Jump to content

User talk:Moogwrench: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
EdwardsBot (talk | contribs)
354,693 edits
2over0 (talk | contribs)
17,247 edits
Line 354: Line 354:
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' &middot; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single|Single-page]] &middot; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] &middot; [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 00:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)</div>
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' &middot; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single|Single-page]] &middot; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] &middot; [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 00:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0027 -->
<!-- EdwardsBot 0027 -->

== [[Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Climategate]] ==

You seem to be beating a bit of a [[WP:STICK|dead horse]] over there. [[WP:Consensus|Consensus]] is not decided by whoever is most willing to continue expending verbiage over an issue after all the points have been made. Continually raising the same points is [[WP:DE|disruptive]]. Additionally, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&diff=prev&oldid=347658623 this] is a touch on the rude side. Maintaining a collegial atmosphere will hopefully help that article develop peacefully. Regards, - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 05:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:49, 7 March 2010

Birnbaum article

Hi - hope you don't mind I threw in a few things on your new article. KConWiki (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks alot! I need all the help I can get! Moogwrench (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to refer me to edit warring when you have changed the edits back just as often as I have. Hypocrite. No wonder you support the coup and the golpistas. (Finrevs (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

edits to 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

Thanks for your work. Just a comment: For right now, I think that most edits to the umbrella "constitutional crisis" article should be focused on trimming. Substantive additions should probably go to the sub-articles (at least, they should go there first; and hopefully, only there, as they can be included in trimmed summaries on the umbrella page). Homunq (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When creating or editing articles where templates arent in use may I suggest using the Reflinks toolserver. I suggest that you don't just take the results given verbatim, but make corrections to clean them up. The results need some manual help; sometimes author names and dates don't get added, and links to publishers are to the website which is not really useful, so link to the wiki article if one exists, sometimes the title is way too long including parent section names that can be removed, etc.

I also found and use an edit counter on my page which shows the main articles edited etc. and graphs them, Just passing on what other people have told meCathar11 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Election Returns

There is no error in the AFP report. Hagamos Democracia conducted exit polls which agree with the lower figure.

The the TSE measured participation against a different electoral roll that was adjusted for emigration, deaths, etc, that the TSE did not share with them. Bú said that Hagamos Democracia was not adjusting the electoral roll for deaths and emigration because it did not have reliable enough information to do so. Since this was an arbitrary figure that cant stand up to scrutiny they will have to use a similar basis to earlier elections.

In 2005 the TSE website said 2,190,398 people voted, from an electoral roll of 3,976,550 voters. According to Hagamos Democracia, 2,162,000 voted in 2009 from an electoral roll of 4.6 million. That's approximately 28,000 fewer people voting than voted in 2005, while the electoral roll increased by some 600,000 persons. The size of the electoral roll was supplied to Hagamos Democracia by the TSE prior to the election, and was the same number supplied to the press.

The initial 60% was disengeous to say the least, knowing the attention span of international audiences.Cathar11 (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its simple maths TSE changed what it was a % of by adjusting arbitrarily the figure.
Hagamos Democracia was accredited by the TSE as election observers. They are an NGO, funded by various governments, including the United States.
Their methodology was to select a sample of 1173 mesas electorales from around the country based on criteria like their history of participation in previous elections and other criteria. In each of these mesas electorales, they established an observer who was present the whole time, from the time the polling place opened until it closed, and did not visit other mesas electorales as many election observers do. After the polling place closed, their election observer sent them the statistics from that mesa, including the tallied vote counts, and participation from the official "actas" that the TSE has reported to it to tally. Their observers also send in their own statistics gathered from their observations during the day.
Hagamos Democracia told Tiempo that the TSE measured participation against a different electoral roll that was adjusted for emigration, deaths, etc, that the TSE did not share with them. Bú said that Hagamos Democracia was not adjusting the electoral roll for deaths and emigration because it did not have reliable enough information to do so.
The TSE has obviously decided to abandon its arbitrary electoral roll (which dissapears 600,000 voters?).Cathar11 (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know the count isnt finished but its now 85/90% complete. I dont know why there not updating their wensite. If you note that on it they show the Hagamos Democracia % which are in line with theirprojections and note that all the figures agree with the exception of participation. The cpmfidence level on that is 99+% with a 1% margin of error. Whether it has anything to with the 6.5% spoiled vote rate or not I dont know. Final results may take weeks so well just have to wait and see.Cathar11 (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law Library of Congress report

Why dont you put details of the report now that its in HTML into the Honduran Coup d'etat article as counter balance and I'll add details of the specific weaknesses of the report into the critism. section.

