important words capitalized per Naming conventions (capitalization). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the bookcover here... Of course book titles 'normally' have all important words capitalized. We have an abnormality on our hands. It's likely that he actively chose to lowercase each word, for the same reason he actively (and explicitly) chose to lowercase the word truth to demarcate it from Truth, which he discussed in this very same book. Please reconsider making the deletion. --Heyitspeter (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey its Peter
Re:Interpretation (logic)

The formulation that you reverted is strictly more correct than yours. No it is not a function in an object language, it is an expression in a metalanguage talking about an object language (i.e. saying what the symbols of it mean). Most significantly to observe is that ontologically, it is an idea (or concept or abstraction depending on your POV). I am puzzled by your apparent confidence given that this isn't a difference of formulation, you are saying it is something it isn't.

The type-token distinction in dealing with ideas is well known and used to clarify this very thing (see Carnap Quine, Putnam etc). On a brighter note, I am glad to see your contributions in general. I think there are some things we may agree on that others do not. Be well Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My phrasing was poor but I stand by my statement. You're thinking of interpretation as hermeneutic. This is interpretation as logical function. You're proposed header should go on another page called "What does formal logic signify?" or something. Please read the section above the one you just voted on.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay help me out here...what statement do you disagree with ...
 * A) an interpretation is an idea, and the written marks on a page are tokens of the idea. (I understand that people commonly don't make this distinction in casual language, however the idea here is to be as precise as the academicians).
 * B) an interpretation is expressed in a metalanguage whose expressions talk about some object language.
 * Both are quite true


 * I agree with you that "extension" should be included (in place of "meaning" is just fine and appropriate clarification), however I don't think anyone else in the group cares about that kind of stuff -- at all. I also would love to see a section on interpretations of modal logic as well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds trivial but this ambiguity affects the entire article. The section on truth-functional connectives that I just altered originally claimed that the connectives are interpreted. This only makes sense if you take interpretation other than in the technical sense. Again, sorry I was overly harsh. That was unwarranted on various levels.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have been pointing out, they are interpreted. We could equally well interpret $$\lor$$ to denote conjunction. But, because these are usually treated as logical constants in first-order logic, we do not require a structure (mathematical logic) to define meanings for them. That does not mean that they are not interpreted. The article is not only about first-order interpretations; it also includes interpretations in which $$\lor$$ indicates conjunction and $$\land$$ indicates disjunction. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, that's not it. Since interpretation isn't meaning, it's okay to say that $$\lor$$ means "or", while admitting that the symbol is uninterpreted. Remember that a logic has multiple interpretations (2^n where n = the number of sentence letters), but the logical connectives remain constant.
 * If $$\lor$$ was uninterpreted, then we would have no semantics (no extension, no truth value, no meaning) for $$A \lor B$$, even if we have a truth value for A and for B. Whenever we assign semantics to a symbol, that is an "interpretation" in the sense of the article in question. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You still haven't realized that you're dealing with two uses of the word interpretation. First reread the comment you just now responded to. Then read the now-edited section on logical connectives in the disputed article. This is explained there.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do realize that. I am saying that the article is about the broader concept of assignment of semantic meaning to symbols, not about the narrower concept of structure (mathematical logic). The point of logical constants is not that they are uninterpreted, but that they are always interpreted the same way. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But none of the article is about that, even just as a fact of the matter. I was thinking about this, though. I suppose you could ask why we use a given interpretation function, and this would broach a lot of the subjects that you seem to want to address. For example, why assign "1" to P when you're doing philosophy? The answer seems to be that you are the interpretation function, and you assign "1" to P because you use P as shorthand for "Peter is on Wikipedia" and 1 as shorthand for "Truth." That isn't irrelevant to this article. --Heyitspeter (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you make of Interpretation_(logic)? That is at least one example in the article that does not fit into the "interpretation functions" framework. It is true that, at that level of generality, one cannot say too much, so the article goes on to discuss more common systems. But the article is also just missing content about other sorts of interpretations (for example, interpretations of scientific theories should probably be discussed). &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 10:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Re Gregbard: There is a section in the article on nonclassical logics, although it is short. As for particular issues with your text:
 * The "idea" sentence in particular is misguided; we could start every article on mathematics with "XXX is an idea,..." but that would not help anything. An interpretation, in many cases of interest, is a function; I have no idea what a physical token of a function is.
 * Carl, this is a wild presumption that just everything is an idea so there is no point in identifying ideas. The point here is that the things we are dealing with are the type of idea that does not appear to the mind as an image, and therefore the only precise way to define them is to recognize that we are dealing with ideas, not marks on paper. Logicians use the marks on paper as a tool to help understand the ideas. Unfortunately, this practice can lead to paradox if the distinction is not made explicit. That's why "metalanguage" and the "type-token distinction" is important. This is the way responsible analytic philosophers and logicians deal with these things.-GB
 * The "expressed in a metalanguage" claim is also off, for the same reason. In the specific case of first-order logic, an interpretation is a structure, which is a collection of sets. There are uncountably many interpretations, and thus most of them cannot be "expressed" in any reasonable (i.e. finitely definable) metalanguage.
 * Carl, it is not essential for the existence of a formula that there be any actual token instances of it. This is the only way it makes any sense to talk about a language with uncountably many formulas in the first place. There just is no such thing as an object language that floats out there with no metalanguage. It exists as an idea and there is nothing anyone can do about it from the moment there is any object language. It make no sense to me to talk about object langauge without talking about metalanguage. If there are further distinctions to make as you claim, then they should be elucidated (perhaps in its own section).-GB
 * The claim "The formal languages used in mathematical logic and theoretical computer science are defined in solely syntactic terms, " is false. For example, the set of sentences in the language of arithmetic that are true in the standard model of the natural numbers is a formal language, but is not definable in syntactic terms.
 * I think you have unintentionally mish-mashed syntax and semantics inappropriately for two languages. A formal language must be capable of being defined entirely in terms of its syntax and without regard to any interpretation of it otherwise it is not a formal language. This is also from Hunter. [Incidentally, I am using Hunter because I sought out my own copy after much evaluation and study. It is the best reference on these topics I have seen, and I have seen a lot (despite the group's widespread believe to the contrary].-GB
 * &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Be well Carl. Stay cool. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A formal language is any fixed set of sentences over a fixed alphabet. Therefore the set of sentences that are true in the standard model of the natural numbers is a formal language. Hunter is somewhat idiosyncratic on this point, which is why it is important to consult more than one reference. Every set of sentences forms a formal language; thus most of them will not be syntactically definable.
 * As I have pointed out before, there is an equally valid argument that a formula is a token, as it is a syntactic object. Again, you cannot look only at one reference. It is telling that most books on mathematical logic manage to describe formulas perfectly well without using the word "token". It would be silly to claim such books are not by "logicians".
 * &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation (logic)
I think the conversation there is getting somewhat frustrating, so perhaps we can start fresh.

