User talk:Elhector

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Images in Evangelion articles

As a signed-on participant of WikiProject Evangelion, I think we need to talk about the future of the images in the articles. Your input on the issue at the project's talk page is appreciated. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eva 1.0 article

Hi, I'm copy-pasting this image to all you members in the Evangelion workgroup, since there seems to be no communication/to-do template in your workgroup yet (not sure if I have the time to join myself yet). The article on the newest movie needs serious help, particularly in converting listcruft to prose. Note that you may expose yourself to some spoilers if you choose to help. Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone. --GunnarRene 14:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible deal

Hi Elhector. I just made an offer on Talk:Barbara Schwarz‎ which could take me out of Project Scientology. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Steve Dufour 07:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help with the article. On the talk page I posted a possible second paragraph which gives some but not all of the information in the one you tried to remove. Before that I moved the paragraph out of the intro section. It was put back which is why it appears twice in a row now. Thanks for your good work here. Steve Dufour 19:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the article again? It seems to be creeping back to what it was. I really don't want to come back to Project Scientology. Thanks. Steve Dufour 21:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Proxy Servers and Scientology

In response to your request for more information, the nature of IPs involved was further discussed during the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS case. Discussion started around the time of this diff:ws.churchofscientology.org and ns1.scientology.org are not proxy servers. (P.S. I watch the pages I post too and prefer to keep things on one page. If there is a reason you prefer not posting here, expect me to reply to future inquires there On my page :) Anynobody 04:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed this, AN, and I was curious what you have to back up "ws.churchofscientology.org and ns1.scientology.org are not proxy servers"? --Justanother 19:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well like jpgordon's post(the diff I included) said: IPs 3, 4, and 5 appear to be open proxies or something similar, using http://www.your-freedom.net/ while ws.churchofscientology.org and ns1.scientology.org were numbers 1 and 6 respectively. Proxy servers are servers that allow people to get around restrictions placed on them by their regular servers. Services like http://www.your-freedom.net/ allow people on ws.churchofscientology.org to access sites and content that ws.churchofscientology.org would not access because of restrictions placed by ws.churchofscientology.org's administrators. Anynobody 20:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that is what I suspected - you are confusing a proxy server with an open proxy. Big difference. The two Scientology IPs are proxy servers, not open proxies. --Justanother 20:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with you, but that is incorrect and to show you why let's assume you are right. In that case Misou would be using at least three servers in order to access Wikipedia. First he uses whatever one he accesses the Internet with then he accesses ws.churchofscientology.org (if you are correct in assuming they are proxy networks then Misou has to access them from another network) for its "global firewall" you described on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard, but in order to get around that same firewall he uses http://www.your-freedom.net/ which is both a proxy but more specifically an open proxy. Anynobody 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Figured I'd jump in since this discussion is going on my talk page :-). By the way I don't care if you guys continue this discussion here, just please be sure to keep it civil :-). Anyways, personally none of this make any sense. Why is any of this necessary for to view Wikipedia. Why would Misou connect to ws.churchofscientology.org and then use to http://www.your-freedom.net/ to get around the firewall on ws.churchofscientology.org? Is Misou accessing ws.churchofscientology.org from his own network? That wouldn't make any sense... The only way using http://www.your-freedom.net/ makes any sense is if ws.churchofscientology.org is Misou's native network when accessing Wikipedia. It doesn't make any sense for Misou to connect to ws.churchofscientology.org from his own network and then use http://www.your-freedom.net/ to get around the fire wall. That's to many hoops to jump through. In that case it would be easier to just access wikipedia from his own network and skip ws.churchofscientology.org and http://www.your-freedom.net all together. Know what I'm saying? Elhector 00:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, but I hadn't intended to start a discussion with Justanother here. I'm supposed to limit contact with him, so I'll move back to the Hubbard talk page. (I'll just say that I agree with EVERYTHING you said and questioned in the last post.) Anynobody 00:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hector, it is really quite simple and has already been explained multiple times. The CofS, like most organizations large and small, has a number of firewall-type proxy servers that route traffic between the internal networks and the internet. A number of editors have used computers that access the internet through one or more of those proxies. Additionally, Misou has already said that he uses the your-freedom for added security when he is accessing the internet from a WiFi location like an internet cafe. I imagine that he uses the OpenVPN aspect of the service. In other words, the your-freedom is not being used in conjuction with the CofS proxies. Misou's simple explanation makes a lot more sense then a more complex hypothesis. Also, if you are familiar with corporate firewalls then you know that they do not let you access proxy servers, they block attempts to bypass the firewall. Everyone of the subject editors has openly stated that they have used the Church proxies so what is the point of some complicated ruse? There is none and it simply is what it is. --Justanother 02:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Nintendo Page Redesign