Sure, or we could switch roles. ;-) I think that there is valid criticism of the LLoC report, but I did add a little bit noting the more recent decree which gave the power to Congress to interpret the constitution in Article 205(10) after the ruling against the Congress's logic vis-a-vis Article 218(9) and 205(1). So I think the critics of the LLoC report might be out on a limb, depending on an older ruling, instead of the newer, ratified change to the Constitution which established a right on the part of the Congress to interpret the Constitution. Moogwrench (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try it again and we go to ANI

Only post where you're allowed. -- Rico 03:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't post in the middle of my posts, and don't insert posts into the middle of threads where they're not allowed.
You may not insert a post in between a post and its reply by adding another colon, and you mayn't insert your posts into the posts of other posters, ever. -- Rico 03:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, your last edit to that was at 3:06 after my original reply at 3:03, and so I replied again at 3:17. Why did you move it? Moogwrench (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? You really don't understand it, or are you playing dumb? Lo0ok at ALL the time and date stamps. You trieed to slip in a post, in the middle of a thread, in between a post and its reply.[1] -- Rico 04:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let review those stamps:

3:03 I respond to your 2:59 comment [2]
3:05 you change your 2:59 comment [3]
3:17 I reply to your changed 3:05 comment [4]

What is confusing and why I am I wrong to reply to a comment again after it was finished? (even though you didn't update the stamp) Moogwrench (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a minor change only to clarify a vague reference. It wasn't clear that "that", referred to, "your supposed newness." My minor edit didn't change the meaning of what I had written in any way -- because I had already written about your supposed newness (in that same post) when I wrote, "newbie you supposedly were." My edit was purely a minor grammatical one for enhanced readability.
One thing you could have done might have been to have changed your reply, if you honestly thought I'd written something new. You're obviously familiar with strikeout formatting.
However, I hadn't changed the meaning of anything I'd written in any way.
Regardless, you may not insert a post in between a post with four colons, and a reply with five colons, just because you want to.
It's just that simple.
I'm not going to discuss it ad nauseum, especially if you're going to ignore the obvious. I'd rather just go to AN/I. I'm ready.
As far as I'm concerned, we can just move this discussion to AN/I. You can develop your defense there.
I reserve the right to do that in response to your next reply, especially if you ignore that a six-colon reply doesn't get inserted in between a four-colon post and a five-colon reply.
I consider you a thoroughly disruptive editor, and I'm not going to spend all day providing you with stimulation you can't or won't go out and get in the real world. -- Rico 04:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do what you like. You stopped discussing it with me, and I suppose now an administrator can look at the situation. That is fine by me. Moogwrench (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now at AN

Hello, Moogwrench. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For my own records, the link is here for now, until it is archived. Moogwrench (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Honduran coup d'état

In a single sentence, was the entire dispute about whether the coup was part of the larger constitutional crisis or just a separate incident? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current dispute was over whether the "coup" was part of a larger "constitutional crisis" or the totality of the "constitutional crisis." Moogwrench (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good night for tonight, must sleep... Moogwrench (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

I am concerned that User:Alb28 has seriously screwed up the article. As the only other changes are a POV aout landing at a US air base (which also doubles as a US airbase) what do you Think? PS Rico has retired from Wikipedia so youre now in discussion with yourselfCathar11 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I was planning to do was a roll back to before his edits. Iyou make an edit after my roll back it cannot be undone. Then any changes made can be discussed on a point by point basis. Is that reasonable. The points hes raising are spurious IMHO and arbitrary. I dont think they merit individual changing at this stage and i consider them tantamount to vandalism of the article.Cathar11 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please make an edit to lock the roll back I deleted some of your edits too.Cathar11 (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im afraida mass revert wouldnt stand up to an rfc. Yhis guy has been here before under another name and hacked up the article. I recognise his style. Hit and run job. will just have to take apart hisedits in stages and rewording.Cathar11 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whats this africanised bee thing with a photoshoped picture?Cathar11 (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious content

Our friend has also created three pages with very dubious content. Both of which breach BLP guidelines. Marcelo Chimirri David Romero Ellner and Financial irregularities during the Manuel Zelaya administration

I think we need to get an admin to look at them and indeed all his posting. He seems to be a loose cannon. Its not just my viewpoint is it?Cathar11 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea hes an admin.Cathar11 (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found the right place to report it WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and somebody there posted it to WP:ANI#User:Alb28 goodnightCathar11 (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast a cold eye

Our friend is learning wiki lawyering fast for a newbie. see ANI Cathar11 (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are politically polar opposites, but act with integrity, will you have a look and comment on any recent deletions or reversions thatI have madeCathar11 (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback request

Rollback granted: you're right that the tool is not for reverting edits you disagree with nor to revert-war, and that the tool can be removed if misused (note that some admins don't even bother to warn editors about rollback errors). This all being said, rollback is very useful for reverting vandalism and spam, and does make things much easier. Have fun with your new tool! Acalamari 16:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Rollback

