User talk:Africangenesis

My Sandbox

Kinda warped that defending people is considered impolite, eh? Thegreatdr 01:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this related to [1] ? --Childhood's End 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close, I understood the specific reference to be [2], where my "leave him alone" defense of Thegreatdr, was called unwarranted and impolite. I thought WMC was hounding Thegreatdr a bit.--Africangenesis 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, after review, this Atlant is off the deep end. Talk about being hounded. Your post was pretty tame, and apropo. Atlant rubs in the disparity in power, that he can punish at the whim of his rather strained interpretation of your post, and emphasizes that only a cumbersome appeal process can check him. Why do we constantly make the mistake of giving authority to those who want it? It is a bad combination as LA repeatedly finds out.--Africangenesis 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda share your view... It may be naive on my part, but I hope that he at least got the message, which was formulated quite diplomatically from the other admins, that he was quite off course with his accusations of "personal attack". Regards. --Childhood's End 17:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read several of your edits and your comments on Talk pages. I am glad to have someone join the discussion who is well informed and willing to "set the record straight." It is nice to have Thegreatdr here as well. RonCram 11:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the welcome!--Africangenesis 18:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Africangenesis, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I see you may be a New Zealander (or at least, appear to be by your edits). There are several NZ related Wikipedia pages.

• Portal:New Zealand
• Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board
• Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand
• Wikipedia:New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight

Adding {{User New Zealand}} to your userpage will list you as a New Zealander.

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -gadfium 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't consider it ingracious, but just in case you have not seen the policy, Wikipedia prohibits any editor from reverting an article more than three times in 24 hours. See WP:3RR for more information. I look forward to your discussion on the talk page (I have replied to your note there already). Thanks and best wishes, --TeaDrinker 23:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the notice. I don't consider edit warring a valid form of argument either. Hopefully others will think the same.--Africangenesis 23:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you noticed that there has been considerable discussion of the POV pushing and lack of neutrality in the into on the discussion page. It takes the form of few vs some arguments, etc. The "endorsements" are actually old and being used to support stronger more recent "conclusions" that did not even exist at the time. Will you discuss this on the dicussion page? --Africangenesis 23:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I been reading the discussion page for some time, and am familiar with the accusations of POV pushing, etc. I am not sure what you mean by endorsements, but I would be happy to discuss topics related to editing the article on the talk page. Thanks again, --TeaDrinker 23:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, that message is provided to remind everyone of having a secure password. If your account was hijacked for vandalism, you would be blocked and would probably be unable to log in. Rockpocket 07:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, I've seen some systems that run password crackers before notifications such as this.--Africangenesis 07:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are just running the crackers on the admin accounts to begin with (since they are the accounts that can cause serious damage), but they might get around to warning individual editors if this hijacking persists. Rockpocket 08:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Global Warming. You sure bring interesting perspectives. You are running into WP:OWN Problems there as well as the wild forking off of subjects into a byzantine array of articles. --Blue Tie 04:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts as well. You are right to remind them occasionally about the POV material in the article. I'm not willing to edit war about it. My goal is to make the science as clear as possible in the article, if we get the science right then the "consensus" will look rediculous and intellectually dishonest. The place where the stand should be made is on the models. They will want the model results in without the details that models have errors larger than the energy imbalance they are trying to attribute. Based on the evidence, the models are irrelevant for attribution and projection, but we have to make the science clear and understandable, so that when we take the issue to the wider community, they can make an informed decision. It may take a temporary fork in the article, and then a poll of the community. A clean NPOV encyclopedic article will not have any of the "consensus", "few", and "only" spin in introduction. The real battle today was about the 0.85W/m^2 and 0.75W/m^2. The models are rediculously far from being able to represent those values, and the sad thing is, at least one of the WP:OWNers knows that, and a significant part of the climate community knows it too. They don't have a response, so they try to suppress the evidence. This is the anti-capitalist, anti-globalization rioters of Seattle, bringing mass-action "democracy" to the world of science. Unfortunately daemonization and shouting down of opposition has worked so far. Don't get me wrong, the climate community for the most part thinks they are right about their conclusions, and so they can justify in their minds, the suppressing the evidence about the problems and uncertainties and the daemonization of opponents, in the hopes that eventually they will be able to produce the evidence that will make their case. However, there is good reason to believe that in suppressing the evidence they are deluding themselves. The arguments and evidence they can't address should give them pause.--Africangenesis 05:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first, when reading your comments above, I was thinking that you had a "pov agenda". But after reading your comments a couple of times, I think perhaps your approach seems to be in harmony with WP:NPOV and is appropriate. I am unfamiliar with the models, but I am very familiar with modeling of both physical phenomenon and also economic matters. As a result, I understand the issue with results that lie within the error range of the outputs. At best, it is possible that you might find significance in a "trend" but you would not have any confidence in its predictive power. --Blue Tie 20:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am grateful for your input and corrections and I hope I don't come across as if I'm trying to own the article or discount other people's views. As to my editing style, I'm afraid it was shaped on articles that weren't so heavily watched and I operated pretty much by myself, like Antioxidant, DNA, Bacteria and Enzyme kinetics. I'm trying to use more informative edit summaries from now on. All the best, TimVickers 00:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. We're OK.--Africangenesis 04:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(crossposted to both editors)