A new page design is being considered for the WikiProject Nintendo page. A rough draft can be viewed here. Please add all comments and thoughts to the discussion. From the automated, Anibot 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yo

Misou has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

. Back to you. Thanks, appreciated! Misou 23:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: AIT Talk Page

GoRight has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The whole global warming topic is a war zone, so the AIT talk page just reflects that. I appreciate your comments there. My goal is simply to keep things in a fair and balanced perspective without any hidden POV pushing ... or at least an equal amount from both sides if necessary. Cheers.

[edit] The cofs and the hotel business

FYI, the cofs is not in the hotel business. While wireless service may or may not be provided by the cofs to an affiliated accomodations corporation, the cofs still is fully liable for what originates from its internet connection. --Fahrenheit451 17:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely aware of this. I still don't understand what the issue is if Misou is staying at a scientology run facility that offers wireless internet to it's patrons and decides to do some wiki work while staying at said facility. I apologize for biting your head off early on Misou's talk page. I've been suffering a lot of aggravation around here lately and to see you continually ask Misou the same question while he/she continually asked you to quit kind of set me off. It looked like harassment to me at that point and I felt the need to jump in to get you off of Misou's back. I failed to assume good faith and for that I also apologize. I'm going to take a break from controversial topics around here for a while so I can get myself calm and collected again. I hope you understand where I'm coming from and I hope we can have more constructive discussions here in the future. Elhector 21:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Talk to you again when you return from break.--Fahrenheit451 19:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIT page

Thanks for the attempt to save the Milloy reference but it seems I had exceed the wp:3rr so I had to self-revert. It can wait for another day. Aren't they being silly with that one? I mean the quote itself shouldn't even be contentious, it basically says "be fair" and show all points of view. --GoRight 19:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I know. So much censorship goes on at that article. Any time anyone tries to balance out that article the additions are wikilawyered to death. I haven't had a whole lot of time for editing because I'm in the middle of purchasing a home and trying to move. As soon as that's all finished up though at the end of this month I plan on diving head first back into that article. I'm just sick of a few editors and a few admins running that article like they own it... Elhector 19:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:block times

31 hours is just one of 13 preset lengths admins can choose from when blocking a user. If you look at Image:Block user.png, a screen cap of Special:Blockip, there is a drop down box for both "Expiry" and "Reason" where common block lengths and reasons can be chosen. I tend to use 24 and 31 hour blocks if I'm blocking somebody for the first time, and 48 hours and above if the offense is especially offensive, or the user has previous blocks. - auburnpilot talk 20:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was just curious. 31 just seems strange, know what I mean. I guess I've seen stranger things around here though :-) Thanks! -- Elhector (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm bumping in uninvited, so sorry.
Anyways, I heard that it was so they would have to sit out an entire calendar day, where ever they were; if they were blocked Tuesday morning where they were, it would be Wednesday evening when it expired, and (assuming they were at school), all of Wednesday would be off limits.
It's just to make sure they can't vandalise at the same time tomorrow (if a kid has computer lessons at the same time every day, a 24 hour block would be pretty pointless). Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November 2007

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:An Inconvenient Truth for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. When an admin as respected as Connelly deletes a page, I'm supporting it. This warning was also inappropriate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to this on your talk page. My warning was more than appropriate. Connolleys removal of information pertinent to an ongoing debate about content of the article was not appropriate. Elhector (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. Connolley is a respected admin. I've outlined your behavior towards him and me to other admins. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I really have no idea whether Connolley is a respected admin or not. It shouldn't really matter in this situation. Please explain why you feel that discussion should be removed from the talk page. It's a valid discussion pertaining to an ongoing topic dispute and as such what he removed was completely in compliance with all policies concerning article talk pages and content dispute resolution. As for outlining my behavior towards Connelley and yourself I'm completely fine with that. My responses have been more than civil and in complete compliance with all Wikipedia guidlines. Removing discussions about content of an article on that articles talk page is against Wikipedia guidline and that is exactly what Connelley did. If it was just some general discussion or vandalism I would understand why he removed it. However, what he removed was a very specific argument that was part of a content debate and it's removal was completely inappropriate not matter how much he personally disagree's with the argument being made. I would also ask you to please convey to who ever you outline my behavior to that they please contact me here concerning this matter. I would be more than happy to discuss this with them as well. I will also be placing a copy of this reply on your talk page in case your not watching my talk page for my reply. Thank you. Elhector (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have ignored WP:3RR per WP:IGNORE & WP:BOLD and reverted your removal of a valid discussion from the AIT talk page. Removing valid discussions about article content from article talk pages when they are in compliance with guidlines is against policy. If you want to report me to an admin for this please let them know I'm more than willing to accept the 24 hour ban for my first offense of WP:3RR. Thank you. Elhector (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My impending block for violation of WP:3RR

