User talk:Poodleboy

Raul654
You indiscriminately reverted more than my edits, do you read before you revert? Should you have been the one to block me, since you were participating in an edit war? Impressive. I follow the evidence, I have no POV unwarranted by the evidence, I admit errors, and participate in discussion. See the talk page if you have any doubts.--Poodleboy 00:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How do I fill in something for the above?  It seems like I am supposed to give a reason there.--Poodleboy 00:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've learned how to do it now.--Poodleboy 00:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My IP address is 68.35.43.82 --Poodleboy 00:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Place to complain about Raul: There's already a section for him. Please find it and add to it. DyslexicEditor 22:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is in an edit war, shortly before he was the admin that blocked me.   Here is his user talk history showing that he was not sanctioned.  As I recall, all on the back channel chat were defensive that he was human and entitled to some indiscretions and outbursts of emotion.  Poodleboy (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

examples of NPOV editing
          In reviewing a couple months of contributions to Global warming all the editing is arguably NPOV. WMC has disputed whether then Annan article was observational or model based. I clearly showed it was significantly reliant upon models. WMC disputed the albedo information, it was well referenced, and did not go beyond the sources. WMC disputed a few citation needed templates, because he favored POV dismissive language "only a few", and wanted to retain what is almost the only non-peer review supported material in the science sections of the page, even though it was not even supportive of the point he was making. Probably 90% or more of my edits are to the talk page.--Poodleboy 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

July 2016
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I urge you to read about discretionary sanctions. (Please note that while I am an admin, I am not issuing a warning as an admin, I'm trying to let you know for your own good.) You have already made edits that could get you blocked. Please slow down and get consensus on the talk page.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll also add, that while SBHB provided the canned response about edit warring, which mentions three reverts, The Heartland Institute is subject to DS (see top of talk page), which has a much shorter leash.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanx for the information, I hadn't noticed. Hopefully they are particularly harsh on flyby reverters like Fyddlestix who haven't been participating in the discussion. Poodleboy (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Poodleboy, you are the one who was deleting good, true, and properly sourced information, so the "flyby" reverts were proper. You were in danger of a block, and any repetition could bring down a discretionary block or ban hammer. Just be more careful to not edit in a partisan manner. That's all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Demonstrate the quality of your analysis by participating on the talk page, instead of making a flyby comment. The attributed versions of the statements might have had a chance of being true, because they were truly the authors opinions, but those were reverted as well. Let's see you commitment to objective truth.  Poodleboy (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice on edit-warring
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Poodleboy edit-warring on Scientific opinion on climate change. Thank you. Dmcq (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Silly girl.Poodleboy (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I searched Talk:The Heartland Institute for "working with"
Re:. I searched the talk page and what I found makes it appear that you're continuing to edit-war over the content discussed in Talk:The_Heartland_Institute. Please work to gain consensus. --Ronz (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No you didn't because you didn't find anyone else who was in the edit war. ... Wait, that was you! And you weren't even on the talk page.  Poodleboy (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So you admit to edit-warring. Thanks. I hope this will be the end of it. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was editing in good faith, you were just a flyby that didn't know what you were doing.Poodleboy (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:AGF and look at the talk page before making such comments. --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That was the tentative assumption. I'm a skeptic.  Shouldn't you also edit in good faith.  An edit war is not a good start. Poodleboy (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't you also edit in good faith As well as WP:AGF, see WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

OR at Heartland Institute
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Dmcq (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion about you
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Poodleboy at The Heartland Institute. Thank you. Dmcq (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Shame on you for lying there. Tsk tsk. Poodleboy (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. In particular, don't assume your interpretation of others actions and states of mind in the only one, or even close to the correct one. You have been badly wrong before. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You might have some credibility if you also posted this on Dmcq's page. My characterization of him is factual, his of me is open to dispute. Poodleboy (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
To enforce an arbitration decision and for disruptive editing and attacking other editors on the page Talk:The Heartland Institute, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Neil N  talk to me 15:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."


 * Thanx for considering my appeal. regards. Poodleboy (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Copied here. --Neil N  talk to me 23:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"WP:OWN collective" = consensus I refuse to see
 * Yet, where is it more likely to exist, than where it was proven endemic before. WMC could always count on Stephen Schulz and look who is still around.  The pattern now is that dweebs take the lead with instantanous reverts and wikilawyering and if they go too far astray of the party line, a couple of the better informed sweep in for necessary course corrections. They tolerate overstatements of the evidence that lower the quality of wikipedia because, "Well, at least they are wrong in the right direction".

