User talk:Nightmote

Devil's Advocate

Thanks for your comment. Not a big deal but you managed to delete like half of my talkpage in the process. I agree that the article needs a complete overhaul by some uninvolved people. Drolz⁰⁹ 19:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Sorry 'bout that - no idea how it happened. Nightmote (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah no problem really. Drolz⁰⁹ 22:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't ignore consensus

Your removal of the Weart statement was rightly reverted, per consensus discussion on the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be so much easier if you would propose your additions on the talk page, rather than just adding them without discussion. Consensus before contention. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was mistaken when TS seemed to agree that Weart was important, then that Weart wasn't important? I maintained from the beginning that Weart added nothing, and that the section should be eliminated altogether. Since my removal was reverted, I felt compelled to add additional "expert additional commentary" in an effort to balance the see-saw. I am more than willing to seek consensus, but I am unhappy with the bloated mess that the article has become, loaded with irrelevent opinion, AGW defense, and the overwhelming rush-to-judgement on what is a developing story. Nightmote (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware Wikipedia -NEVER- names its articles -gate?

Your vote under the discussion page for Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident is currently being counted as NO, based on your comment I believe this might be due to a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policy regarding the use of '-gate' in the names of articles. The only controversy article that will ever have the suffix '-gate' on Wikipedia is the 'Watergate' scandal. If you refer to that list of '-gates' you will see that none of the main articles are named -gate, not even the old well-established ones now commonly referred to as -gate. Current tally of the voting:

11 users FOR Climatic Research Unit data release controversy and 4 users AGAINST, 5 if you count Nightmote. For: Scjessey, Itsmejudith, Jheiv, Adam.T.Historian, Garrettw87, Wikidemon, Sphilbrick, Jc-S0CO, Troed, DGaw, A_Quest_For_Knowledge Against: Nightmote(under the belief it will ever be allowed to be called Climategate), Gandydancer, ChrisO, William_M._Connolley, Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris

Nightmote is still unaware that Wikipedia never names articles -gate, if you'd like to make it 12 v/s 4 then we can talk to Nightmote about this, but being from a democratic society I do consider 11:5 an overwhelming consensus. Our presidents and senators are often elected with near 1:1 results, heh. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, Boris, your strong oppose still only counts as one vote. And I see no reason why we shouldn't now proceed to finally rename this article Climatic Research Unit data release controversy in order to respect the Wikipedia NPOV. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If it was your intention to be counted with ChrisO, William_M._Connolley, etc then that is your prerogative and so be it. But I thought I would try to explain Wikipedia's position on naming any scandal other than Watergate with the '-gate' suffix, as I just today learned of this. The truth is the e-mail hacking incident name is very bias, and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit data release controversy will be able to cover the full scope of the controversy regarding the release of data from the Climatic Research Unit, which includes the beginnings of the controversy, where they repeatedly refused Freedom of Information Act Requests which would've allowed peer-reviewers access to the data, this is a very big part of the scandal that is currently being omitted because of the incredibly biased name 'e-mail hacking incident', which does not reflect Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Thank you for your consideration of the facts regarding the vote for majority consensus and Wikipedia's policies regarding the -gate suffix.

Sincerely, Adam.T.Historian (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)