I know that things have gotten a little heated here, and I wanted to warn you about 3RR. You and the other editor both seem to be at the limit, and an unfriendly Admin might issue a block if things go any further today. I know, because it happened to me last year and now I have a "black mark" on my record. I can actually see both sides of the issue, and I think that further discussion with more input from other editors would really help. Doc Tropics 02:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't the way to settle things, but it seems to be used quite often. Does my first edit count as a revert? If so, that would seem to favor the reverter over those making contributions. I'm curious.--Africangenesis 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does happen all the time, but it's never as productive as talkpage discussions. If your first edit was to add your text, then that would probably not count as a revert. However, if an Admin interpreted things differently they might block both parties regardless. In any event, Kensosis seems determined to push things to the limit, so the only one who can de-escalate the situation is you. For what it's worth, I've seen you at Evolution a lot recently, and I think you do good work : ) Doc Tropics 02:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. -- thanx,--Africangenesis 02:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I

Aftica, I agree with your points. To me it is obvious that ID is the theory that life shows signs of design. And stops there. Now it is up a person's faith whether natural selection, God or aliens were the designer. But the article is owned by the anti-ID crowd. I have watched this for a while. Read the archives. One person and after another who agrees to what you are talking about are called disruptive/trolls and are eventually driven off or banned. That is the reality of wiki. I was called a troll because I expressed my opinion that Behe's math has some merit. That is not even allowed. However this is an interesting observation on how political science really is. ProtoCat 13:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, hopefully most areas of science are not so politicized. Regarding "it is up to a person's faith", since ID is framed as a scientific theory, it is up to the evidence. I don't think people of faith should have much hope that these theories will get them anywhere near where they want to go. I have a lot of religious and even fundamentalist friends, and I appreciate their earnest attempts to live lives of integrity. However, I worry that in trying to push things like ID too far, or in their attempts to develop an apologia for every problem in the Bible, they risk becoming too good at stretching and straining that integrity. I suspect that their God would appreciate a pure and loving spirit more than a chinkless apologia. Some things are a matter of faith.--Africangenesis 18:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief follow-up note to thank you for remaining reasonable and civil in a heated situation. It's unfortunate that the other editor involved took exactly the opposite approach, and totally reamed me out for trying to help calm things down. In fact, he ordered me to refrain from any further posts to "his" talkpage (evidencing a certain lack of understanding about ownership issues. But at least you have behaved like a civilized and rational individual, and in my book that puts you way ahead. Happy editing! Doc Tropics 18:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of scientism going on Wikipedia, especially when it comes to ID / evolution. I faced much hostility only to have ID removed as an example of junk science in the junk science article... It may be just a coincidence, but I noted that many of those hostile to ID were also oftenly those holding global warming science as unquestionable... --Childhood's End 17:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science has earned a lot of credibility for its fearless open inquiry, and intellectual honesty and these elements will dissipate that credibility in less than a generation. Some kind of herd mentality has deprived them of the ability to distinguish their opinion from the evidence. They are too insecure to admit when they are wrong, and so fearful that there is no truth that they must shout to suppress their own doubts as much as to suppress the opposition. Homo sapiens may not have exterminated Homo erectus and Homo neantherdalis with a superior intellect, but with a new herd intensity and fervor. We may have won the day with a closed rather than an open mind. We may not be fully formed, but rather evolution short circuited by "success".--Africangenesis 20:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was an excellent point about Homo sapiens exterminating the others by the'herd' mentality rather than intellect. I think 'herd' is being mild. Maybe a ruthlessness that the other species did not have. It seems to be that the scientists today just do not want to admit they are wrong or do not know. I am shocked by the lack of objectiveness I see here in the comments and the articles. ProtoCat 11:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Global warming. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Kim D. Petersen 06:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever reverted an edit. Others have reverted me. The latest is restoring a citation needed, that has only been reverted once.--Africangenesis 06:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this this and this, are 3 reverts within the last 24 hours. The warning is standard - and shouldn't be considered as more than advising about the policy. The reason that its not given to others are that they are already aware about the policy. Ie. no need to warn more than once about the existance of such. --Kim D. Petersen 06:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is different than reverting an edit. I'm no deletionist, I for giving everyone their say, and letting the reader sort it out. BTW, Teadrinker warned me above. thanx though.