"past injustice" = I haven't learned anything from my last block "He received no sanctions" = I haven't read WP:NOTTHEM
 * You don't recognize the cop culture's degenerative effect on a society? Eventually the community learns that if the police, prosecutors and judges have no respect for the law, why should they? The admins who violate should be punished worse, because their violations do more to undermine the system.

Do you recognize your attitude at all? Evidently, you don't think there is much point in being WP:CIVIL either, it just slows things down, makes you task a little harder. A little self reflection is in order. So no one has answered my question yet, are there guidelines for these sanctions, so far it seems totally subjective. "Editor's lives matter! I'll kiss your ass, don't shoot"Poodleboy (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Copied here. --Neil N  talk to me 23:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a reformer. I analyze and try to improve complex systems. I have been active in protesting and testifying against police and judicial abuses. Apologies if the analogies are disturbing. I will continue to analyze wikipedia and offer suggestions, if I come up with some.  It would help to have an ethos of service rather than entitlement among the admins, the self-righeous piling-on is symptomatic.  I realize the community degenerates and the rules don't work around these controversial collective WP:OWN articles.  However, there has to be a better solution than obtaining peace by just letting the collective own them.  I don't like the idea of turning them over to "experts" any better than you do.  Where wikipedia works best is on those articles that are lay labors of love.  I love the sciences, that is why I work hard in those areas.  Poodleboy (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you say that the problem with abusive cops is that they're convinced they're heroes who don't need to be held to anyone's standards because they're right? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They certainly seem to attract the wrong type, the type that want to control other people's lives, that want to be accepted as more gung ho than the others. Like when 8 cops are surrounded a disturbed person with a knife and have managed not to shoot, then the gung ho guy shows up and does what he thinks he knows all the others really want to do, and shoots the guy. That guy is given an award by his police union and then quietly let go, ends up in a different department, and shoots a homeowner though the window, and once again receives an award, because any admission of poor judgement can be used against the city in a lawsuit. Then there is the guy being held down by several offices because he had a coke pipe and was uncooperative. Another cop comes up and blasts out his eye socket with a batton, and says "that is how we handle this in L.A.". The culture despite knowing the action was wrong names the viction "slimeball cyclops".  So, to answer your question, I don't think they are lonely skeptical reformers.  They are thugs who feel a need to belong and be accepted and feel a sense of power.  You can tell which admins are the wrong type, they are the first to step in short cutting the deliberative process, they are the ones who pile on, one-upping they others,  saying they would be even harsher. They are the ones mocking and dehumanizing the people they feel empowered to dominate.Poodleboy (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, have you ever asked yourself who watches those who watch the watchmen? And honestly, that you keep comparing this inconvenience that everyone but you (even non-admins) points out that you brought on yourself with your hypocritical self-righteous POV-pushing and constant flouting of community consensus to the tragic injustice suffered by black Americans makes be believe that you've never truly experienced any real injustice.  Your continual comparison with cops also shows that you have no idea how being an admin works here.  Admins are volunteers and their actions are just as documented as any other user.  If you seriously had a case, someone would have found it by now.  As it is, everyone who looks over your contributions sees just another POV-pusher wasting our time and bandwidth.
 * Honestly, you need to drop this paranoid attitude that you are the lone hero saving Wikipedia from a bunch of corrupt cop admins -- all it's going to do is make you look like yet another WP:NOTHERE POV-pusher who should have been indefinitely blocked. You are not some combination of Jesus, Rodney King, and Edward Snowden.  You are just another guy who continually ignores that everyone else (not the merely the collective, but each individual) has just as much a right to determine consensus as you. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you have a really bad anger management problem and you seek out situations in which to vent your anger. It is at a level where I would avoid you on the street because of worries about getting stuck by a knife or shot. That is not good for you or anyone or anything. Dmcq (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would never do that out of anger, I test as an ENTP on the Myers/Briggs scale. The T and P are at the extremes. I would have to think not just feel that was the right thing to do. I actually have to discipline myself to frame things in an emotionally righteous way.  