User talk:Brusegadi

Template:Archive box collapsible

The number of efforts to actually physically inventory the quality of the USHCN weather station network is exactly 1 and that's the effort that I'm citing. How can you revert for undue weight when I didn't do anything but adjust a categorical statement that everybody thinks that UHI is a minor deal to the more accurate "many" and put in qualifiers as to the recent vintage of the Watts effort data and its partial nature at this time. This was a good faith edit and you might want to consider Wikipedia:Reverting specifically

Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

So let me assume good faith on your part and just ask, notwithstanding all the above, do you have any legitimate reason within the wikipedia rules that I might have missed to act as you have? TMLutas 09:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to put a link in to the diff. TMLutas 09:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is because I am having a bad day, but your message seems rather confrontational. Why do you take this to my talk page? I will move this to the GW talk page and answer there. It is common practice to carry on all conversations about an article in the article talk's page. Unless this is about me, but then again, focus on the contribution and not the editor. Brusegadi 22:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote on your talk page mostly because I wanted to have a private conversation, not a 5:1 pile on of not well thought through criticism by the local guardians of the global warming page. You reverted on one set of criteria. I reversed and got it reverted again on a completely different, somewhat contradictory set of criteria. That's a recipe for anger and confusion and little actual progress. I save that sort of thing for fun edits like my NPOV efforts on pastafarianism (I have an epic thread going on whether and how the Flying Spaghetti Monster is blasphemous and should that be in the article). On the talk page of global warming it's likely to get worse in my opinion and the stakes are certainly much higher. I'll follow you over and see if my guess was right. I hope I am pleasantly surprised. TMLutas 03:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really prefer article discussion on article's talk pages. By the way, I do not see that 'contradiction' you speak of above. Maybe we are not looking at the same history. I reverted for weight issues, someone else did for reliability issues. Brusegadi 03:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he and I are having a chat on his talk page too. He thinks that my reducing weight because of the preliminary nature of the data is an example of weasel wording and if reliability would be settled, he would oppose it on those grounds. One reverter thinks I'm weaseling because I'm cautious, the other says that I'm providing undue weight and not being cautious enough. Fun. TMLutas 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that in order to be cautious you have to weasel, so its not like you necessarily fall on one of two opposing categories. Brusegadi 00:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. And I think that what I did was not weaseling. It was descriptive. But caution is often mistaken for weaseling. TMLutas 01:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted my contribution with TW as if it was vandalism. Have you cared to inspect the source that was/is being referred to? It is presenting new scientific evidence and the fact that it is not yet published was also emphasized in my addition - but note that the Svensmark et al. reply is to an article that itself got published officially only this month and so this reply can hardly be published already! As long as the Lockwood&Fröhlich paper is given so much room, I consider it important that a reference to the reply of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen be present. After all, Lockwood and Fröhlich's work is about previous published work of Svensmark et al. and suppression of mention of this reply gives the false impression that Svensmark is refuted beyond serious doubt. I have therefore undone you deletion. N.Nahber 14:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert it as if it was vandalism. I said it was not yet published. Also, please take discussion to the article's talk page. Brusegadi 19:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Brusegadi, I just wanted to ask a quick question about the link you considered spam. In particular, you removed the link "learn-networking.com/network-security/how-to-prevent-denial-of-service-attacks.html" from the Denial of Service WikiPage. I was wondering if perhaps you could give a better explanation than just "spam"? I think it points out a lot of good key areas in DoS, and the visuals are great. Doesn't seem spammy at all to me! Not that I mean to fight you over it or anything. Take care. -- zac439  •Talk•  18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello good sir, I recall the link had many google ads, which is indicative of commercial purposes. Ciao, Brusegadi 02:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind reply. Having three Google ads counts as spam? Or can the article not have commercial purposes whatsoever? I'm new here so I'm not too familiar with the more specific rules so if you'd help me out I'd appreciate it! zac439 00:43, 30 October 2007

Thanks for your patience. Generally when I see a link that has way too many google links I consider it spam. I may be wrong. I did take a look at what you provided and it seemed informative. I think I will ask for a third opinion to see what some other, more experienced, editor thinks. We'll see. Also, thanks and good day, Brusegadi 05:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! The ad format was updated. Now there is just a link ad before the content, and then two ads after the content. No ads at all in the actual content. Looks a lot better, wouldn't you say? I like it a lot more, and you are right, it did look kind of spammy compared to this ad format. Well, let me know what you think, zac439 20:48, 30 October 2007