--Africangenesis 06:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - sorry - didn't see Teadrinkers warning. But the above diffs do count as reverts (just so you don't make a mistake :-). --Kim D. Petersen 07:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This [3] is incivil. Don't do it again William M. Connolley 09:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:OWN behavior is more uncivil. You revert without careful consideration, and then call for sock puppets. You claim OR without specifics. Why can't you just come out and admit it when you are wrong. I've been wrong before, there is no shame in it, there might be embarrassement if one was a bit hasty in questioning someone elses motives and then calling for sockpuppets.--Africangenesis 09:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ag, you are starting to lose your cool. Step back. Falsely accusing others of sockpuppetry is the very definition of uncivil. Arjuna 10:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are misinterpreting this. William called for someone to revert for him, that person volunteered to be a "sockpuppet". I have not accused him of using a sock puppet in the sense that you mean, just the moral equivilent of it, if you like. The puppet admitted to just deferring to Williams expertise.--Africangenesis 10:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I want to introduce, but this [4] wasnt quite civil either... Let's just have both sides cool down. --Childhood's End 12:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's more of a personal attack, which is quite unbecoming of an administrator. It is duly noted. ~ UBeR 22:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had some ideas on how to improve the Evolution article, could you contribute to the peer-review? Thanks. TimVickers 20:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading the Global Warming discussion page and I notice that you remain almost 100% focused on restoring what may be called scientific reality to the issues of global warming. This in the face of considerable provocation from editors who guard their own interpretations and POVs like junkyard dogs —as if certainty had been won — and accuse you of POV pushing OR, bad faith, etc. You clearly know what you are talking about. I think you have amazing stamina in the face of reverts, hostility, and so forth, and that you show great courage in continuing your efforts. I admire you for that. —Blanchette 00:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have an interest in global warming. As you may know, there are serious problems with the temperature record being biased by UHI or similar warming biases related to land use changes, etc. ClimateAudit.org is organizing an effort to photograph sites. Understanding the issue will help you be a better editor and improve the quality of Wikipedia articles on AGW. If you are interested, you could be a part of the effort. Please take a look here. [5] RonCram 05:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx there are two or three sites close by. If noone else picks them up in a week or so, I'll try to find the time to address them.--Africangenesis 08:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. Here are a few other links if you have not seen them. The website with the pictures is here. [6] Steve McIntyre fully supports the effort. [7] And so does Roger Pielke Sr. [8] Regards! RonCram 07:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Global warming controversy article needs to address the controversy around unwarranted government adjustments to the temperature record. I am hoping you may be able to help with this. Compare the historical temperatures ranges in the two images and relative changes to years 1935 and 1998. The image from 1999 can be found here. [9] The image from 2007 is here.[10] In 1999, temps for 1935 and 1998 were the same. However, by 2007 the temp for 1998 was considerable higher than 1935. I have done enough reading now to be convinced that the 1990s were NOT warmer than the dust bowl years of the 1930s. I believe alarmists like Jim Hansen are playing with the temperature record. In effect, these "adjustments" to the temperature record are done in order to create evidence of global warming. I need some help locating additional reliable sources on temperature adjustments. If you would like to participate in this effort, you can go to my User Page and click the "Email this user" button and we can discuss where this information may be found.RonCram 11:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have left wikipedia. Have you? --Blue Tie (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been wondering... --Childhood's End (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have emailed you 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 email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reference to two of your recent comments at Talk:global warming today:

• 12:24 "The clique that had controlled this article drove me and many other good editors away. I read at wattsupwiththat that this problem might have been rectified. I hope you aren't continuing the problem."
• 12:43 "Recall that I was the one that forced the cadre to admit..."

It looks as if you're poisoning the well by comparing reasonable discussion of your proposed edit to alleged misbehavior that you assign to a "cadre" or "clique". This isn't the right way to discuss edits on Wikipedia.

This despite the reasonableness of your editing, is a shame.