I completely understand what an interpretation of propositional logic, predicate logic, or modal logic is. And the books you have cited use the usual terminology for that.

My concern is that the article is intended to cover interpretations more generally. For example:
 * For the language consisting of words on the two symbols "A" and "B", one interpretation assigns each word an integer by subtracting the number of Bs from the number of As
 * Another interpretation of the same language assigns each word to a location on the Cartesian plane. You start at the origin facing North. Then, working from left to right: each "A" means go forward one unit, each "B" means turn 90 degrees to the right.

Now the article does spend some time on interpretations of propositional and first-order logic. It probably spends too long on those, as they are covered in depth in other articles, and so can be just summarized. But the article does not spend long enough on interpretations of modal logic, nor on interpretations of intuitionistic logic.

By the way, interpretations of intuitionistic logic are one place where the connective are not given the same meaning as in classical logic. For example, the BHK interpretation is an "interpretation" in some sense, but does not assign the same meanings to the connectives that classical interpretations do. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 11:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I will be traveling for a few days and so my responses will be delayed. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 11:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool I like that. It seems like a usage of interpretation that doesn't fit my understanding of the term as it relates to logic. Let's include it. How do you want to handle that? Should we make a clear distinction between the two types of interpretation, in separate sections? You seem more mathematically inclined, so maybe you'd be able to translate the general mathematical definition of interpretation from that article you linked into layman's terms and then use the rest of the article to discuss the broader senes of "interpretation"? Have fun on your trip.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Say Hey (itspeter), I think perhaps you may be interested to see another version of the Interpretation article which had existed previously with a lot more sections, more complete sections, etcetera. It was filled with overly complex material however I admit, but the current version is still lacking some of the material covered in it. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Most recent
I have challenged your most recent revert on the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident on the talk page. Please respond as soon as possible - it appears you were mistaken about who was "misrepresenting" what sources said. Hipocrite (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! --Heyitspeter (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your added source dosen't say what you say it says. Please revert to the version supported by sources - I'm not going to argue with you about it further, rather, I'm going to take your false edit summaries (which accused me, wrongly, of misrepresenting sources which you didn't check) to the probation board. Hipocrite (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the assertion in the edit summary was a mistake on my part, and I apologize for that. I've admitted this in the section you created on the talkpage. --Heyitspeter (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And where is MY FUCKING APOLOGY for you accusing me of misrepresenting sources? Why aren't you reverting when you know you are wrong? Hipocrite (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I get it - you think that saying "he assertion in the edit summary was a mistake on my part, and I apologize for that," is the same as saying "You know, Hipocrite, it wasn't right for me to have accused you of misrepresenting sources. I'm going to stop accusing you of malfeasance now, because you aren't being dishonest. I'm really sorry I accused you of being dishonest." Not "I'm sorry I made a mistake!" Hipocrite (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Notpology seems apposite. . . dave souza, talk 12:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? I'd have linked to WP:IPAT. Seems more pertinent to explicating my comments (or their absence near the end there).--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF
Since you "believe that anthropogenic global warming is occuring" you should have no problem in providing an example where you have argued this point in global-warming related articles. It is my assumption that the editors who argue for a name change to the hacking incident article oppose global warming science. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguing the point would break WP:NOT and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Please review these policies, and WP:AGF as well. Pointing out a personal attack is not an example of an accusation of bad faith.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to see an example of your support for your alleged belief that AGW is occurring. Or was that claim simply a rhetorical device on your part, to phrase it kindly? ► RATEL ◄ 10:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, as I suspected, there is no proof. [[Image:Face-sad.svg|25px]] ► RATEL ◄ 10:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.
A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * RE: . I appreciate you support, and think everyone who has signed does.  While I understand that everyone is frustrated with the current situation would you please consider refactoring your comment to put your best foot forward?  Things are likely tentative at best so every little bit will help.  Thanks.  --GoRight (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. It was just one of those cases where tone doesn't translate when put into plain text. I tried to indicate that it was a joke. I've responded there, and thanks for the heads up.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. You are likely correct.  Sorry I didn't understand the jp.  I tend to run into the same problem when I make jokes where the tone I am using in my head doesn't make it through the keyboard.  Anyway I removed our comments just to avoid any additional confusion by others.  --GoRight (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Modern classic element system
FYI, I rewrote some, but mostly added, some info in the section Modern classic element system (now renamed), based on my postings at the talk page Talk:Classical element. The deal is IMHO that there is no known continuity between the classical and modern element systems. However, the article profits from the comparison of classical and modern elements. Take a look, and if something should be improved, drop a post on the Talk, if you'd like to. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 13:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks you! That wasn't on my watchlist. I won't be able to add much to the article itself right now because I've misplaced my Presocratic collections, but I'll get that under control I hope.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name
Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You are eligible
It has come to my attention that you are eligible for charter membership in this exclusive enclave.