I will look at it. Yet, I find it rather strange that the site was re-formated when this discussion is taking place. Are you affiliated with them? Brusegadi 01:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that would be too much of a coincidence! I am the one that wrote the article, and thus, felt it was worthy of more than just a brief glance and a shoulder shrug because of ads. Let me know how it goes! zac439 22:10, 30 October 2007

The link that I can see has useful information also a few ads true, but far less that this one [1].--Sandahl 05:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any update Brusegadi? Let me know if you have arrived at a final decision. zac439 13:42, 03 November 2007

Yeah, the third party I consulted seemed to think they were ok. So, I was being too careful! Have fun, Brusegadi 20:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prezado, até você já fez melhorias no artigo "Antarctica cooling controversy"! Esse negocio das referências é complicado para mim. Sem abrir mão da discussão de se o artigo vai ser apagado ou relocado, você acha que vale a pena (value-added) trabalhar num resumo do relatôrio do IPCC 2007 sobre o tema e os resultados da modelagem (uns dois parágrafos max) ou melhor paro por aquí? Eu não quero de novo desequilibrar o conteúdo, nem fazer uma trabalhera danada (o texto é técnico demais) sem propósito. Um grande abraço desde o Brasil. Mariordo 04:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did the improvements just to help it look better regardless of what happens. The references, you learn with experience, so do not worry. When I first started I was a bit intimidated by it as well. Just pay close attention to the format used in most pages. Concerning the article, I really do not know what is going to happen. I hope you understand that I have nothing against any of you, it is just that we have to keep the wiki according to its policies. I nominate for deletion just to see what other community members think. Well, the important thing is that whatever happens your work will not be completely lost because anything that we do not have elsewhere will be moved to the appropriate pages. Concerning the IPCC, there is already an article on AR4, so if you think it will help, adding what the IPCC has to say about Antarctica might be ok. If you really want to not do work in vain, I suggest you wait. The things that you can add to increase the article's chances of being kept are concerning the controversy (not evidence of the argument between two sides but extensive COVERAGE of such argument in the media.) Anyhow, thanks, your work helped improve the Global warming controversy article. I hope I covered all your inquiries (my Portuguese is very basic.) muito obrigado e ate a proxima, Brusegadi 04:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lógico que no es una cosa personal. Entonces voy a concentrarme en la dirección que recomiendas relativo a la cobertura periodística. Y gracias hombre, he aprendido mucho en esta discusión, indiferentemente del resultado final. Eu escrivi em português por brincadeira, reparei que você falava, então como moro no Brasil foi em piloto automático. Thanks! Mariordo 05:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Como ya perdi la paciencia en la discusion, me voy a abstener de participar hasta que tomen una decision. Pero considerando que tu has sido bastante objetivo y constructivo, me gustaria saber porque piensas que el articulo es WP:SYN? Como esta en este preciso momento, con o sin la foto, a mi criterio es bastante balanceado. Saludos y un abrazo.Mariordo 05:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is not enough to call it a controversy in the scientific realm. When you read the article you get the impression that scientists are bitter about all this when, in fact, they are not. I feel that much scientific discussion was put on the topic and it gets tainted with the word controversy. I never lose my patience here, but I do get disappointed at times. We have gotten some constructive comments from your side, like the National Geo link that made me feel better in terms of the WP:SYN at least in the public arena. But then come those guys who took a quick peek at the discussion and, since they saw a large amount of volume, immediately concluded that there is passion and when there is passion there is political motivation and POV pushing. I will read the discussion again and try to suggest something in the middle of the road along the lines of what you proposed earlier. Brusegadi 19:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. After your last edit a newcomer made significant edits, and to me, he chopped the article, and introduced info that I think is now not neutral at all. I was thinking into improving the references style. I guess I will wait until the edit war ends. And I agree with you, the debate is on the public domain, the science seems to agree. Even the last paper I included and WC extended as a big deal, confirms the latest slight cooling trend, and it is obvious that if you take more years in the average out of the trend, the average will look differente, it just math.Mariordo 12:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R&I has been protected for a breather while we try to form some consensus as to the direction. In the interim we have set up a “sandbox” at: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. Moonriddengirl is a neutral admin who has set up the space where we can work on the text section by section; this allows us to have a talk page for the micro project. So far JJJamal, Futurebird and I have made suggested changes with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. This section and its talk page is an experiment in trying to come together as a group on a focused area. If it works we’d like to approach Guy, the admin who has protected the page, to insert our work-product into the protected article and then take on another section. I would really like to get your feedback on this so that we can demonstrate a consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to head over there later today. Thanks for the heads up, Brusegadi 20:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]