The skeptic in me would naturally tend to qualify everything with levels of error and uncertainty.  Rhetorically that puts one at a disadvantage when dealing with less scientifically analytical people, since they view expressions of uncertainty as weakness and less credible than strong expressions of confidence.  It is no coincidence that the IPCC AR4 was careful to express more confidence in the climate models than the high levels of confidence expressed in the IPCC TAR even though there had been considerable and laudable advances in the diagnostic literature that showed for the first time how poor the models were. Some advances in the science actually decrease your confidence. You know more about the limits of your knowledge.  The TAR was just blissfully ignorant.  But the fear was that the general public and policymakers would not understand it if the authors expressed their lower level of confidence. regards Poodleboy (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So you'd have some righteous reason like some ISIS terrorist? I think I'll stick to the other side of the street.. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That was way out of line. There is nothing in the comment that deserves comparison to an ISIS terrorist. Please redact and apologize.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you think "I would have to think not just feel that was the right thing to do" and " I actually have to discipline myself to frame things in an emotionally righteous way." means? It was probably wrong to tell them I would be worried for my safety meeting someone that angry in the street. Their life is not my problem and not Wikipedia's problem. The aim here is to build an encyclopaedia not to solve people's problems and I certainly wouldn't put myself forward as someone who can help a person through their troubles. Dmcq (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to guess at exactly what it means, but it does not remotely sound like an ISIS terrorist. Not close. Not acceptable.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to find out if the 2 weeks is excessive and sharing some observations along the way, so I don't know why you think I'm angry. The 2 weeks is out  of line with my expectations from the past. Which would have been 1 to 3 days.  Injustice, hypocrisy, a system that is dysfunctional, and collectives that are coopting a system, violating its values to push their POV in a vindictive manner would all naturally make one angry. But the satisfaction comes in disclosing and making the case that it is going on. I enjoy scientific literature too much to get sidetracked for long.Poodleboy (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you as angry because you talk with such hate for the police, for the admins on Wikipedia, for fellow editors, for judges, for prosecutors, for the people contributing to IPCC and for people you view as less intelligent than you but oppose you. What you do will not reform anything, it simply gets people's backs up and if you are halfway self aware you must know that - and yet you continue on and the only purpose I can see is to cause arguments and disruption. If you wished to say I was wrong about you being angry you would have simply said so and that I was silly rather than talking about "I would have to think not just feel that was the right thing to do" and "I actually have to discipline myself to frame things in an emotionally righteous way." in the context of causing me harm if you met me in the street. "Injustice, hypocrisy, a system that is dysfunctional, and collectives that are coopting a system, violating its values to push their POV in a vindictive manner would all naturally make one angry. But the satisfaction comes in disclosing and making the case that it is going on." sounds to me like you saying you are angry. Those things you mentioned do not make me angry at all. I simply see problems to be solved in the most effective way. They are fairly general rather than personal so I think it is something in you which is angry and you attach that anger to those things. getting annoyed with editors is like . It is just silly and unproductive and those admins you hate will eventually indefinitely block you if you continue and that will be the end of it as far as anybody here is concerned. That is very unconstructive. Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanx for the comic. Are you sure you wouldn't just leave things unsolved? The culture hasn't changed in 10 years. I thought there might have been some changes after the global warming clique became notorious, and the house was cleaned a bit. The admins are supposed to administer the rules the same, whether their backs are up or not. It is a matter of character.  Often you can't change them, but you can help others see them for what they are.  Like the OJ Simpson case, it showed everyone that the state couldn't even behave itself, even in case it knew from the beginning was a showcase. 5 state witnesses perjured themselves.  Imagine the justice the rest of us get. Poodleboy (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