I am aware that I will shortly be blocked for violation of WP:3RR. To whichever admin blocks me please take a look at the discussions above conerning this and also here and my edit summaries on these reverts. I believe they justify my actions. If you don't agree then go ahead with the block. I understand that I violated an important guidline but felt it was necessary in this situation. Thanks! Elhector (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on An Inconvenient Truth. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to discuss this on the talk page when this whole issue concerns the talk page. Removal of valid discussions from a talk page is against Wikipedia policy. The term "edit war" does not apply to a situation where valid discussion is being removed against policy. Thanks! Elhector (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for violating the three-revert rule on Talk:An Inconvenient Truth. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 23:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not personally a fan of blocking for edit warring on talk pages, but there were five reverts in a short span of time and you were reverted by multiple editors. It certainly looked disruptive from my vantage point. -- tariqabjotu 23:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing, I'm not looking at this as edit warring. I'm looking at this from the perspective that an editor came in and blanked a discussion that was completely valid and within guidlines. My understanding is that this is against policy so in my mind I was simply reverting vandalism. I guess it's ok with everybody here now to just go and start removing discussions from talk pages because you don't like the point someone is trying to make when it comes to content of an article. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of trying to discuss changes and reach consensus on a talk page if an editor can just go and start removing peoples thoughts, issues, and arguments on content changes from the article talk page. I appreciate you taking a second look at this and I look forward to getting back to editing in 24 hours. Thanks! Elhector (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

While I can sympathize with your frustration, is there some reason you knowingly risked a block under 3RR, instead of escalating the issue for discussion at another venue, such as the admin noticeboards? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I knowingly risked the block because in my mind this situation was a case where i was reverting bad faith vandalism on a talk page. I figured that since it was a talk page and not in the main article and because I judged it as a case of vandalism by multiple users, one of which is an admin and should know better, so I felt the risk of a 24 hour ban was worth it to try and correct the situation. I placed a warning on the editor's talk page which was just laughed off and deleted by him, and I also reported it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism as the editor continued to blank valid content but my notice was removed from there without any action being taken. I did not pursue any other avenues for resolution because I didn't think they were necessary or would help in this situation. It's pretty cut and dry. Someone was inappropriately blanking valid debate and discussion from a talk page because they didn't like the point that was being made. This is unacceptable and and against policy. As I stated above I believe this block is a little unfair in this situation but I did know the risks and was/am willing to accept the consequences of my actions. It just stinks when someone is able to do the kind of things that were being done and the person who was trying to right a wrong is the one that gets blocked. If you go take a look at the edit history of the actual An Inconvenient Truth article you'll notice the other editor involved, Orangemarlin immediately started making revenge edits on the article shortly after my block. I was able to revert one right before my block but he reverted with a very uncivil edit summary. It's pretty hard to assume good faith when those kind of things go on. Thankfully someone else has reverted it as well since there was absolutely no good explanation for it other for revenge and to incite more trouble. Elhector (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just try to keep a cool head on these things. Stick to the rules as this is not worth the block. We need to follow the procedures which state that two editors must complain on their user pages before we can escalate the matter. I have place such a notice on their pages. When you block is over you can do the same. --GoRight (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I did a pretty good job of remaining civil througout all of this. I did originally place a complaint on William M. Connolley talk page about this [1]. He laughed it off and removed it. He's since removed your complaint as well. I honestly didn't think I would get blocked for reverting vandalism. Removal of that much valid discussion conerning the content of an article on the articles talk page is against policy, is censorship, and in my opinion a form of vandalism so I treated it as such. There is no good or valid reason for the removal (which is obvious when you see the type of edit summaries being used to justify the removal [2].)I guess once my block is expired we'll have to escalate this... Which is sad since we really shouldn't have to. Elhector (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

