User talk:Scott.Balfour

Discretionary sanctions alert
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Followup
Hi,  The rules for discretionary sanctions "DS" say first you have to just post the template and nothing but, so that's what I did. But then we're invited to say more in a later thread so.... here' goes.

Since you're talking about climate at the MWP page, please know that awhile back there was quite a fracas here over climate relate pages. As a result the arbitration committee entered a ruling you can read at WP:ARBCC. Please note the principles section.

Talk pages are not for pontifications or other types of WP:SOAP or WP:FORUM. They are only for discussing how to improve the article. You've got two experienced eds saying you're trying to do WP:OR. If you repeat the same arguments forever, eventually someone (maybe me) will complain, and that can lead to a loss of editing privileges for awhile. A better approach is to articulate a specific article improvement you would like - ideally by posting some draft text- and including the things you rely on and that wikipedia defines as reliable sources.

Have fun NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Dogma
You are in the territory of Dogma. You will never get anywhere. Eventually the models will be shown to be rubbish, unless they continue to push the goal posts or find to new places to magically store the heat. This year looks to be heading towards another with no appreciable warming, perhaps even a slight cooling. Arzel (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Scott, see WP:TROLL. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal ad hominem attacks directly contravening wikipedia policy. If you would indicate with quotes which statements you consider Dogma made by me, I will be happy to apologise, but you should be directing your ire at the other two active people in the thread that have so far been minimally helpful, confrontational, and in most other ways directly in violation of all editor guidelines. Is this talk page simply to here to attack an editor?

Since I'm asking for quotes, I'll provide some in support of my statements. "So, what else have you got wrong? . . dave souza" (clearly confrontational, aggressive, ad hominem and in direct violation of wikipedia guidelines). "That's a bit incoherent. . .dave souza" (ibid). "It will be OR the next time you say it, and the next time after that too. NewsAndEventsGuy" (confrontational, inaccurate, personal attack, same kind of wikipedia guideline violating). "If you repeat the same arguments forever [I never repeated arguments though I repeated appeals that they stop snarking and address the issues], eventually someone (maybe me) will complain, and that can lead to a loss of editing privileges for awhile... NewsAndEventsGuy" (making false accusations and threatening reprisal, I'm sure we all know by now this is against wikipedia guidelines). Need I quote the above personal attacks by Arzel too? If you're going to make false accusations (none of what I cited has anything to do with models nor would I bother with them, though I do agree that eventually the models will be shown to be rubbish), you too will be contravening wikipedia guidelines.

Again, I implore those involved to READ what I have written and address the CONTENT not the author. Scott.Balfour (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Guess I'm done trying to help you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would most certainly appreciate you ceasing in the kind of help you've been offering. Thank you very much.Scott.Balfour (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't attacking you, I was stating that no matter what you say, if it does not prescribe to the pre-determined belief it will be disregarding among a variety of avenues. They have declared that the MWP was cooler than the current environment, science be damned, hence it is dogma.  A true scientist would agree that science is almost never completely decided.  Arzel (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh! (and Oh my!) Then you most deservedly are owed an apology. I sincerely apologise for my misinterpretation. I'll leave it at that. Totally my fault. On another note, the MWP talk page is at least moving. The article is rated "C" (the lowest possible rating for an article). I would like to try, as much as possible, to simply discuss the literature out there and how it affects the article. Per wikipedia's own guidelines, they want "neutral" articles. I find it difficult to see how my proposed changes could be considered anything but "neutral" while finding it equally difficult to see how the current article is even close to "neutral". I think the facts will stand on their own. I am determined to do my best to approach this as an effort between all parties being open and fair-minded (regardless of the veracity). As such, I would gladly welcome additional "parties being open and fair-minded" to bring to light any issues I may have missed or of which I am ignorant. Scott.Balfour (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)