and  It is interesting that Ian Thomson is voting on my appeal even though he was recently was POV pushing in an exchange with me at Intelligent Design, he should not be voting, and if allowed to vote should disclose that he is an involved editor. See his 8 or 9 edits on the talk page. BTW, my previous block was by an involved admin who did it in the course of an edit war with me. I think I learned exactly what everyone is supposed to learn from that Ian Thomson, that there is counter productive culture of entitlement undermining wikipedia among the admins. Poodleboy (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was maintaining community consensus. You were the one trying to get the intro changed against consensus.  And that you think it's voting (or that withdrawing my post would supposedly change anything) once again shows that you either aren't capable or aren't willing to try to understand what consensus is.  The only person who didn't endorse your block did so because he thought it should have been indefinite.  Ian.thomson (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You were arguably the editor most in favor of the "community consensus", you had strong feelings that the negative characterization had to be in the first sentence, the 2nd sentence wasn't good enough for you. You happened to agree with the status quo and were engaged in WP:OWN on the page.  One  sign of WP:OWN was the way you pushed for a quick decision and closure of the discussion.  There is no harm in waiting longer, even a month or more, especially in the summer for a decision. Note, I hadn't edited the article yet.  As to the appeal, you have already done your damage by pushing your POV with the mocking and dismissive characterizations there.  Characterizations which are not necessarily true for every person you could use them on, we are individual humans after all.  You should apologize, withdraw your vote, and admit that you can't prove your characterizations are true in my case. Poodleboy (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was in favour of it too. Not an admin, just a passer by. I don't expect you want my advice, but here it is anyway. Stop feeling so fucking sorry for yourself. If people don't agree with you that's not because they are in the "disagreeing with the Poodleboy cabal", it's because they don't, you know, agree. Get over yourself, man, it's not like you're the first, or last, misunderstood, ever so oppressed "truthteller" to come here. There's an immune system, and your nonsense has correctly triggered it. -- Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that it isn't possible that there is a WP:OWN collective on Heartland Institute that is preserving their negative POV? You should be careful reaching such a conclusion, since this is not an article chosen at random, but one where such WP:OWN is more likely than others. Your odds of being correct are lower. I didn't know that non-admins could vote on arbitration appeals. Poodleboy (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm saying anything I didn't say, no. I'm not sure why you'd ask that, unless you'd mistaken me for someone susceptible to silly rhetorical tricks. Behave better when your block expires, please. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  13:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If one reads the talk page in question, it's quite clear that I didn't attempt to close the discussion: I pointed out what sources said regarding ID and listed pages that prove that the community's consensus is to mention that something is pseudoscience in the first sentence. Several users presented arguments for retaining the phrase "pseudoscience," which you completely and continually ignored when you started this section.  If you are incapable of not making up what other people said, you should probably find something less interactive to do. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore those arguments. They just didn't necessitate the negative characterization be in the first sentence.  The encyclopedic arguments were strong and might eventually win the day in time and not through mere repetition of the arguments, but through more editors visiting the discussion, and reconsideration by existing editors and perhaps through improved language.  Keep in mind that I solicited suggestions for improving the text.  It is here that you tried to call the consensus.  Poodleboy (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Scholarly abstract for your review
"The conservative movement and especially its think tanks play a critical role in denying the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), especially by manufacturing uncertainty over climate science. Books denying AGW are a crucial means of attacking climate science and scientists, and we examine the links between conservative think tanks (CTTs) and 108 climate change denial books published through 2010. We find a strong link, albeit noticeably weaker for the growing number of self-published denial books. We also examine the national origins of the books and the academic backgrounds of their authors or editors, finding that with the help of American CTTs climate change denial has spread to several other nations and that an increasing portion of denial books are produced by individuals with no scientific training. It appears that at least 90% of denial books do not undergo peer review, allowing authors or editors to recycle scientifically unfounded claims that are then amplified by the conservative movement, media, and political elites."