Pot, Kettle,...
black? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're suggesting that my comment wasn't constructive beause WMC won't listen, perhaps so. If otherwise, please state as much directly as it's not self-evident.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that your comment there is not constructive at all. It is unlikely to further the discussion. In general, if you have a comment that is only relevant for a single user, I suggest you talk to that user in an appropriate venue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. That would have been better, I just hadn't thought of it for whatever reason. Thank you for explaining what you meant.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's blatantly obvious that WMC's comment was a positive contribution to the discussion, stating his agreement with another editor, and Heyitspeter's was irrelevant sniping. HiP should desist. . . dave souza, talk 10:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to point out that you (Dave Souza) have exemplified what you here refer to as "irrelevant sniping" in an edit you brought to my attention on this talkpage. WP:GAME or perhaps plain old hipocrisy seem apposite. (You continue to participate in "irrelevant snip[ing]" even after commenting on this thread here)--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC's statement was, in its entirety: "Lar is wrong, obviously. Stephan is correct." This is not constructive, it is only rude, and if you believe it adds to the discussion, reflect on it for a moment. I request in advance that you not make similar comments.
 * My own comment pointed this out and apparently led to its removal. That's constructive in my book, though I agree with Stephan Schulz that WMC's talkpage would have been a better place for it.
 * Also, note that you have in the same sentence defended what in my view was an unambiguously negative comment, branded my expression of that opinion "irrelevant sniping," all while referring to me in the third person. If you want your input to be appreciated, use tact. It works wonders.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WMC has struck his comments - please could you do the same for yours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. (He has not, in fact.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