You may have heard of the recent arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. Many editors were excluded for the kind of engagement with other editors that I think you're in danger of embarking on at this point. It was termed "battleground behavior" by the Arbitration Committee. Please read the discretionary sanctions remedy which specifies the necessary conditions for editing in this topic.

I'm very anxious, like you, to see editing conditions on these articles return to normal. Please let's work together to take the sting out of the talk page atmosphere so we concentrate only on the subject matter. I'm very pleased with your addition to the article as modified by Stephan Schulz and I hope we can work together productively. --TS 13:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to consider the article with a clean slate, but it didn't help that you were so quick to revert. It took wikipedia a long time to fix the problems on the climate articles, lets hope they are really fixed. I notice Schulz is still around. Perhaps you can read the cite articles before reverting something that includes cites.--Africangenesis (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made a bold edit, I reverted and we discussed on the talk page. That's a fairly common methodology for editing on controversial subjects on Wikipedia. --TS 13:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid turns of phrase like this:

• 23:53 19th "So this is the tactic."

It sounds accusatory, as if you were saying I was up to no good. As does "Did you apply that standard to...?" I don't claim to have vetted the entire article, and I'm just trying to apply Wikipedia's content policies to your proposal to add material this article.

As I said above, I don't want the atmosphere to degenerate. So please be careful of the language you use on Wikipedia. --TS 00:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed to have conducted a review in the last couple months for single source articles. If you don't want the atmosphere to degenrate, ask yourself what the current atmosphere would be without your participation.--Africangenesis (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search for singleton articles. I didn't find many. I think the current atmosphere would be a lot nastier if somebody didn't remind people to tone it down a bit. --TS 00:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You think the atmosphere would be nastier of somebody didn't remind people to tone it down. I think the tactics and double standards and WP:OWN would be a lot worse if I didn't remind people when they were occurring. Perhaps together we can improve things a whole lot.--Africangenesis (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're continuing to use talk:global warming to make attacks on other editors:

• 0:05 20th "So convincing you is the standard. WP:OWN"
• 10:14 'In the past, wasn't ownership of this more prominent article partially maintained by insisting that details relevant to disputes and credibility of the scientific claims on this page, be pushed off to other specialized, less prominent pages, i.e., isn't disputing edits on this page on such a basis, "battleground behavior"?'
• 11:04 "Also, in the time of the great ownership problem, one of the few consolations was that visitors could get a much better sense of the state of the science on the talk page than in the article proper. Because the discussions and ownership behavior on the talk page were often embarrassing to the owners, another frequent battleground behavior by the owners was more rapid archiving of the talk page. Since your sympathies were with the owners positions, if not their behavior, you may not have been sensitive to some of these tactics. You see, despite that fact that the talk pages were a battleground, that doesn't mean that they were devoid of information or that the battles themselves didn't inform visitors of how credible the page itself was. However, I doubt you were aware that increasing the speed of archiving was battleground behavior. It is less excusable now with wider availability of broadband than it was then. Hopefully, we can get more of the actual science in the article and rapid archiving will some day, not be considered battleground behavior."

Now there are ways to make points about methods of editing the content, and the rapidity of talk page archiving without attacking other editors. Please make your point without assuming bad faith as you do here. --TS 11:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, you accused me of battleground behavior first, and now take umbrage when your own is pointed out. I'm supposed to assume good faith. Don't worry, you've taken care to document your side of it here, while making sure your own behavior will disappear through more rapid archiving of the global warming talk page. I did assume your good faith on that, but now I wonder. You certainly focus more of your time pointing out battleground behavior than you spend on the science. I much prefer to focus on the science.--Africangenesis (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I'm in any way engaging in battleground behavior, please do tell me about it on my talk page, and if the problem behavior persists please do file a report at WP:AE. What I'm describing above is what perceive to be battleground behavior by you. You're still casting everything as an "us versus them" fight, which I don't think it is. The article talk page is for discussing the article, not trying to relegislate the arbitration case. --TS 11:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to help get things back on an even keel, I'm stepping back from the global warming article for a bit. My last act on the page today was to restore the 21-day archive period, which I had recently reduced to 10 days. I may make comments here if I think I need to, but I won't be intervening on that article or the talk page for at least the next few days. It's the best way I can think of to convince you I don't want a fight. --TS 11:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that gesture, and will take it in the spirit in which you have offered it. My pointing out of your battleground behavior was not intended as a personal attack, but more as an opportunity to educate the community on how it should be sensitive to the more subtle kinds of battleground tactics that were and may yet agains be employed, and how someone with good intentions can become their innocent dupe. The sad thing is, the same ownership behavior was going on in the scientific journals of the climate science field as well. As someone who loves science and looks forward to future developments in this field, and seeing where the evidence falls, these have been disturbing and disillusioning times. I also have a high regard for what wikipedia has managed to accomplish in non-controversial articles. --Africangenesis (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been much better in the past day or so, but I have to point out this:

