User talk:CurtisSwain

Welcome!

Hello, CurtisSwain, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Brusegadi (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of Wikipedia climate articles

The Climategate article talks of a "hacker" who "stole" emails and other data from the CRU. However, at UK law there is legislation permitting whistleblowers to release information that discloses criminality, as - prima facie - the Climategate emails do. The bias against the whistleblower that is evident in the current draft of the article is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.196.104 (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for your work on Scientific opinion on climate change. Thats good research. Brusegadi (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific opinion on climate change

Hi Curtis,

please check pages before you add this link. Most climate-related articles already have at least one and often two links (one in the main text and one in an infobox) to this article.

Good work, otherwise! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

For fixing up my typos today. :-) --Jaymax (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the award. Actually, I probably learned more from that discussion than Damorbel. Q Science (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Scientific society

Hello CurtisSwain, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Scientific society - a page you tagged - because: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion for more information. A good catch, though: I've restored the original redirect. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tikiwont (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is rather the opposite. The name Scientific society still exists but it is currently not an article but a redirect, that is anybody clicking or typing it will directly be sent to learned society with a small note at the top pointing out what happened. That was how it was created and that alone is a reason, not to delete the whole thing, but to revert the changes. Nevertheless, the strange version you found, is still in the edit history, in some kind of wiki-limbo as it could be reverted once again. Try to click on above link, find the hatnote, click once more on the name and then check the history tab.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better Late Than Never

I appreciate your concern regarding my morale after attempting to improve the global warming article. I assure you, I am not discouraged by the reaction to my input. I'm sure, at some point, I'll return to address any concerns and arguments raised about the information I offered, but unless an article is the source of ongoing vandalism, I rarely spend more than a day or two on any given subject. In that time, I do what I can to get information as up-to-date and objective as possible (and in the case of that article, almost all the data presented was 3-5 years old and extremely limited in scope). As far as I'm concerned, if (referenced and verifiable) data is provided by legitimate scientists and scholars in a subject's field, it is valid (though not necessarily accurate) input - regardless of efforts by anonymous posters in internet communities to question or discredit their credentials.
As someone having drawn no conclusions (and thoroughly indifferent on the matter) of global warming, I read the article hoping to learn about the various theories as to what might be prompting it. I was surprised to see that it addressed such a narrow frame-of-reference and presented data and conclusions that largely support one perspective (ie. a chart like this, presenting its data to highlight, and drawing conclusions from, a period of warming from 1980-2005 while completely disregarding a previous, identical period of warming from 1910-1945) - particularly given the volume of variables and possibilities that may exist . Reading the 'FAQ' on the talk page was even more alarming, as it relies heavily on unreliable sources (notably - blogs) to justify the article's weighted perspective.
All that being said, however, you're right, muddling through the data is daunting and perplexing. Particularly because it's largely presented by sources that, although academically reliable, often have a great deal to gain by adhering to a specific ideology.
--K10wnsta (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

I really don't know how to reply to this one. It's not that I don't have anything to say, it's that Woodwalker comment is so long I don't know how to start a reply and how to end it. If I may, I see two errors: (1) fallacy verbosity, his arguments is so long and interlocked that it can't be effectively deduced logically, (2) this is for you, its special pleading, he's asking for an exception to WP:COMMONNAME when the exception itself is unjustified. Those are his errors, my were a misrepresentation of his arguments, which right now I'm not quite sure how it works beyond the fact that its conclusion is that the lead and title are inaccurate. I think your advice was beyond good. Stop replying. If you were me, how do you think I should handle this? You seem to be able to see big picture, thanks. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both, and sorry for interrupting (this talk page was on my watchlist, donno why). A personal note: I think all of this is not worth the fuzz anyway. I just passed by, saw a problem when comparing title and content, checked the literature and wanted to tell. Personally, I don't like titles like "global warming (20th century)". My favourite solution wouldn't be to change the title but to change the content in a way it fits with the title. That could be done by adding a small (no undue weight) section about global warming in the past, with links to more specialized articles. In that way the title will cover the subject: problem solved. Anyway, I'm not going to change anything without you agreeing, although I'll be against keeping the FA status if it stays like this. The fact that English isn't my native tongue could be the reason for appearing verbose. In short, my point is that the word "global warming" includes other things beside the current content of the article.