strikethrough
Saw your edit comment on the RFE page, to strike through all you need do is edit your post and do the following your stuff here When you edit this post you`ll see whats been done :)
 * Ahh yeah thank you!--Heyitspeter (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ''This edit is a clear example of edit warring. Not a "technical" violation of 1RR, but since are clearly aware of the issue from your edit summary, your actions are also a violation. Recommend you self-revert.'' Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ? I see this as a clear case of RV vandalism. Care to explain how you see it as an edit war? An editor reverted an edit, which was then reverted in violation of 1RR. I restored the original reversion. --Heyitspeter (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually no. Nigelj rewrote a section. Nsaa reverted it. Nigelj restored his rewritten section and then you reverted it. That's a continuation of an edit war started by Nsaa, not Nigelj. Either way, you have perpetuated an edit war and should be blocked for it, in my opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please take this up at the request for enforcement page, or perhaps with LhVU, the administrator who blocked Nigelj. I'd appreciate the outside opinion, as it really did seem to me that all I had done was RV vandalism. I note that most people who break 1RR or 3RR self-revert, but this didn't happen before Nigelj was blocked.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
Fair enough, thank you for using an informative edit summary. That discussion was wending into WP:NOTFORUM territory, though. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey 2over0, thanks. I considered closing it again with a different heading (and upon rescanning the talkpage I'm going to, as it seems yours was restored by another user). I don't disagree with your close at all, I just disagree with the reasoning stated there (namely, "FAQ#5"). It doesn't seem worth closing on those pretences as FAQ#5 doesn't satisfactorily address the concerns raised and is highly out of date. tl;dr: HeyitsPeter has liked all of the contributions of yours he's come across these past days, but in this specific case, he didn't think that the stated reason for the close was going to satisfy people. (It hasn't in fact, as discussion is continuing below it.) --Heyitspeter (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now closed the section again with different reasoning provided --Heyitspeter (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No
-- Scjessey (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're not interested in cutting back on your disruption of the CRU hacking incident talkpage, fine. Just be conscious of the fact that where you ignore requests for improvement you're aiming straight for a request for enforcement. Be more careful with your edits in the future.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Four causes
Concerning your deletion on the four causes article, I have started a talk thread here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) I'll check it out.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:MEAT
The "third bulletpoint" of WP:MEAT is (and has been for at least a year ): I don't think this is what you want to say. If it is, it's a nice example of dada in the written medium, but my artistic sense is too limited to understand the meaning.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity.
 * My understanding of the bullet point is that one is guilty of meatpuppetry in acting as a meatpuppet, as you are currently. I respectfully request that you withdraw your comments from that request. I plan on filing an independent request against you and Ratel should this (currently ancillary) point not be addressed by yourself or admins in the current section. Apologies for not responding in German, but this diff would become an example of a warning in said future request for enforcement and so should be comprehensible to English-speakers (subjunctive tense). --Heyitspeter (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm....have you read the bullet point in question? Do you claim there is any uncertainty about the the possibility that Ratel and I (and, presumably, others) are "one user with sock puppets"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think you understand my statement. I mean that, as per precendent (and [in hindsight] as per the rest of WP:MEAT as well) a meatpuppet is as guilty of meatpuppetry as the user who recruits him/her/it. That is to say: you are currently in violation WP:MEAT. I will request enforcement against yourself and Ratel should you refrain from removing the relevant comments (viz., all of them) from the relevant section (viz.). Please do so even if only to humor me. --Heyitspeter (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see how the bullet point you cite applies, as there is, to my knowledge, no question of socks here at all. But no, I will not remove any of my comments. I have a strong history of watching the probation page and commenting on it. Ratel's message had no significant influence on my participation or opinion. As such, your claim otherwise is a strong violation of WP:AGF. I don't see how Ratel's actions can limit my right to comment. I strongly discourage you from opening a misguided enforcement request on this issue - it will be a complete waste of time. However, if you are set to do it, you may as well start ASAP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My reading of MEAT is that it refers to attempts to recruit editors to influence consensus in content disputes. How do you apply this to the current situation, or are you simply extrapolating as you see fit, HeyPeter? ► RATEL ◄ 09:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The word 'content' does not appear at WP:MEAT nor at its parent article, WP:SOCK.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * heyitspeter: Well, the current proceeding is not a consensus-seeking exercise, but an examination of events by admins. It's not the same thing as  trying to influence the encyclopaedia's content by stacking the votes on  a Talk page — not as I interpret it anyway. If I wanted to recruit  meatpuppets, I could have sent private emails, not so? I was being open  about what I was doing, and merely chose the editors from an edit  history of the page. However, yes, I do suspect an element of bad  faith in editors trying to insert FUD into climate-related article  though, so I did not inform them. Guilty as charged. Is my assumption of  bad faith a crime? I would contend not, given that the whole topic is  about how industry is paying people to create similar FUD in the general  populace. Is it possible that the billions (no exaggeration) of dollars  these industries stand to lose in the event of carbon trading have  prompted them not only to pay for disinformation campaigns, like the  ones we have documented on the article page, but also for the diligent  and tireless efforts of a group of wikipedia editors? I don't know, but  it's not outside the realm of the possible, is it? ► RATEL ◄  09:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * BATTLEGROUND does not apply here, and you have failed to show how I have GAMED the system. And collapsing my comments after directing admins here to read them is a bit rich. ► RATEL ◄ 09:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: POV tag
I noticed you added back the POV tag into Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Could you very briefly explain why? Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Did you not read Jimbo's comments?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * AQFK, unlesss "Heyitspeter" is your alternate account, please treat people as individuals, not as clonal bodies. I am asking Heyitspeter a question, not you or Jimbo. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * AQFK answered just fine. Search the talkpage for "UNDUE" or "WP:DUE."--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if you won't answer a simple question about why you added a tag, I'll consider removing it. Due to this exchange, however, I must ask, are you and AQFK the same editor? Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, knock it off. Heyitspeter is on my Watchlist.  That's why I responded to your absurd question.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, your question betrays a gross absurdity in your understanding of my and Heyitspeter's editing patterns. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is your name Heyitspeter? I have asked Heyitspeter a question twice, and twice you have responded in his place.  Should I be concerned about this? Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if you want to continue down this avenue of false sock puppetry accusations. I'm willing to stake my editorial reputation that I am not a sockpuppet of Heyitspeter as we have very different editing histories.  Are you willing to stake your editorial reputation that I'm wrong?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Asking questions isn't remotely similar to a false accusation. If I'm interested in your answer to a question, I'll let you know, but I'm asking Heyitspeter why he added a POV tag, not you.  Is that clear? Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm concerned about your thinly veiled accusations that I am a sockpuppet of Heyitspeter. You can easily resolve the situation by explicitly stating that your are making no such accusation.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I already resolved it in the above response. If you missed it again, I'll repeat it: "Asking questions isn't remotely similar to a false accusation."  Now, if your name is not Heyitspeter, the next time I ask him a question, I'll expect a response from him.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but are you currently threatening to make a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT violation? That's hardly motivational. :) Heyitspeter (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, though. You can search webpages for specific words (on Firefox or Safari) by pressing Command+F on a mac or Ctrl+F on a PC. You can find the POV contentions that way.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked you a very simple question about why you added a POV tag; Your non-answer was "Search the talkpage for "UNDUE" or "WP:DUE".  I don't consider that an answer to my question, so I'll consider this discussion closed with the conclusion "Heyitspeter cannot justify his rationale for adding a POV tag".  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To do so would be a WP:HEAR violation, which I would bring to the attention of the RfE page. You can find the disputations yourself. Go to the talkpage. There are numerous NPOV contentions being made against the title. The section titled "Requested Move" contains many of them. One way of finding some of them is by searching for the strings "WP:DUE" or "UNDUE" following the instructions I've given you. You can also read the posts by Jimbo, who has commented several times that the current title violates WP:NPOV. Please stop disrupting my talkpage. --Heyitspeter (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Asking for an explanation of why you added a POV tag is not disruption; It's a legitimate question based on neutrality template usage. You're supposed to place the tag on the article and then explain your reasons on the talk page.  Did you do that?  If the answer is no, then you're being disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The explanation is written on the tag. Removing the tag on the basis of an unwillingness to look for the WP:NPOV disputes plastered all across the talkpage that AQFK and I have repeatedly pointed you towards would be a direct WP:HEAR violation and astonishingly WP:DISRUPTIVE, as would your repetition of an answered question here. I will not be responding further.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)No, no, no. If an editor is going to remove a long standing POV tag, the burden of proof is up to them to prove that consensus to remove the tag has been achieved.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The reality of the situation is the exact opposite of what you claim. The burden of proof is on the editor adding the tag.  Please familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia procedures before you reply. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Which just goes back to my original comment. Are you serious?  Did you not read Jimbo's comments?  Or anyone else's for that matter?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, why are you answering for Heyitspeter? Are you his majordomo?  I'm sure Heyitspeter can think for himself without you doing it for him. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I'm trying to figure out why you keep asking this question. This issue has been discussed to death on the talk page.  The current title is far from neutral and expresses a fringe viewpoint that the scandal is about the hacking.  Even the compromise titles are not  neutral, but are at least less wrong than the current title.  The most neutral title of all is probably "Climategate" (or perhaps "Climategate scandal").  The fact that you keep asking this question implies to me that you haven't paid attention to what other editors (or reliable sources for that matter) are saying. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