• 20:21 21st "You accuse me of putting in an unsourced original research statement, when you didn't bother to read the sources, you don't assume good faith, you leave the article in an erroneous state and now you are stalking my every post as part of your edit war. Who is being uncivil?"

In particular the accusation "stalking my every post" is an inappropriate personal attack on a public access wiki-based collaborative encyclopedia. --TS 20:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the truth was a defense. Have you investigated what he is doing?--Africangenesis (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The truth, assuming that's what it is, doesn't make it okay to attack people, especially on article talk pages which are for the discussion of how to improve the article. I'm sure you can see why this is so. If you have ten people commenting on an article talk page the chances that any two will rub up against one another in the wrong way are quite high. If they have grievances with one another this problem can be divided by communicating such grievances on the user talk pages. And when you do have a problem, remember to assume good faith. --TS 20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I haven't received any indication that would work better, however. They don't admit they are wrong when you are polite or if you rub their faces in it. But, in the latter case, maybe they will read the article the next time.--Africangenesis (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Mann jess. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. I've warned you multiple times. Please stop commenting on other editors, and limit your replies to article content. Jess_talk|_edits 20:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Will you stop stalking me now and stop edit warring on the talk pages?--Africangenesis (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've engaged you briefly on 2 talk pages, both of which are on my watchlist. That doesn't constitute stalking. Please just stop attacking other editors and work collaboratively, and we won't have a problem. Jess_talk|_edits 20:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forget the article reverts, the wp:point of leaving the articles in erroneous states, and the what can only be viewed as deliberate obfuscation in your participation on the talk pages, either that or you just didn't have the understanding to meaningfully participate on the pages. You forget that you engage on talk pages by reverting, and going out of your way to characterize only my comments as uncivil.--Africangenesis (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed a case for arbitration enforcement with respect to your recent behavior [11]. --TS 22:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are formally notified that The Climate Change arbcom case discretionary sanctions are in force on this topic area and that ongoing disruptive editing may result in blocks, topic bans, or other editing restrictions on you.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I edit that. Am I allowed to respond? thanx. --Africangenesis (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, try Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Africangenesis. There is a section for you to write a response in. --TS 23:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. --Africangenesis (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hard work you've been putting into improving our coverage of this topic, by the way. There is obviously a fair amount of scope for improvement in our coverage of climate modeling. --TS 22:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same Africangenesis that writes this blog [12] ?? --Silverback (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Africangenesis (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being a cited scientist isn't sufficient to meet WP:N - the point is, even if you're a moderately well cited scientist, those citations are mostly what N refers to as passing mentions; you don't learn anything about the person from them, so you can't use them to write an article. One really needs reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in depth; for a typical professor with a hundred to a thousand citations, you probably couldn't even get their first name from reliable, independent sources. WilyD 11:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you attack the good faith of those arguing for Leroux' notability? Those calling for deletion made no attempt to determine his notability, they just wanted him deleted, witness the incompetent google scholar "search" they probably didn't conduct.--Africangenesis (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I've suggested someone wasn't acting in good faith, I'd be keen to see where. WilyD 13:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this statement "even its advocates don't seem to really believe it"--Africangenesis (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't indicate someone was acting in bad faith - it indicates FurrySings was equivocating a lot in their phrasing. WilyD 14:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you and William M.Connolley moved your exchange on Connolley's talk page [13] and [14] if all was in good faith from those who recommended deletion as you claim? Why is William M. Connolley so busy chasing anything related to Marcel Leroux around [15] despite this document being used [16] and [17], including giving order to delete personal sandbox pages -order you so far resisted following, to your credit WilyD? What does this exactly means "prudent to SALT the article" as per the