User talk:Raymond arritt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please read before commenting here

• First: You're welcome to send me email. I have a working email link through Wikipedia. If you're discussing something that isn't of broader interest to the Wikipedia community, email may be best. Be aware that I reserve the right to reproduce Wikipedia-related email here.

• Second: If you write it here, I'll respond to it here. Sometimes people write comments on others' Talk pages and then the second person responds on the first person's Talk page, but I find that confusing.

• Third: I have a thick skin and a high tolerance for others' opinions. (Sticks and stones... etc.) Everyone should adhere to both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia community standards on civility or personal attacks, but I also ask that you do not remove other peoples' comments from this page even if you feel they are intemperate.

---

The talk page had grown to > 80 KB, so older stuff is found here.

---

Contents 1 Reply from another Page 2 Great minds... 3 Friendly Reminder. 4 Chevron affiliation with AAPG? 5 Please take some time for reflection

[edit] Reply from another Page

(brought here): I think much of the problem comes from the fact that we are from different cultures and speak different languages: Blue Tie is an attorney, while WMC and I are scientists. Neither is necessarily better or worse than the other. But we have vastly different worldviews, especially on the relative roles of process versus truth-seeking. I was going to write a long essay on the implications of this difference but have some other things to do for a while, and a third party's talk page probably isn't the appropriate venue (see, we can use legal words sometimes!) anyway. The bottom line is that each side could make more of an effort to understand the other's perspective. Raymond Arritt 15:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not yet decided to disclose my occupation. I could say what I am not. Ostensibly my hourly rate is $275 and that may appear to be the rate of a lawyer, but I am not one. I also am not a scientist. BUT, most of my career has been spent with scientists, physicists and engineers, working in those disciplines. My third "real" job, among other things, involved the use of Lanchester equations to model warfare, which is a sort of scientific thing and I have some sense of what is involved in modeling. At one point, I nearly collaborated with a 2 physicists to patent a concept for physically "tuning" the field inside superconducting magnets used in accellerators for greater purity. They had a problem and I came up with the concept of the solution but did not have the technical expertise to describe it properly for scientific application. We did not apply for the patent because the problem sort of went away. The point is, I am not a lawyer and I believe I do understand the perspective of scientists and people with similar backgrounds. Unlike your recent review of Ed Poor, I do not particularly believe that there is a special "right wing" or "left wing" scientific POV. Of course, as with many things left and right wing people will use science to advance their agenda's and scientists may personally occupy any place along the continuum of such political definitions. But, on its own, science is (almost by definition) neutral, even if its accolytes are not. I have no problem with the idea that each side could make more of an effort to understand the other's perspective, but rather than have that attempt made toward me, I was immediately labeled (falsely) by you and others and attacked - even viciously. When I protested that I was being mistreated, it was piled on. When I tried to open avenues for discussion, they met with silence. When I apologized for errors, I was further abused. It was purely weird and I have never experienced it anywhere else on wikipedia in quite that way. I do not understand it at all. I suggest that the "guardians" of that page (like you) reconsider their approach. They may be making enemies of people who sympathize. Not especially me, because I try to forgive and get on with things unless problems just get too bad, but I do not think everyone is quite like that. --Blue Tie 16:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apologies -- I had you confused with someone else with similar views, and should have checked before making my comment. But I do think the general principle applies, if not in your case. Again, apologies for the misidentification. Raymond Arritt 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, please believe me when I say... I have no ill will or hard feelings toward you. I have every confidence that you work honestly and integrity. (Also with passion it appears!). You have NOT been an egregiously offensive person and you offered the most opportunities for collaboration. So if you feel any sense of discomfort with respect to me, please let it go! I hold you in no disrespect. I recall a poem from the 1800's, which may not really apply here, since we have never been friends, but the sentiment is one I agree with:

Come Dear Friend

The War is Past

And friends at First

Are friends at Last.

--Blue Tie 16:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. There is a long history to that page and GW pages generally that explains some things, but as mentioned I'm otherwise occupied at the moment and will expand later. To (over)simplify, the Duck test may have given a rare false-positive. Raymond Arritt 16:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great minds...