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/18/0002764213477096.abstract — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.227.78 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is rather a strange pseudoscience abstract. It is unusual for books that are not doctoral dissertations or some textbooks to undergo peer review at all.  Why was such an unnotable statement as "It appears that at least 90% of denial books do not undergo peer review ... ", allowed to get into a peer reviewed abstract at all?  It doesn't appear to be a peer reviewed article, especially considering that was published again in essentially the same form, apparently this is a peer review source  "allowing authors or editors to recycle scientifically unfounded claims".   Books that are not peer reviewed  probably should be viewed skeptically on wikipedia, for example the self-published attack books used as sources on the Heartland Institute article. I focus on the peer review literature, I would find one of these denial or believer books to be too unfocused, simplistic and out-of-date.  Did the authors then turn their attention to believer books and think tanks? Are believer books peer reviewed? I am skeptical. Poodleboy (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Books on academic subjects are normally peer reviewed before publication, not just text books (obviously PhDs are peer reviewed). See for instance Scholarly peer review which says that "For universities, peer reviewing of books before publication is a requirement for full membership of the Association of American University Presses." I've been involved in peer reviewing academic books in the UK. Other non-university presses do the same, see for instance Palgrave Doug Weller  talk 08:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Those sound like books more likely to be used in upper level and graduate courses covering topics that have been developing for awhile and unlikely to be obsoleted in the next two or three years, i.e., standards unlikely to be met by books of current relevance on climate science. Even the IPCC reports quickly become obsolete.  Other books addressing scientific topics probably should be evaluated on the quality of their references and footnotes. Poodleboy (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the free full PDF of the article. What part of the article do you disagree with? Are the authors mistaken in their opinion of the Heartland Institute, which they describe as the "leading force in climate denial"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.227.77 (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No one can tell from that article, "Similarly, the  Heartland  Institute,  a  small  regional think tank in the 1990s, emerged as a leading force in climate change denial in the past decade (Pooley, 2010)."  It looks like they are relying upon a Pooley 2010 result.  The article doesn't really define climate change denial either.  Perhaps you have to go to Pooley for that as well.  In this article, denial seems to be assumed rather than a standard that is applied.  You have to be careful with social "science". Often it is just opinion citing other opinion. Poodleboy (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You're being a bit too aggressive
First things first, read WP:DTTR, also, a level 3 warning for one revert is too high. It's not vandalism, so AGF and leave a friendly talk page comment, level 1 warning at most. Also, please read WP:CIVIL, and WP:3RR, as I've seen incivility and edit-warring in your ANI case in the past. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have seen those because I didn't delete them citing WP:DTTR. As a regular you should not have to receive the lower level warnings, you should have known better, so direct to level 3 is appropriate. What were you doing on that page, what did you think of the substance being discussed? Those are fair questions. Poodleboy (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First: Nobody says to go straight to level 3 based on a user's experience. That's (to be blunt) a really bad idea. Secondly, your edit was unhelpful as it was unnecessarily complex. We want the average person to understand this. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it is necessary to simple is to be wrong, did you not understand the subject? Read the source and ask questions. Schulz objection was not that it was too complex but that it wasn't important, so your objection was new and novel. I had responded to Schulz objection and put in a compromise text that conformed to the part of this objection that seemed sustainable.  Poodleboy (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:DTTR, and going to level 3 for one revert? Use the warning templates appropriately. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Don't template the regulars" = "Use the level 3 template"...? When did this happen?  Let's stop and think about this really hard.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The principle is that a regular and a template expert, shouldn't be violating the rules, much less need lesser warnings. But the truth is, I didn't know anything about levels, I just used the description that seemed to fit best.Poodleboy (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you knew about vandalism levels, you would realize a level 3 is far too high. Also, it's your opinion that my edit violated the rules. It didn't. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with ThePlatypusofDoom. It was a reasonable revert and there is no good reason to specify that the albedo remains the same. It is usual to assume keeping everything else as constant as possible when giving an individual effect. If one was talking about overall consequences of having no atmosphere one would then list the albedo changing as a consequence. In an actual scientific paper one would list it as one of the assumptions as it is an important part of the model but Wikipedia is not a scientific paper - it summarizes what others have said rather than delving into the innards and reasons. See WP:BRD about doing and edit, it being reverted, and then going on to discussion on the talk page. Dmcq (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a good reason to specify that the albedo remains the same when that albedo is based upon significant cloud cover, and the temperature calculation is based upon no atmosphere. The average surface albedo of the earth is about 0.13 to 0.14 and is actually even lower if you don't include temperate lattitude winter snow cover.  The albedo of the oceans is 0.08 to 0.09, and the class notes "no atmosphere" calculation uses 0.3 for the albedo. Note we did not see the "regular" on the talk page. Poodleboy (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No that is not a reason to specify albedo being the same. Keep your OR to yourself and stick to the sources. And even without that reason of yours your message to them was wrong and disruptive. If  you go on like this you will rapidly get blocked again.  Dmcq (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, look long and hard at the title for WP:DTTR. It's not "don't use lower-level templates on the regulars," it's "don't template the regulars," period.  And even if I play along with your argument that "don't template the regulars" somehow only means "don't use the lower level templates," you only start at level 3 when it's quite obvious that the edit is deliberate vandalism made in bad faith, which does not include restoring a consensus version of an article that you happen to disagree with -- see WP:NOTVAND.  Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, and a revert within 1 minute by a non-participating "regular" is not disruptive? Poodleboy (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering that there seems to be consensus that your edits were unhelpful, yes. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who did the revert (regular or newbie) or within what time frame (1 minute, 1 hour, 1 day...) -- The revert was not only made in good faith, it was carried out by more than one editor. You are taking the revert way too personally.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a consensus at that time, there was only one other editor, and the new text was responsive to one of that editors issues.Poodleboy (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The third editor was an indication of where the consensus was heading. If a fourth editor had restored your edit, you'd have more of a point regarding a lack of consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, a 1 minute, non-participating editor is indicative of nothing, not any independent assessment. You don't seem to realize that it does matter who did the revert and within what timeframe and whether they are participating or not. Poodleboy (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It only matters if the editor is a vandal, or has competence issues. Nobody who reverted you did. There is consensus. Also, you seem to not get the point, which is a a sign of disruptive editing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It matters in terms of the contributing to the quality of the discourse, you are too focused on what you can get away with by wiki-lawyering. There are other standards you know. 1 minute is hardly enough time to consider good faith. You could show good faith yourself by participating on the talk page. Poodleboy (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I admit I misclicked. I should have clicked Rollback (AGF) instead of Rollback on twinkle. But besides that, it wasn't a good addition. Also, you're still not getting the point. If you don't work well with people (as you have shown), you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought working "well with people" was done on the talk page, or should I try your 1 minute reverts? Poodleboy (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BRD. Changes do not have some automatic right to be included for a minute. Dmcq (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

