This is apparently my talk page. Feel free to leave comments, I'll keep them and possibly reply to them if they have been left in good faith. I do not debate trolls or engage in pointless heated discussions. Someday I might come around to spending more time with Wikipedia and create fancy user and talk pages

/Troed

You beat me to it.

I read through the ANI thread, concluded they were missing an important piece of the puzzle, and ran off to compose a post. By the time I was done, you had already made the same point. Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 03:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yours was much better though, I contemplated erasing mine but since it didn't spawn a discussion I just let it be. Troed (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting. My proposed title change removes the word "theft/hack/release" which seems to be a sticking point for some. Please forgive me if I offend, but I'm going to remove your comment from the vote thread. Nothing to do with your statement; I'm hoping to avoid a discussion in that space, and just get an up-or-down. I figure that if I (a "Climategate" title proposer) can propose something neutral enough yet still descriptive, we can slap it on and move on to the next issue without having to re-visit this within a day or two. Hah! Right. Nightmote (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! You're fast! Nightmote (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But apparently blind, it was my fault writing a lengthy comment after your no-comment request. Sorry 'bout that. Troed (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(HUGE grin) We write. It's what we do. Getting us to *not* give a lengthy opinion is always a chore! Nightmote (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it you do not edit the article? Unanimity is not required for consensus. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked with regards to Jones email the article was still protected. After ChrisO deleted the paragraph I'm quite sure he won't hesitate to impose sanctions to anyone re-inserting the same piece even though there's a proper source which he ignored. I'm rather close on giving up on Wikipedia completely over this whole joke of a process. As Connolley put it, "the community" seems to be the admins. Not the editors. As you can see in my changelog, I'm not really a very active editor. I find an article every few months where I can contribute in some form in the article itself or at the talk page - I'm very happy with doing just that. I never foresaw the absolutely incredible bias and WP:BATTLE mentality that would be the result of stepping in at something "climate change" related. Troed (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then they've won. At least join me in supporting a complaint that ChrisO has been acting improperly. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not out to WP:BATTLE. I do agree that I find ChrisO to be acting improperly, which tedder identified with suggestions of WP:OWN in the arbitration request. I've asked another admin for advice on how to handle the fact that ChrisO deleted without consensus with a reason that clearly doesn't hold as to the discussions of the talk page. I can of course repeat that anywhere else you'd like. As far as "they've won", well. I'm a public speaker, internationally, at conferences where Wikipedia is often a topic. While I do not let my private interests (editing here) influence what I do for a living, I will have problems describing Wikipedia as a stunning achievement of mankind after this latest week's experience. Troed (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of any other online project where people with different backgrounds from around the world are working together to collaborate? Perhaps the goal of the project isn't actually to write an encyclopedia, but whether to see if we can actually work together as one people to accomplish the task? Hari Seldon 15:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You get plus points for the Foundation reference, but it's far outweighed negatively by what I consider to be unnecessary WP:BATTLE using WP tools by you here. It's exactly that kind of mentality that I was totally unprepared for before this week and I find it appalling. Sorry. Troed (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be silly. The enforcement page was not used for BATTLE, but to prevent one. A decision was made to enforce a 1RR restriction on the entire article, instead of just Psb777. Do you not find his outcome fair? Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, I disagree. You tried to to sanction Paul over reverts that were fully justified, and you did so apparently without having researched the material. Dave's first deletion of the paragraph was in stark contrast to the current discussions and consensus at the talk page. The second deletion of the same paragraph, after Paul's first revert, was either an incredible coincidence or done by a "meatpuppet" - look up the contributions history and judge for yourself. The third deletion was done by ChrisO, but you incorrectly stated that Paul reverted to the same version as before. He did not, and the new phrasing and source (my suggestion off the talk page btw) had more support and dealt with some sourcing concerns. Put together, you falsely represented the events that took place. There was one possible "actionable" revert, not three, and it's likely the deletions that were disruptive instead and should have been dealt with. Regarding the outcome, the ends rarely justify the means. Troed (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was edit warring pure and simple, and that violates the article probation. As for the complex revert, that is classified as a revert, regardless of the intricacies of the change, and it was in fact a revert to the previous version, so we have three, very clear reverts consisting of edit warring by Paul. Do you dispute this? If so, I can spell it out for you. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are, again, misrepresenting the actual facts. See the added links. Additionally, why do you insist that the third revert was to the same version as the others? Don't you think I recognize my own phrasing? I do not know why you keep at this though, and I'll happily leave it at that. Your morality is yours alone. Troed (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks. Paul reverted three times in a short period of time, and by definition, this is edit warring. The request for probation enforcement report shows this to be true, but I will be happy to explain to you in detail: At 06:57, 4 January 2010, Psb777 reverted[1] Dave souza's previous edit at 01:46, 4 January.[2] The version Psb777 reverted to was that of User:A Quest For Knowledge at 01:41, 4 January.[3] Regardless of the subsequent changes to this version, the next two reverts that Psb777 makes originate with the version at 01:41, 4 January. So, the first revert by Psb777 is at 06:57, 4 January[4], and the second one is at 08:55, 4 January.[5] This is clear and without question. The third revert by Psb777 is at 11:27, 4 January.[6] While the specific wording of this version has changed, on Wikipedia this kind of edit is classified as a complex revert from a content POV, nevertheless, Psb777 still reverted User:ChrisO's removal of the material at 09:03, 4 January, and this material had been added back by Psb777 three times in 24 hours, regardless of the word changes. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for verifying my comments above about the appalling state of affairs at Wikipedia. My previous conclusion stands since you've added no new information and you've also ignored the actual state of facts (the third revision was not just a change of wording as you claim, it changed the source which was the REASON given for the deletions, and it had talk page support). Please appreciate that I'm not interested in heated arguments, endless debates and WP:BATTLE. I'm more interested in actual facts, and since I do not see them getting represented I consider this exchange of words to be fruitless. Troed (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's still edit warring and reverting, regardless of whether someone supports it or not. The third revert is called a complex revert, and it restored previously removed material with style changes. These are facts supported by diffs. Article probation is intended to prevent this. The only "appalling state of affairs" that I see, are the problems general sanctions are intended to resolve. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was obviously unclear. I do not see any point in continuing this, please respect that. I'll let this comment stay though, my points are well made in the posts above Troed (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sony Xperia T, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MHL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Maybe you like to know that the discussion in the Technical Analysis Talk Page is currently active.
If you are interested to contribute in the present debate, your help will be appreciated.
177.33.146.101 (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]