[1], [2] ;-). --Stephan Schulz 23:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh. More broadly, some of the objections do stretch the limits of WP:AGF. Raymond Arritt 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Got your point on the diet. --Skyemoor 20:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly Reminder.

Hey. Thanks for all the vandalism you have reverted. I noticed that you gave User:69.157.124.79 a third level warning. He/She had previously never received a warning. This might be considered "Biting a Newbie"; so this is just a friendly reminder to watch out. -Mschel 03:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. As the template page suggests, level 1 assumes good faith, level 2 is neutral, and level 3 assumes bad faith. It's hard to see inserting "who is a dirty whore" as anything but deliberate vandalism so I gave the level 3. Of course, it's always a judgment call. Raymond Arritt 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would probably have used {{bv}} - you're more generous than I. Are we really at the point where we need to go around assuming that people who insert "who is a dirty whore" are just underinformed about Wikipedia policy? MastCell ^Talk 03:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chevron affiliation with AAPG?

This is the second time that the fact of the AAPG affiliation with Chevron was removed. I think it is VERY relevant that the only academic association to publicly refute global warming is associated with a major oil company. The fact that the academic association was receiving hidden money and support from a trade group that would directly benefit from a dissenting view is highly suspect. It is extremely important to not only present the facts, but also to properly identify yourself so as to give the reader the chance to determine the weight of your arguments based on any preconceived biases.

But, my goal was not to make that much of a leap. The evidence was not there. I did feel it important to highlight the facts as they actually existed. It is up to the reader to determine where the pieces fit together. And the the logic that I used to include this buried...but present information is as follows:

1. If the AAPG site had been hacked, then ALL of the content is suspect.

2. If the AAPG site had NOT been hacked, then the content can be considered the responsibility of whomever had the login and password to gain access to their website to post the content (both html and the attachments). So, my factual statement was based on a document on their own website, which showed that the file appears to have been created on a computer owned by Chevron. But I didn't even go that far...as that was my own personal deduction. What I simply stated was that the file on their website, as it was saved stated that the Company was Chevron. This is a fact. The document said "Company - Chevron". This is not disputed. It may not have been their intention to put that information out there...but it got out. Being published on the AAPG website, made it part of the AAPG and the responsibility of the AAPG.

I think this verifiable fact, not the eventual and (subjectively obvious) conclusion has a valid place in the entry. It is important to keep as much transparency as possible in these controversial issues in an effort to help understand these complex issues.

But I don't want to put it back up without hearing your thoughts. Please either respond here or go to my talk page.

Cheers, Alex Rosenheim Alex.rosenheim 11:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Alex, I see your concern. But the evidence simply is too weak. All we have to go on is one line of metadata in a document. You should also be aware that at most professional societies, the officers are not employees of the society but instead hold other positions and are elected to temporary terms. They don't reside at the society headquarters but maintain their regular jobs and occasionally visit the society's facilities for meetings and the like. This is certainly the case for the three societies of which I am a member -- the president of one is a colleague here at work, and he still comes here every day. However I don't know the details of AAPG specifically.

One obvious possibility is that an officer of the society, or a member of a committee, drafted the statement on his own computer where he or she worked, then sent the document to AAPG headquarters. It would hardly be surprising if Chevron employees were members of AAPG!

Thanks for your work on the article. Raymond Arritt 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please take some time for reflection

You're about this || close to a block for tendentious editing and provoking others with "I dare you" edit summaries like this.[3] It would be best for all concerned if you take a few moments to gain some perspective. Raymond Arritt 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am calm. I have tried to remain respectful to all parties involved in the issue. My edit summary was not a dare; I was pointing out the rules, since Mr. Connolley has a tendency to revert warnings/notices as he sees fit. I encourage you to take whatever steps you think are necessary. Orane (talk • cont.) 21:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: Why am I the only one who was warned in the matter? Orane (talk • cont.) 21:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yours was the only edit summary that stuck out. Raymond Arritt 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's always best to have a comprehensive grasp of the issue before becoming involved and threatening blocks. Thanks. Orane (talk • cont.) 22:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't intended as a threat -- just some advice to relax before things got out of hand. Best for everyone if the situation doesn't deteriorate to that point. Anyway the article is protected now so all concerned will have some time to cool off. Raymond Arritt 22:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)