ThePlatypusofDoom has a rather abortive view of that cycle. Ironic that he presumes to lecture me on working "well with people"Poodleboy (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What he did was correct by WP:BRD. What you did was wrong. Dmcq (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not WP:BRDR or WP:BRRD or BDR, it's WP:BRD. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Poodleboy, when you have 4 people who are telling you that my edit was correct, you should probably drop the stick. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It was totally dropped awhile ago, in the "stick" sense. Now it is just being referenced in an "example" sense for analytical purposes. If it feels like a stick, perhaps you are seeing it in a different perspective, than just the prerogative of a "regular".  That would be a good thing. At least three people were interested in continuing this discussion, and could have dropped it at any time. Poodleboy (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just not going to post here anymore, as you don't get along with other editors, and ignore consensus. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The relevant policy here, Poodleboy, might be WP:DISRUPT. One of the the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS is when an editor is being WP:Tendentious, and one way an ed does that is by wrongly accusing others. You're getting good advice above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Section Heading Rules Found in Talk Page Guidelines
Before starting any new talk page threads, please read WP:Talknew; Items worth special note
 * Keep it neutrally phrased
 * Don't name names or otherwise address people

Examples of headings authored by you in which you address others
 * Talk:Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere ‎ (→‎Stephan Schulz, since when is accuracy about assumptions is not an important improvement?
 * Talk:The Heartland Institute ‎ (→‎It does no such thing -Stephen Schulz: new section)
 * Talk:Global warming hiatus ‎ (→‎no, not with that data set -- WMC: new section)

Examples of non-neutral headings authored by you
 * Talk:Global warming hiatus ‎ (→‎citation needed: misleading narrative, as in the Reuters headline: new section)
 * Talk:Global warming hiatus ‎ (→‎Fyfe, et al does dispute Karl: new section)

Its pretty easy to state the discussion topic without running into these problems, thanks in advance for your future effort to follow the WP:TPG in this regard.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanx, advice well taken on names in the headers. But I don't understand the non-neutral headings advice, I think one of them was in response to a non-neutral edit summary, is the standard different for talk page headings than for edit summaries?  Is it non-neutral to note that sources conflict? Poodleboy (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be too worried about a heading that put one side as a proposed change. It should be carefully avoided for RfCs though and long or silly ones and ones with leading questions are just annoying so it is worth trying to phrase them well. Also trying to phrase things properly will give some insight into other points of view rather than just getting into a battleground frame of mind.
 * The ones that are an especial no no are the ones where a person is named in a section header, the subject in the article should be addressed not the person. Names are used in ANI discussion headings because the subject is the person. Dmcq (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanx! Poodleboy (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Re "is the standard different for talk page headings than for edit summaries? Answer, WP:Civility applies everywhere, and civil non-neutral edit summaries help, in my opinion. But if you see one and then start a new section in reply, you're probably creating an organizational problem because we want to have related discussion in the same place, as elaborated in the WP:Talk page guidelines (search that document for string "multi").   Since you asked the question, it suggests you haven't really learned the contents of the WP:Talk page guidelines, despite prior pointers to the WP:Talk page guidelines, so this would be a good time to study it again.   See also, Help:Edit summary.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