While i do recognize that what i did was vandalism(i did it consciously). I was under the assumption that i had five warnings, whereas i have only received two, one was a true misunderstanding on my part, the other was this time. I would appreciate it if you told me why i received my second warning as my last. Rau J16 02:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Because what you were doing was pure vandalism and completely unexcusable. In your case you may have only recieved a 24 or 48 hour block had you continued, but there are plenty of cases where someone makes the kind of vandalism edits you made only 2 or 3 times in a short period of time and gets there account banned permanently. The fact that you stated above that you did it consciously makes the matter worse. Please consider what you are doing before you do it. Especially with articles like George W. Bush. Articles like that one are vandalised often so they are watched by many editors to fight the vandalism. So any vandalism edits made are only visible or a few seconds and editors are more apt to lose there patience and view your account as a vandalism only account. Please stick to the rules and guidlines. Elhector (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Please mark your reverts [3] as such William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought I had filled out the edit description thing. Guess I hit save to soon. For the record I only wanted to revert 1 small part of your edit. I don't really like the whole biblical proportions thing, just the possibly catastrophic part. Thanks! Elhector (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seiyu speedy-deleted

The Holly Kaneko controversy is still going, I'm afraid. Just to keep you updated as you requested. Evan1975 (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the advice

I'd already resolved to keep off his talk page. Why is this sort of thing tolerated? It seems like his surly attitude is well known. Is it simply because he has over 10,000 edits? Curious Blue (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why is attitude is still tolerated around here. As far as I can tell he's got a few friends around here that are admins so that may be part of it. The fact that he has 10,000 edits is probably also part of it. I had quite the nasty run in with him before as you can probably see from my talk page above (if you get a chance you should see the history of his talk page, a lot of stuff on there is clearly personal attacks). If he continues to make personal attacks and not assume good faith grab an admin and let him know, or you could even let me know and I'll grab an admin. Also, you make want to check out Wikipedia's policy on request for comments on users. If you really run into a roadblock with him on this that might be the way to go. At the very least it will expose his uncivil behaviour to a larger group of editors. If you want to start one and need help getting it setup let me know :-) Elhector (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You two complain about WP:AGF and WP:NPA, when you both engage in them and then feign innocence. Give me a break. Of course, one of you has been blocked for 3RR I note. Interesting. Oh, I remember that, I filed the ANI. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, you can't just go around throwing accusations out that people are socks. If you have reason to suspect that someone is sock then you should go through the proper channels to get the issue taken care of. Throwing around accusations like "I smell dirty socks" is not appropriate. I do strive my hardest to and almost always do assume good faith in the normal course of editing and corresponding with other editors. When I don't assume good faith is when someone throws around terms like "troll" and "dirty sock" around. Instead of calling someone a "dirty sock" (which in my opinion is a personal attack, telling someone you suspect they are sock is ok, throwing the term "dirty" in front of it is not) I would suggest actually taking whatever evidence you have to the proper channels and get the user blocked for it. Trust me, I dislike sock puppets as much as you do. As for my block for 3RR that really doesn't have anything to do with this situation. I still believe that block was unwarranted and and as such I've been talking to several admins about that situation to ensure things like that never happen again. 1 block for a questionable violation of 3RR doesn't mean much compared to my history of edits and civilly getting along with 99.9% of the editors i encounter here. Also add to that the fact that I try my hardest to try and help new editors get going here and be wiki-policy minded. But that block doesn't have anything to do with this situation really. I would honestly like to work with you in a more civil manner Orangemarlin, but I honestly think you have got to learn to keep your cool a little better and tone down the negative attitude. I have had a chance to see the good and useful edits you've made here and I think you're pretty good editor, IMO though I just think your attitude sucks. I think if that were to improve you could be a an even better editor and asset to the project. Elhector (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note re: AIT collaboration

Thanks for your note. You did some heavy lifting there and clearly were intent on collaborating. It worked. Perhaps the example will be useful to others! Sunray (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quackery RSN