AGF failure
and, if you can, return from your very conveniently placed wikibreak. is a clear violation of AGF. Please redact it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was sarcasm of the 'this is actually inconvenient' kind, and not of the 'you are being dishonest' kind. Best to avoid entirely when online, I suppose.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Dave souza
Did you just file a request against Dave? For some reason, it's in the middle of the page, and not the bottom where new ones should be file. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I put it there because there was already a thread opened. Do you think I should move it to the bottom? Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done it anways.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV and BLP problems with your recent edits
As discussed here and here, there are serious NPOV and BLP problems with your recent edits. Can you please revise or revert your edits to ensure that policies are properly and fully complied with? As it's getting rather late I may consider it necessary to undo your changes, and under BLP policy would not consider this to be counted in terms of the 1RR probation. To avoid any unpleasantness, I'll be most grateful if you can first attend to the matter yourself. Thanks, dave souza, talk 22:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither NPOV nor BLP problematize any of my edits. I have continued the discussion on the talkpage. Please do not engage in WP:Wikilawyering to duck 1RR restrictions.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In use
It's rather impolite to ignore an template. Guettarda (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'inuse' template was added with the disputed revert, not before. Please do not bother me unless it's necessary.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC
 * FWIW, it wasn't a revert (see my comments on the article talk page) and it was inadvertent anyway - I had the editing window open while I was trying to find the right template and inadvertently overwrote your edit. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Thanks for the explanation.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Archiving comments
No biggie, but I don't get why you archived my comment about a third report on the CRU scientists in the offing. I was pointing out that there's no need to worry too much about editing right now since the article will have to be updated when the Russell report comes out shortly. As it turned out some editors got so concerned about seeing their perspectives in print NOW that the whole article's on lockdown. I was suggesting calm. Yopienso (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Unarchiving is alright with me, but here's my reasoning since you asked (with Cs and CHs occasionally exchanged for Ks for no apparent reason).
 * I was archiving what I konsidered to be komments not direktly koncerned with the konstruction of a kompromise wording for the lead, because I wanted to make that section straightforward and approachable, and thought these 'extraneous' comments would make the process more difficult.
 * On an only superficially related note, I do not see 'there will be more information later' as a reason to avoid ameliorating the article 'now'. There are problems with the article 'now'. That the article will be better is not a reason to stop working towards that ideal future version in the present.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Bias
While I am concerned that Lar has a particular bias regarding the content of the articles covered under the probation, I am more worried about his pattern of judgements against WMC. I do not believe that an individual holding biases against a particular editor ought to represent themselves as 'uninvolved' for the purposes of enforcing probation. He is fully entitled to comment in the other sections of the request for enforcement.