substance...and process
Re this remark on the article talk page, I usually feel the same way when someone points out better process to me! Substance is indeed important, but so is process ..... at least for all of us who hope to be effective rather than just argumentative, and I'm not saying you are either way. Just making a neutral observation that it is important to understand we don't settle content disputes with majority rule type voting, as you seemed to suggest in an earlier comment. I did not comment on the substance of the article edit debate because I have no opinion on the matter. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is this comment that lead me to believe you might care: "Secondly, the use of unsourced class notes is a joke (but not really that funny)"  Poodleboy (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You quoted from the talk page of a top article. At the detail page in question, "carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere", my only interest was in passing along a tip in case it helps you be more effective.  Happy editing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Warning
You have recently returned from what is essentially a ten-year hiatus, and have aggressively pursued two ideologies: climate change denialism, and evolution denialism. Wikipedia reflects the scientific consensus on both topics and that is not going to change. If you continue as you are then you will very likely be banned from editing these topics. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't know what either is, otherwise you would be able to define the terms and cite supporting evidence for your inaccurate characterization of me. I am firmly in the 97% consensus (actually 94.9%) on climate change.  If you had been following my comments and edits you would know that your own opinions are relatively uninformed vis'a'vis my familiarity with the literature.  I doubt anyone editing the pages I'm involved in is a more knowledgeable supporter of evolution than I am.  I'm so confident that evolution is the best explanation of the evidence that I'm not afraid of giving other hypotheses a fair hearing, and believe that we do evolution and science a disservice by acting so fearfully to suppress other views.  Do you really think Intelligent Design has legs to stand upon?  How intelligent is the design that has mammals losing the ability to regrow limbs and that has primates with a vestigial pseudo-gene for synthesizing vitamin C?  How intelligent was using the same genetic code for humans as for other species, making inter specific virus transmission easier?  How intelligent is a design that a species like ours with only 10,000 years of civilization behind us, can see the flaws in and will shortly be able  to improve upon? How intelligent is a design that resulted in you making such erroneous characterizations?Poodleboy (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I do. And more to the point, as a ten year veteran Wikipedia administrator, I know a POV-pusher when I see one. If you don't want to be seen as a creationist, don't devote 100% of your efforts on articles related tot hat subject, to trying to downplay the pseudoscientific nature of ID. You may claim that you have greater knowledge of the subject that any other editor, but on Wikipedia that is (a) unlikely, (b) unverifiable and (c) irrelevant because the whole idea of Wikipedia is that you don't need to be an expert to edit. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What POV is someone pushing, it they are arguing that you shouldn't abandon the appearance of objectivity in the first sentence of an encyclopedia article? If you have already decided I'm a POV pusher, perhaps you shouldn't be the admin declaring discussions closed on articles in which you are POV pushing. Poodleboy (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

DS alert
With regard to your editing at Intelligent design Talk:Intelligent design, as shown here, please be aware that there are discretionary sanctions on this topic.

Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC) (redact to make yet more accurate Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC))
 * This must be some mistake, this couldn't be "With regard to your editing at Intelligent design", since I haven't edited there. Could you be exhibiting WP:OWN? Poodleboy (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * made more precise via redaction. You have been notified of DS.  Good luck!  Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically, the talk page is commenting, proposing and participating, not "editing". Poodleboy (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically, the principles of DS apply throughout the project, wherever the subject comes up. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That isn't what the language suggests. I'm making civil and reasonable requests and comments. That is hardly disruptive in any way that approaches editing.  Perhaps it is inconvenient for those emotionally wedded to have judgement administered in the first sentence, that some of us don't abandon wikipedia encylopedic principles.Poodleboy (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as you abide by the case decision (Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience) throughout the entire project space, you should be go to go. If down the road you try to argue that the case decision does not apply to talk pages then on that future date I doubt others will agree with you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "All edits relating to the topic". Any text you add to Wikipedia is an edit. It doesn't matter where you edit. Doug Weller  talk 12:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ...as somewhat suggested by the small "edit" link or "edit this page" button most of us click to perform an edit ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)