I would ask you please to make the request even if you don't agree it is necessary, because I think it would be better and avoid more conflict if you do so than if I were to make the request. —Whig (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll post the request. But can you at least tell me your reasons for questioning the reliability of http://www.homeopathyspace.com and http://www.hpathy.com? I took a look at your last reply on the talk page of the quackery article and you've only listed POV issues. I don't think POV issues can be resolved at WP:RSN. If you have some reason to believe that http://www.homeopathyspace.com and http://www.hpathy.com are not reliable sources then those would be appropriate to post there. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the purpose of WP:RSN, which is entirely possible since like I said I've never used it before. Elhector (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the reliable sources guideline is that it is conditional upon verifiability policy and a source may be reliable for one purpose but not another. The sources are not bad sources inherently, but taking out of context statements to say something opposite to the actual intent of the sources does not seem correct to me. —Whig (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been thinking this over and I really don't feel comfortable writing the posting for WP:RSN. The way I look at it, we have a source that is reliable stating that Hahnemann was accused of quackery in his time, and that section lists people who were accused (right or wrong) of quackery and why. As such I don't see the issue and feel that I would be unable to write a posting for a notice board when I don't have a grasp of the issue you have. Again, I'm not judging that your issue is irrelevant, I just don't understand it myself. Let me make this suggestion. Why don't you draft something and run it by the admin that is mentoring you. If he seems to think it looks good then I'll go ahead and post it for you. That way it's written by you but has my name on it. If anyone gives you any crap on it you'll have myself and your mentor to at least back up the fact that you are making a good faith effort to improve the article. If any incivility is directed towards you concnering it then your mentor can handle having them taken care of in an appropriate manner. I know you have concerns that you posting something like this will flair up incivilty so if your mentor looked at it and didn't think it was disruptive and I posted it any attacks towards you will be completely unwarrented and will be dealt with appropriately. I really would like to help you, I just really don't feel comfortable drafting something, I will post it though for you. Elhector (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, give me a little time to get back to you. —Whig (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good :-) Elhector (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to do a little reading in RSN and maybe compose something in my user space tonight that should hopefully be appropriate. Then if it passes muster with east718 I'll pass it along or if he/she thinks I should just post it myself I'll do that, or incorporate suggestions before doing so. —Whig (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the draft under discussion. —Whig (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks good. Seems to be a clear and logical argument. fyi, it may be a moot point anyways. See Here. Check out the last couple of posts in that thread. He may get removed from the section all together for an entirely different reason :-) So you might want to wait a few hours before posting that. If nothing happens then I'd say go ahead and post it and see if it sticks. Elhector (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course it's moot if it's decided to remove Hahnemann from the list. That doesn't mean there aren't still NPOV issues, of course, but I'm glad we're having a productive dialogue. —Whig (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it maybe another hour or two to allow a day for responses to your suggestion, and then I think I might as well go ahead and post it to RS/N to let some outside editors chime in since the contested content is still in the article for now. —Whig (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Elhector (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent Gray

As you say, it's getting off-topic, so I'll answer your question here (although it wasn't directed at me). RA is referring to a classic conflict-of-interest case, and it requires no training to recognize it. This problem exists whether it's scientists receiving money from fossil fuels studying climate change, scientists receiving money from tobacco companies studying secondhand smoke, scientists receiving money from beverage companies studying the health effects of them, or scientists receiving money from a fisheries institute studying the health effects of fish.