Consequently, I must decline your invitation to withdraw my statements. Out of curiosity, could you be more specific when you state that "it'd probably be appreciated" if I removed my comment? Who would be appreciative, and for what reason? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But a pattern of judgments against x does not imply bias against x... Could you be more specific about what you mean? Perhaps you could make it more clear at the enforcement page as well. Thanks! (To abate your curiousity: I imagine Lar would, for obvious reasons.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Diffs
That's not the way I remember it at all. I may be wrong. But if you're going to accuse me of dishonesty and "fanaticism", you really need to supply diffs. Those are mighty serious accusation to make. Guettarda (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Says the editor whose allegation that Lar is operating on the basis of a grudge prompted the comment under discussion here. I'm sure you can find the diffs yourself. Since we're both talking about the same set, it'd help your own case as well.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Population Statistics Correlating to Fomenko's Dating System by Ruth Jacobsen
If I don't get booted off of Wikipedia for my researched ideas, I will be writing many of the things I recently placed on the Discussion page of Anatoly Komenko (with additional information) at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:137.186.166.120 (if you are interested). I'm new to Editing anything on Wikipedia so my tables don't come out to what they should. I don't have a table icon on my edit on the user page (or at least I did not see one).

I need to know if a person can copy and paste tables from Microsoft Word 2007 or not since the tables do not come out correctly. I haven't signed up for a user name yet. Not sure if it takes a person to a page where they send you something by email or not--did not get that far. It said I wasn't logged in. Maybe you can help me on my talk page with this.

Thanks, Ruth Jacobsen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.166.120 (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As regards your tabling queries: If you press enter twice you get the distinct rows you seem to be looking for.
 * You can sign up somewhere in the top right of the page. I would recommend it, because you would then be able to add pages that interest you to a watchlist where you can find them easily, because it lends you social credibility on this website, and because as is your IP address may shift which is disorientating from the reader's perspective. You could then also use your talkpage as a stable platform with which to draft your ideas about history. That would be best, as everything you post to the Fomenko page will be deleted within minutes and will not reach the audience you're hoping for.
 * I registered for an account several years ago. The only email I have ever received was a request to verify that I was not a bot at the outset.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I'm going to disagree with you here. Editors shouldn't be using any pages for developing original research. This editor is new and doesn't understand how we work yet, her tables, her ideas, all belong elsewhere, perhaps on a personal website. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * '*sigh* That's true. Irresponsible of me, but I just wanted to read more of her stuff. :) --Heyitspeter (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No
Just adding to the request of two other editors that you refrain from your proposed edit. Some severe flaws have been noted and to my knowledge they have not been addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasty monster (talk • contribs) 03:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll look for them as I have time.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked, and still do not see unaddressed concerns. If you have any to add I'd be happy to hear them. Anything to get a better product. Barring that, we're still on that 24h clock.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we are on no such clock. If you make the edit after more than three editors have asked you not to, I will file an enforcement request. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please attempt to follow the thread of the conversation at that page. The concerns raised have been addressed. Also, note: "To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated."--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing against consensus in order to fuel edit wars is not a minor offense. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such edit war. And please review WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISRUPT. Instead of harassing me, why don't you make constructive contributions to the discussion at the talkpage?
 * Threatening to make edits against consensus which will result in automatic reverts is a threat to engage in edit warring. Is this clear? Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are telling me you will 'automatically' revert the proposed edit without providing any rationale on the talkpage, despite repeated requests? I can't imagine your request for enforcement will go very well for you...--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never made such a claim. As I clearly wrote above, "Threatening to make edits against consensus which will result in automatic reverts is a threat to engage in edit warring."  Multiple editors have rejected your proposed edits.  Please stop turning Wikipedia into a battlefield.  You have already been the subject of at least two enforcement requests.  If a third one is filed, I will ask for a block and/or topic ban based on your previous two cases. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Viriditas. You do not understand what is going on at that page. The concerns of the other editors have been met, so I expect no reverts from them. You are the only person who continues to object to the proposed addition, and given that you have failed to provide any justification for your objection it is fair to ignore you as per WP:CONSENSUS.


 * Neither of the requests for enforcement brought against me resulted in sanctions. Not all requests are warranted, as you of all people should know. Your fanatical harassment is growing tiresome. I have now put your talkpage on my watchlist. If you want to discuss something with me, bring it there. This is a formal request for you to cease from discussing this particular topic on my talkpage.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

How sad to see the two of you bickering like children.

I offer two comments:

1. I don't see a consensus. By my count, Hipocrite, Guettarda, and Viriditas disapprove Peter's suggestion. Arthur, Tony, and I tend to agree with it but fall short of endorsing it. For my part, it's absolutely fine for him to go ahead, but also absolutely fine for it to be subsequently edited. Edited and tweaked, but not reverted. Curtis and Thepm approve.