Ive just installed twinkle, Where did yourequest rollback permission?Cathar11 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Hi there Moogwrench, I'm not familiar with the dispute nor its subject so I'm not able to speak from an expert point of view on this matter, but I'm not sure canvassing is a huge thing to worry about in this case. The editor who was contacted recently posted to the talk page of the dispute ([5]), so I assume they are already aware of what's going on. That being said, if the editor who posted the message starts to contact users who aren't involved with the dispute to get support, my suggestion would be to talk to the editor to get them to stop, and if they persist, post to WP:ANI (you'll get better, faster, and more input if you post there rather than contact an individual admin for help on matters like that). Hope that helps. Best. Acalamari 16:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I am unfamiliar with some american terms. In the UK and Ireland a news columnist is another term for a reporter. Opinion pieces are normally diferent. An editorial is always an opinion piece. From my understanding Primary sources such as court records are not useable in wp. Do you have any thoughts?Cathar11 (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

San Juan High School

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of San Juan High School, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.softcom.net/users/whiskeystill/SJhistory.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anybody's information, this bot is confused, because the text is derived from information taken directly from San Juan High School's website. Moogwrench (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you write the text at the website, then? It appears that most of the "history" section of the article is copy-pasted from there. Sorry, but I've reported this at WP:CP (see here). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact remains that your text is strikingly similar to the text on that website. I've left the copyvio tag, but that doesn't mean the article must be deleted. I think what follows is the best advice for you regarding this article; it's from this template.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:San Juan High School saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thanks for your patience. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you cannot do that. This website is very explicitly copyrighted by the San Juan Unified School District. You have to rewrite the "history" section in your own words, and you may cite the SJUSD page as a reference. You can take information from the page, but you cannot lift text from it. Actually, it looks like the softcom page is infringing copyright as well, but Wikipedia is exceptionally stringent in upholding its copyright policies. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. And thank you for fixing that stupid font stuff on my talk page! That was starting to bug me... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit responsibly . . .

I think I've waited long enough for you to remove that tag. Please take care of this. HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Moogwrench. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Happy Christmas

I hope you have a great Christmas and wish you and your family all the best for 2010. Maybe it will be the year you will head south to H. I hope its warmer where you are than here where its now -5. Nollaig Shona Dhuit(Happy Xmas in Irish)Cathar11 (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honduran Constitutional Crisis

Background I do think that these need to be noted: (1) political nature of the Supreme Court. (2) political nature of the media and concentration of ownership. (this was in it before and is mentioned in Human Rights invedstigations) What do you think? Would a table of Human rights violations be a useful addition? I was amused that the "stone " article of the constitution was ammended to alllow Santos run for the Presidency.;)Cathar11 (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New article patrolling

I came across a bot assembled list on this page [6] whch may be of interest.Cathar11 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Speedy deletion declined: Diana Panton

Hello Moogwrench. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Diana Panton, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Hi there

Hey there Moogwrench, just wanted to first say how much your recent changes patrolling is appreciated. I just wanted to clarify something for the future regarding reporting to AIV. While you are indeed correct that repeated vandalism does not reflect well the intentions of a Wikipedia editor, there are several ways to classify the disruption. When the vandal is an actual registered account of the English Wikipedia, it is considered a vandalism-only account. When the vandal is an IP address, this classification is incorrect and we have to be a bit more stringent regarding adequate warnings. Once again though, its very kind of you to devote your time, revert the vandalism, and bring such editors to our attention. See you around.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Climate change articles

Thanks for raising the question of the ICO's statement, I've commented on your request for an explanation with reasons for reviewing your wording. In case you hadn't noticed, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation applies to a range of articles including Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, which is specifically placed under a 1RR restriction. The standard notice appears below. Glad to have your assistance in improving the article, dave souza, talk 09:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Climategate Coup

Moogwrench, for a bit of fun I thought I'd see if the Kremlin green guard in Wikipedia were being kept busy enough to stop them doing any serious harm in the real world, when I spotted your comments about "Coup" - very good! But please don't try too hard to get the article changed, because it is one of the ways to flag up to members of the public that the content is going to be extremely biased.88.109.200.48 (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider signing our proposal.

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I know that you are arguing in favor of Climategate, which I have also done in the past, but in an effort to find a compromise position that both sides can live with please consider signing on to this proposal. We have a reasonable number of editors already on board so I am hoping we can get others such as yourself to come on board as well. Thanks for your consideration. --GoRight (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Hi, yourself...

...but I think I'll be going back on wikibreak now. Cheers. Homunq (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Invitation

There is a larger article on the overall climategate issue in incubation. This is an invitation for you to contribute. TMLutas (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Climategate

You seem to be beating a bit of a dead horse over there. Consensus is not decided by whoever is most willing to continue expending verbiage over an issue after all the points have been made. Continually raising the same points is disruptive. Additionally, this is a touch on the rude side. Maintaining a collegial atmosphere will hopefully help that article develop peacefully. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 05:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moogwrench&oldid=348268286"