recommendation of the other deleter IRWolfie [18]?ShowTimeAgain (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too. It was closed awful quick, with no good faith effort by those that wanted it deleted to determine if this scientist was notable, and responses to every piece of evidence that were snarkily dismissive and totally without substance. --Africangenesis (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed after the standard amount of discussion time, seven days. Beyond that, you must be using order is a highly nontraditional way. Connolly asked if it was appropriate, I gave an honest "maybe, depends on why it's being done, but it would require a separate discussion to decide", to which end nothing has yet happened. I don't know if it will or not - I do know that if you keep complaining about him to the point people judge it to be harassment, you won't like the outcome. For instance, statements like "One has to wonder who IRWolfie is." are never welcome. comment on the content, not the contributor. If the article can be modified to meet WP:N, then keeping a draft in userspace for a limited time to make the modifications is appropriate; if not, then not. Other than that, unless there's evidence that someone has been acting maliciously towards either other contributors or the encyclopaedia, there's nothing else to discuss. WilyD 14:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is time to restore Marcel Leroux. It is clear that those that sought to delete it, were not acting as good faith contributors to wikipedia. They did not make a good faith effort to determine whether Leroux was notable, as shown by their google scholar search. They would have been happy to have a possibly notable scientist deleted just because no one came to his defense, there is no evidence that they would have cared. WMC "asking" was just more wikilawyering to get rid of it whether it was notable or not.--Africangenesis (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to attack those who disagreed with you in the discussion isn't going to get you anywhere, except to be told to take your complaints elsewhere. If you think you've found sufficient sources to bring the article up to the standard required by WP:N, then fix the userspace draft, and the article can be reviewed at DRV to see if it's appropriate to restore a new version - if it sufficiently addresses the concerns of the original AfD. WilyD 07:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking me is unlikely to be helpful, either. Wikipedia is merely an encyclopaedia - it doesn't do anything. Evaluation of new sources generally requires a new discussion (except in the case where they're really unambiguous, which I don't see here). WilyD 09:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the limit where it's unambiguous, overturning an old deletion is sometimes appropriate (moreso speedy than discussion, but that's neither here nor there). For what appears to be mostly a re-hashing of the same arguments with additional sources that're more "passing mentions" than "in depth discussions of the subject", no, it's not really appropriate. Realistically, either a DRV or creation of a new version sourced to new sources you've found, followed by what I assume will be an inevitable AfD - either way is about the same. WilyD 09:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would a newly sourced article on Leroux be followed by "an inevitable AfD"? So much for independence.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because he knows that the evidence and standards don't matter to WMC and IRWolfie, they have a different agenda. Note that he didn't say it was because a new AfD would be justified, it is pretty clear even the first one wouldn't have been justified by anyone who thought it was important to check a bit before starting an AfD, and there is a lot more specifics on notability gathered together now, and I suspect that all now better understand the correct standards for WP:Academic now, because maybe they read it.--Africangenesis (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI hope you saw that one at [19] It seems Africangenesis intends to go to DRV. Can an uninvolved admin semi-protect it if this occurs to stall some of the canvassing issues of the last deletion discussion? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)ShowTimeAgain (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thumbs-up AG. If you don't mind, could you email me action .at greenworldtrust .dot org .dot uk - please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy Skywalker (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Africangenesis for your tireless sleuthing on google scholar!ShowTimeAgain (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	The best Google scholar researcher! ShowTimeAgain (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These comments attack other editors in clear contravention of WP:NPA and display WP:BATTLEFIELD behaviour which is not acceptable anywhere, especially on a climate change topic. You've already been notified of WP:ARBCC sanctions, I suggest that you should retract your comments and behave in a collegiate way from now on. . dave souza, talk 10:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is truth a defense? Let me check who else you've warned.--Africangenesis (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you edit war on the same page, edit other climate pages and are chummy with Schulz, and that is just the first 50 contributions. And you are a quick swooper on the page. Recuse yourself.