2. The only thing I can find in his proposal that I can't find in the main body is a reference to Computerworld. Viriditas, do you spot more? If so, let's take this to the article talk page and discuss it like adults. Yopienso (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I plead WP:BAIT.
 * You appear to be right. It had been added but must have been deleted. It's still here: Climatic_Research_Unit_documents.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure who you think is baiting whom. I assure you I wrote in good faith and am baiting no one.  So, Computer World got moved to the documents article;  it should be easy to simply delete that from your 2nd suggested paragraph and go ahead with it.  I'll put in two more cents' worth on the article talk page.  Yopienso (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Peter. It's Julian here. Aka Polargeo. Don't collapse my comments without consensus please. I don't care about admins in this situation, they should have no more power than you or I do. Polargeo (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That page is consistently derailed by tangential discussions. Collapses seem to me to be a good way of cutting the page down to the bare relevancies. I stand by the decision to collapse, though I won't edit war over it. Do you have another idea? As an alternative, could you perhaps move the herementioned thread to the talkpage in its entirety? Given that you've already moved some of it you may as well go the rest of the way.
 * (I agree that admins should have no more power than you or I do, though LHVU, for example, seems to disagree. In any case, one's status as 'uninvolved' might count for something.) --Heyitspeter (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * LHvU has recently shown that he is confusing the rules on this issue. In a way I don't really mind my stuff on the talkpage being collapsed it is just on the main page of the sanctions where I feel it had some relevence. If Cla, who started the discussion, requested that it was collapsed I would agree with him but I wouldn't be so presumptive to collapse his comments or my reply to them without his agreement. I would always follow wider consensus but it seems as though your collapse did not have consensus therefore as you rightly say best not to edit war on it. :) Polargeo (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look back, you'll see that Cla did not start the discussion I collapsed. You did. I cannot imagine he would be opposed to its move or collapse.
 * This is not a big deal, obviously. Just meditate on it or some such. Happy editing.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Revised my RfC view
...and your endorsement turned into a placeholder, at your request. Please review, you may no longer agree. Best. ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change
An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:
 * The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
 * Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
 * Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
 * "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
 * "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
 * "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
 * "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
 * The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.


 * All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
 * Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
 * The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
 * All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
 * Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
 * Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
 * Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sub-issues question
I have removed the portion that was not a question, as the Committee has requested only simple questions in that section. You are welcome to contribute your thoughts elsewhere, though. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 04:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where do you think would be an appropriate venue[/outlet]? I'll accept the answer 'nowhere'. Thanks!--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies - I saw this earlier and I thought you were just being funny (you were!). To be honest, most of it seems like just explaining the reasoning behind your question, which seems straightforward enough.  You could contribute evidence toward one or both or many sides of the issue and then later follow up in the workshop phase of arbitration.  Have you read Arbitration/Guide to arbitration? ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 22:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did after seeing it linked on your talkpage when I was previewing my talkback post. I don't quite understand it though. I suppose these issues, if accepted, will be discussed at a later stage? Thank you!--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Committee will analyze the questions as a way to focus their eventual decisions, and they will also help to focus further evidence and the eventual workshop proposals - sort of like having an early framework.  Speaking of which, can you please reformat your recent questions into single sentences?  Thank you. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 11:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom evidence
Just wanted to suggest that editing other people's evidence probably isn't a good idea, even to correct obvious factual errors. Arbcom have said they're going to supervise this case fairly closely (though there's little evidence so far that they're actually doing this). Safer to point out the error on the editor's talk. You could also do it on the Evidence talk page although that might engender more drama and pointless back-and-forth. I don't mean to be critical, just trying to avoid problems. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll refrain if edits of the brand I made aren't wikidecorous. Wikimanners are a work in progress. Thanks for the head['?]s up.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And after looking back over the two edits you're referencing, I'll reiterate my refrain, this time with reference to WP:DICK and/or WP:TROUT. As you can see from the adjacent edits ZP5 was in the process of gnoming his comment while I was busy calling him out on typos. If you can read this right now, ZP5, I'm sorry!--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, you inadvertently helped. Appendages and fish may be overkill. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Rfc at Climategate scandal
I think that your RFC is a good idea. This is clearly an article that we have some problems with, so the more fresh eyes we can get looking at it, the more likely we are to resolve them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I may not be able to comment much more than I already have, but I imagine the RfC can sort itself out just fine without me. :) --Heyitspeter (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephan
@I have edited your statement here, stephan being german can as you imagine does not appreciate the SS, hope you don`t mind mark nutley (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah haha I didn't even think about that. Thank you.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Rationale?
I think you have the wrong diff in this edit. Surely you're not saying that you reverted simply because V removed your question from his talk page. Personal affront is not a reason for a revert. Guettarda (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it was the content of the removed comments, which would not be visible on his talkpage presently as they were removed.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant by "disambiguation."