As for special pleading, I didn't do that. I don't want to see exceptions to WP:COMMONNAME. I believe it doesn't apply. Cheers, Woodwalker (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback is always welcome. Replying back on Talk:Global warming# Lede is (deliberately?) misleading--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's lost in brevity, Curtis, is that I think your proposal is probably the best one so far. Despite this, there are three points I want addressed. I'm not worried about you, but I hope I actually get answered. Woodwalker, thanks, although apparently the discussion has left us behind. Again. And for the third time. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, CurtisSwain. You have new messages at A8UDI's talk page.
Message added 11:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

A8 UDI 11:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:CurtisSwain/Sandbox

I commented out the category's and interwiki links on User:CurtisSwain/Sandbox because they are not allowed. Can you remove them so they do not show in article namespace. See WP:BADCATS. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming

The article already links to the list of opposing scientists from the closing sentence in the text. In general we don't put links already mentioned into see also do we? I didn't revert it but thought I would check if there was a special reason. --BozMo talk 10:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to throw the skeptics a bone so they'd stop complaining about "POV", "bias", etc.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you very much for the page link to the article that you posted on my talk page, I read over the article, and it was just what I had been looking for. -- Imadeausername! (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement

of the Timeline--SPhilbrick T 19:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific opinion on climate change

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Scientific opinion on climate change, 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. -- TS 20:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Revert

Hi, this revert of yours [2] removes material added by two separate editors and was done without discussion on the article's talk page. Can you eloborate on your rationale for this? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 02:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the word "inappropriate" in my edit summary was explanation enough. I don't see the topic as worthy of a talk page discussion. But, if some other editor wants to get the reputation as the one who said, "Hey, let's put DOG MESS in this article"...well, that's their business.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing material against consensus generally requires more rationale than you believe the statement is "inappropriate". What particular word do you find objectionable? "Dog"? Or "mess" ?

Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster should be at the Top, not Buried at the Bottom, of the section on BP Accidents (in the BP article)

It is by far more serious, more current and more topical.

Just curious, are you being paid by BP (or any company indirectly contracting for BP) in a Public Relations capacity?

69.171.160.118 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see my contribs for news update

see my contribs for news update• Ling.Nut 22:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Greenhouse gas

I realize that it was my mistake to have accidentally inserted four tildas into the header, but I don't see how that equates to a wholesale revert for the comment.[3] --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something Unusual

I've got a legal threat[4] and my discussion thread reverted by 69.31.68.51.[5] I think this is rather unusual for removing a sentence in Public opinion on climate change. --CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing, thanks Curtis. 155.99.230.249 (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain Curtis

I proposed a valid question on the Climate Change discussion forum: How is AGW falsifiable? And you threw a "not forum" banner on me and closed the discussion. Why is it Curtis, that when someone challenges a theory, that you have to hawk the article so tightly, that a valid question is stiffled? Is this proper scientific process Curtis? Is this how you treat new people? Is this how you treat people who try to make a contribution to improve the article? How many little banners and quotes can I give you on Wikipedia that talk about how people like me are important to improve the quality of the website content? You are using these rules as a mask for your censorship on valid points. I was not using the discussion as a forum, I was using the discussion board to DISCUSS. Yes Curtis...to DISCUSS. But there is no discussion for you is there? If it doesn't comply with your presuppositions, then you shut it down...why did you do that? Again, I would like to bring up the valid point about falsification. But you will probably dismiss it. Its fine, hopefully you are a young man, (most wikipedians are under 30, white, and lean left. See: wikipedia bias). If that is true, (that you are under 30) then you will live long enough to see this theory play out.

It would be nice if, in the spirit of the purpose of this website, you showed a little more grace and leniency to new people who simply want to make a contribution to the quality of the content, rather than exercise your power to silence opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I did not close down the thread you started. That was done by another editor as you can easily see here in the talk page history.

Secondly, your post was not an invitation to dialogue. All you did was post a bunch of unsubstantiated, inflammatory assertions: "...must be classified as pseudo-science....prophets of climate doom....wikipedia is a leftist website....propaganda article."

That's not exactly the best way to start a discussion or ask a question. A more productive approach would have been to post something this:

I just read this little post on investors.com that talked about AGW not being falsifible. I realise it can't be used as a reliable source, as it's just an anonymous editorial on a non-science website. But, I was wondering if the issue of falsifiability is something that this article should address.

Of course, you would eventually need to have an actual scientific paper published by actual scientists for the issue to have any relevance. But, your assertion that AGW "cannot be falsified" would quickly be shot down. It's blatantly obvious that AGW is easily falsifiable. If continued observation shows a long-term (30-year) decline in mean global surface temperature coupled with a continued increase, or even plateauing, of GHGs, then the AGW theory will be proven false.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you enjoy fallacies Curtis. "Actual scientists?" Sounds like a no true scottsman fallacy. There are MANY scientists and papers published by them that challenge the falsification of AWG. But I wont Google them for you, I have a feeling you are smart enough to do that yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.175.246 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peak oil edit

I undid your edit to Peak oil[6] because it is mostly OR with very poor sourcing. The editor responsible for these sections only logs on every two weeks to remove CN and other tags or reinsert poor sources (wikis, discussion forums, refs which don't support the text, etc), but has yet to enter into any form of discussion (despite having been prompted to do so many times since January). This has been before the 3rrn, ANI, ORN, and RFEA notice boards, but is such a slow moving edit war that it has all but been ignored. I urge you to take a closer look at the text and sources, and at least enter into the debate, as I don't have the resources to commit to this SPA. 206.188.32.1 (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your input regarding this issue on the Peak oil talk page (Talk:Peak oil#Platinumshore and related section Talk:Peak oil#Dubious). Thank you. 206.188.32.1 (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]