--Africangenesis (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave asked me to take a look at your contributions, and I too am concerned. This is a formal notification of WP:ARBCC's discretionary sanctions. Attacking editors in this manner is inconsistent with the fourth pillar of Wikipedia and is grounds for revocation of editing privileges if you continue. NW (Talk) 18:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, I appreciate the third party. It has been a bit frustrating that the conditions that drive away good editors are still present after all these years, because I really believe wikipedia could work if people would edit in good faith. Please keep in mind that on climate articles, only one side has to battle people sweeping in an reverting without even having read the edits or citations, and most of these reverts are to versions by just two or three of the editors. I will probably be stopping by less frequently for awhile because I have some real climate work to do, which unfortunately is very similar to the process here, so this has been a good warmup. Regards.--Africangenesis (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[20] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to engage in personal attacks against editors do that elsewhere. It's incompatible with being a wikipedian. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the heck you are talking about. Quit attacking me.--Africangenesis (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have now violated WP:3RR, with 4 reinsertions of Leroux in two hours. Please do not edit war, and do not edit against established consensus. And trying to nit-pick is not constructive, either - the informal "blue link" criterion was agreed to exactly to let Wikipedia processes figure out notability. Transparently trying to circumventing these processes with technicalities is pretty pathetic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing in good faith, and you still don't know how to count reverts. BTW, in my research, I found you calling scientists "deniers". A scientist must be notable before he/she can have an article. At that time, he is notable even though he doesn't have an article. I can put fr:Marcel Leroux in without any wikilink, he won't be a redlink in that case either. BTW, I am still voluntarily committed to 1RR. It just doesn't apply when a flyby comes through, who hasn't been part of the discussion anyplace it has been dicussed. Please try to be part of the solution.--Africangenesis (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it surprising how many words you need to say very little. I also find it surprising that someone who claims scientific literacy (and hence, I assume, literacy in general) seems to be unable to read and understand the simple paragraph at WP:3RR. Trust me, I can count. I don't usually do 3RR enforcement, but I've been an admin long enough to confidently tell you that yes, you have 4 reverts, and if somebody had taken you to WP:AN3, you would have been blocked. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hide anything on my talk page like some do, so you can go back search on RR and find every discussion I've had here on it and learn my philosophy. I stand by my record.--Africangenesis (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your philosophy is really quite irrelevant. What is relevant is Wikipedia's policy, which you have violated. You can think whatever you like, but if you act in contravention of policy, you must expect consequences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been wrong for me to be blocked. I could have made a strong case that the reverter was a vandal given how he wasn't part of the community editing that page or dicussing any of the issues on that page or on any of the other pages discussing the issue. I think he should have to explain what he was doing there, did he hear about it on the chat room or what. I haven't check recently, but I believe the 3RR rule did not use to apply in the case of vandalism.--Africangenesis (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia applies a narrow definition of vandalism and WP:3RR applies a wide definition of revert. The editor in question is an established editor with over 5000 edits on a large range of topics and an empty block log. I think you would have a hard time making a vandalism claim stick. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to get him to answer some questions. When a creator goes up against a deletionist, the original creation should not count. That way the deletionist does not "win" unless at least one other member of the community steps in to support. That is not a high burden to put on the community. I have an open philosophy.--Africangenesis (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been you or WMC or IRWolfie or Kim longname, I would not have reverted even once, although ... I guess you would have called it once.--Africangenesis (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of idle curiousity, I've check the most recent 500 edits of that interloper. 18% were reverts. In my case, even though some seem to think I've been particularly WP:BATTLE recently, 2% were reverts. I had about 10% reds, many minor corrections, often of my own edits. The interloper looks to be about half reds, he loves to delete. I wonder if he has been a net contributer to wikipedia. --Africangenesis (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comment on WilyD's Talk page - The DRV nomination is only one opinion. That debate will run for at least a week before some other, disinterested admin closes the discussion. Yes, you should present any new evidence you have about the subject's notability there. If I may, I strongly urge you to consider the following as you do so.