Please stop
Please stop removing other users' comments as you have done twice now at Talk:Two_dimensionalism. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish. It is my opinion that they would be better off excluded for the sake of the reader, being 3 years old and not formatted to WP standard. You sure you want them to stay?--Heyitspeter (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What I want is not the issue; I'm fairly certain that talk page policy forbids removing anything other than obvious vandalism. If they really get up your nose, I suppose we could archive the page but that seems pretty silly. Just put a sheet of A4 over the top of the screen next time you visit that page, ok? BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I could argue that what I did is covered under "Refactoring for relevance". But I'm not worried about it, and leaving the comments in is fine with me. If I'd thought it was a big deal I would have mentioned it in the edit summary.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can argue it all you like but you'd be completely and totally wrong. Just don't remove other users comments. The policy is pretty unambiguous. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and in any case suggest you refresh your memory on WP:IAR, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.
 * Clean slate though, I hope. I honestly look forward to working with you. Although I'd take Stalnaker over Kripke any day, you knowing enough about Kripke to call yourself a fan is enough to put us on the same page in many respects. Happy editing!--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Err
You've removed some of H's comment William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was confused about what section I was in. Self-reverted. Thanks!--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop
This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Arbitration/Guide to arbitration to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No
If you edit my talk page again, at all, I will seek to have you prohibited from doing so. No, never, for no reason, should you ever edit my talk page, period. Hipocrite (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for outside reference so I don't come across as too much of a dick, here's a link to the edit I made. I'd forgotten.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-revert? con't
Regarding this discussion, I don't think that it's a 1RR violation. The first diff doesn't restore the article to a previous state. Only the second one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aware at this point, and I've retracted a RfE over it. Thank you.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback
Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Reliable sources/Noticeboard?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Added evidence
To avoid confusion, I've undone your recent addition. As requested, you can ask the arbs to make sure you aren't wasting your time or confusing theirs. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 11:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for letting me know! When you say "ask the arbs"... should I go to one of their talk pages? Thanks again.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence talk page. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks again, and sorry you have to deal with all this.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary CC article restriction
Please consider signing the CC restriction, as explained here. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the head's up. I've done extremely little editing on those articles for some time now and haven't even been monitoring Climategate. I think arbitration needs to be completed before any constructive editing can be done on those pages and plan to await its end. I don't feel the need to formally 'restrict' myself in any way.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Your self-revert at on the CC PD talk
That comment of yours was indeed welcome - do feel free to restore it. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 18:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) --Heyitspeter (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Darwin was a teleologist thing
Hello again. I see you've been steadily trying to increase the leaning of the Four causes article in your preferred direction. I know we've been through this before but it is still a minority position to call Darwin a teleogist and that is what the article in Wikipedia should allow people to understand. Please make sure that all normal understandings are properly and fairly explained. That's my main request. It will be checked eventually.

Concerning this particular edit may I ask you, as I do indeed not have the Mayr book, whether Mayr really says himself that he in opposition to Darwin on this point, and how does he actually explain this as being a contrast? You have to realize that "adaptedness ... is a posteriori result rather than an a priori goal-seeking" is so cut up that it no longer means anything. The reader will only be able to trust what you say that Mayr meant, which was that this was in contrast to Darwin. That's not a good way to do quotes, so please consider if you can put a few more words in. By the way, I presume some more words are missing than are indicated because "is a posteriori result" is not good English? At the very least there has to be an "an"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We appear to respectfully disagree. I'm reverting myself (done here) since I don't think it's worth fighting over.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, up to you as I can not see what Mayr really said. I would for the record actually be interested anyway. Just so it is clear: my first paragraph above is the most important, not my second. I do not say that we can mention arguments that Darwin was a teleologist. (I have some sympathy for them myself, but as we discussed before my exposure to biologists has shown me that biologists tend not to believe Darwin was a teleologist.) Concerning my second concern, the main point is that when you quote someone you should choose words that can be understood without you saying what the words mean.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, and sorry to have misread. To clarify: Ernst Mayr never explicitly placed himself in opposition to Darwin, so far as I'm aware. "In opposition to Darwin..." was just a connector phrase between the two paragraphs meant to ease comprehension.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So do you see my concern about that? Any reader coming to this is going to have to trust your words about what Mayr means, and what your words say is that Mayr was contrasting himself to Darwin. This is not only bad practice in quoting (because you are at least potentially distorting your source), but I think your personal interpretation of Mayr presupposes that your preferred understanding of Darwin being a teleologist is the only reasonable and commonly held one, and is also the one Mayr holds. I think we can't do that, for better or worse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. "In opposition to Darwin..." wasn't added to explain what Mayr intended, but as a connector between the two paragraphs written with deference to their content in order to facilitate comprehension.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that just shows that people CAN misunderstand it that way. And misunderstandings are not good. So I am just asking if you can keep that POTENTIAL misunderstanding (if you prefer it that way) in mind and try to tweak wording when editing to avoid misunderstandings. I am suggesting that when adding connecting words to a direct quote it is important keep those connecting words neutral. Try not to let them tell more than the chosen quoted words.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, why does your talk page say you are retired from this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Modal logic
Ah, a fellow few visits per year WPian. What's your reason?

I saw your comment on my talk page about my last comment on the modal logic talk page. The point is just that the Tarskian definition of logical necessity are necessary truths for all interpretations of the symbols, whilst regular necessity is just necessity for the interpretation that happens to prevail in context. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)