1. The standard for civility at DRV is quite high. (It's not perfect but we do try.) Please be extremely fact-based and professional in any comments you make there. Anything that even appears to be an ad-hominem attack will backfire, severely reducing your own credibility. It is often difficult but please try to assume good faith even from those who disagree with you the most strongly. If someone directs an attack at you, just ignore it.
2. Be as concise as possible. If you can, limit yourself to one comment. Make your case and trust that others will read and understand it.
3. Add sources and make improvements directly to the article (and reference in the DRV that you have done so). There is a draft still in existence at User:Lucy Skywalker/Marcel Leroux

In the future, I would also urge you to reply to users on their own talk pages. Directing a comment to me on WilyD's page is considered by some to be a form of "hijacking the page". Better to fragment a discussion than to risk dragging an unwilling third party into a debate.

I hope that helps. I don't want to appear preachy but the hostile attitudes expressed in the earlier debate were a serious impediment to Wikipedia's goal of consensus. Rossami (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a help, many thanx. I usually drive people crazy with my imperturbable civility. But occasionally I show them that I can give as good as I can get, but really only to show how bad blind faith in "the cause" makes them look Recently has been one of those times. I don't like incivility, but I've gotten a little irritated.

BTW, criterion 5 should have been a no brainer that forestalled any AfD at all, since there is no doubt he was head of that French laboratory, probably the founder of it with the funding he attracted, and it survives him with a new head.--Africangenesis (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an arbitration enforcement thread about you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you represent me please. I'm sure you could do a better job than I could do myself. I know I couldn't have gotten Marcel Leroux deleted, the evidence of his notability was obvious. --Africangenesis (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And my conscience wouldn't let me.--Africangenesis (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per this closure, you are indefinitely banned from the topic of Climate Change on all pages of Wikipedia, including user talk, admin noticeboards and WP:Arbitration enforcement, except for the following proviso. You may participate regarding CC in admin pages noticeboards and AE whenever your own behavior has previously been mentioned. You may file appeals against your sanctions to the closing admin, to AE, or to Arbcom in the usual way. This action is under the authority of WP:AC/DS. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Clarified: 'admin pages' => 'admin noticeboards.' EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Africangenesis, you deserve the Resilient Barnstar for fighting against climate cleansing. ShowTimeAgain (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were you enough out of order to merit this ban? It would be good to see your own perception of this, since you seem to have been pretty focussed on facts, science, quotes, fairness, etc in the posts of yours that I've seen.

Thank you for supporting me and the truth and the science and Leroux' memory.

I realize that with the Polar Mobile High, Leroux has actually produced a stunning piece of scientific theory that, like Wegener's tectonic plates theory, or the effect on climate of oceanic oscillating currents like ENSO, is of huge significance to understanding the planet and is holistic and therefore easy to grasp and lock in place in one's thinking, if one is willing to open up to it. Most importantly, I sense strongly that it is out of a true sense of his own expertise, experience, being honoured by others, and even genius, that Leroux believed he had earned the right to speak out against the corruption of climate science as he did.

The following is my current take on things, and why WP in its current incarnation simply cannot be fair to Climate Science. I posted it at Pete Tillman's also by way of thanks. It might be material for another article at WUWT that Wolfie may choose to read as canvassing rather than what I see it as being, namely the desire to get the real truth out into the open and into open debate.

Way back I concluded that we weren't going to get anything but a picture of Climate Science with bias in all the details on every page, here at WP. I concluded that WP:NOR, essential as it is for most encyclopedic issues, works unfairly against material at the "fringe" as the truth in Climate Science has now become, thanks to the 1990s politicization of the science. Now I also realize that the equally important WP:N discriminates unfairly against those of the "old guard" in climate science who, having learned proper scientific method, saw the corruption the IPCC brought, and spoke out because their consciences directed them to. For what happens to such as Leroux or Jaworowski? Their energy which had previously been directed to advances at the forefront of their field in which they were top, is sidetracked and no longer available for quite so much orthodox work. Then their outspoken pieces earn them adverse reputation where previously they had been lauded. Apostasy is the most unforgiveable of all crimes, so they have to spend even more energy in defending themselves from attacks and misrepresentations springing up on all sides. And if that is not enough, in Climate Science they are suddenly grossly outnumbered by the incoming wave of New Climateers, who have all been accepted on the condition of subscribing to AGW or CAGW.

Thus, I have to conclude that for Climate Science, WP:N cannot, simply cannot work as it should. But things are even worse. The existence of this unfairness not being recognized generally, means that a vicious circle is reinforced. Certain "old school" experts with integrity like Leroux or Jaworowski fail the "notability" sham test. So they pass into oblivion here, misrepresentation or thorough condemnation where, especially if they are dead, they cannot defend themselves. People read Wikipedia and although it's not meant to be the last word in scientific accuracy, people take it on that way anyway. What Connolley et al did years ago has influenced the way other editors here look at climate science, even when those editors believe they are being neutral and fair.

WP:NOR and WP:N were developed with the best of intentions. But the path to Hell is paved with such. I'm just using Athene's shield - Awareness - to look at this Medusa. IMHO. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry WMC, it wasn't you in the chatroom.--Africangenesis (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not actually to start another debate about climate change, it was to try to get you to think about why you were topic banned and came close to being indef blocked by an uninvolved admin. If however you respond by accusing others of bad faith, then a) clearly you're not prepared to consider why uninvolved people consider your behaviour in a bad light and b) yes, I guess we should leave it alone. --Merlinme (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't have a discussion without mentioning things I can't discuss, then please leave.--Africangenesis (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Africangenesis. Answering the question you posed to WMC, cot and cob are collapse templates. You can find them at Template:cot and Template:cob. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, They didn't look like any of the "show" things I had seen before. regards--Africangenesis (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What we called cadre's at the time, we can now recognize as roving mobs of censors. Africangenesis (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]