For comparison, although Gore is no saint, he's invested in carbon credit companies because he's convinced that climate change is a problem and not vice-versa (since the antecedent in this antecedent-consequent pair is the recognizing that climate change is a problem, and the consequent is him investing in carbon credit companies). It's still arguably a conflict-of-interest, but one that cuts the other way. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, it's less likely Gore is motivated by personal gain because he claims he recognizes climate change is a problem? Now I honestly have no idea who has a conflict of interest but I guess as far as I'm concerned money is money and personal gain is personal gain. In my opinion Gore stands get just as much personal gain by pushing the climate change thing as these other guys stand to get from denying it. Because he claims he recognizes climate change as a threat doesn't really do much for me as far as believing that he's not being an opprotunist. Also to me the fact that he's a politician first (which we all know to be very wary of them whether it's climate change, taxes, conflict of interest, ect) and the fact that he doesn't follow what he preaches speaks volumes to me. I guess what i'm driving at is I'd like to see less accusations along these lines from both sides of the issue whenever we get into a disagreement on editing. I don't think they help the editing process here and it tends to just cause the discussion to stray away from the realm of useful and into arguing and nothing getting done with the articles. Know what I'm saying? I appreciate you taking the time to come over here and discuss it though, you seemed to give me a really well thought answer and not something to the effect of "because global warming deniers are paid schills" which is where things seem to degrade to with those articles :-) Elhector (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Where can I rent the mind reading machine? Maybe Gray is anti-nuclear, thus working for the coal industry is being environmentally friendly? Or he just knows a lot about organic chemistry and gets paid for it, unrelated to any interest in the atmosphere. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It requires no mind-reading. It's a well-documented observation that one's funding source can influence one's findings, even if that happens subconsciously. Follow the links I provided above for some other examples of it. Your tortured rationalization, however, seems to suggest that you're already aware of that. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And your rationalization of the lack of conflict of Gore's activities in the environmental activism industry doesn't suggest you're aware of his conflicts. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-read what I said. I explicitly stated there was a conflict-of-interest with Gore as well. You know what happens when you assume… Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm - just my 10cent correction: While its correct that Gore may have a conflict of interest here - its not because of carbon offsets. As Generation Investment Management doesn't sell carbon offsets. The worldnetdaily article got that very wrong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right Kim, I don't see anything that actually says they sell carbon credits. It looks like they just promote green technology and do some enviromental impact reports and studies. I do have to wonder how many of the green technology companies that Generation Investment Management promotes are also technolgies the company and it's employees are invested in. I also wonder if in there studies when they advise people of ways to go green if carbon offsets is one of those recommendations and if they're invested in any of these carbon offset companies. This is all speculation though, but it's possible. Maybe one day I'll sit down and try and untangle the web. I'm sure I don't need to tell you guys that any company can set themselves up in such a way that about the only thing you can do is prove the company exists. But finding where the money is going and coming from, that can be next to impossible :-P Also on a competely unrelated sidenote, I find the name Generation Investment Management interesting. Almost sounds like one of those Scientology companies that are set up all over ;-) Elhector (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. As Kim and I have indicated, Gore is not exempt from conflict-of-interest. He's not a scientist, either, so I'm not really sure why he's relevant to this discussion. The existence of conflict-of-interest on his part, however, does not negate the existence of conflict-of-interest on Gray's part. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, there is the possibility that Gray also has a COI issue. I guess that's my point though. One could make a COI argument against anyone involved on either side. Also though, just because Gray has been involved with the coal industry doesn't mean he is proven to have a COI either. The questions I've raised above by no means prove Gore has a COI either. My point is I don't think raising the COI flag on every little thing is helpful. I hate when things degrade into that kind of argument, it get's everyone worked up, off topic, and unwilling to constructively discuss things. Elhector (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"One could make a COI argument against anyone involved on either side." No one cannot. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of climate scientists are not receiving funding or otherwise have vested interests in carbon offsets or other green technology. The plain matter is that virtually every scientist (if not all of them) who currently disagrees with the idea of anthropogenic global warming is either currently receiving money from fossil fuel industries or, as is the case with Lindzen, has done so in the past. Crichton-style conspiracy theories aside, the same cannot be said for the majority of climate scientists—those that support AGW theories. If you're going to suggest that the US government honestly wouldn't fund research into theories that contradict AGW, then you haven't been paying attention to what the current administration has been doing for the past 7 years. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"The most important explanation as to why so much extensive theoretical work in the development of climate models has been done during the last ten years is that the development of models sustains funding and secures jobs at research institutions" - Aksel Wiin-Nielsen, former Secretary-General of the UN's WMO --Childhood's End (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, and that's the same reason there's been so much extensive theoretical work in computational neuroscience, nuclear physics, and other areas of science so dependent on models. (A big pet-peeve aside: why does my spell-checker want to change neuroscience to pseudoscience? I take offense!) Really, it's all so much conspiracy theory that it would be laughable if one weren't crying. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There are things that are computable, and others that are not. You dont need a conspiracy theory to explain why such a thing would happen, only human nature. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So then, do you think people who do research in computational neuroscience have a conflict of interest similar to someone who was peddling magnets as a cure to post-traumatic stress disorder? (PTSD is one area my lab researches.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Afaik, the brain is another complex system that, similarly to the Earth's climate, is mostly uncomputable. For such systems, my view is that models can help understand some processes but not predict their future behavior. So it depends what models are used for. There is also a political issue with climate change that does not really exist with neuroscience, but I'll leave it aside. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As with climate science, good models in neuroscience should make predictions about experiments not yet conducted (or as is the case with climate science, events not yet witnessed). For example, we've used our models to make predictions about how rats will behave in a particular experimental set-up that has not yet been conducted. These predictions run counter to predictions that would be made by using the default configural learning assumptions, so they're not just "common sense". Unfortunately, the experiments have not yet taken place, so they're still untested predictions.

Additionally, as a computer scientist, I'll caution you to use the word computable carefully. The word you're looking for, I believe, is intractable. (This has no bearing on the merits of your argument. I'm just being picky.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not sure for the language issue... how would you call something that there is no equations for, such as turbulence? Intractable does not seem to capture this. As to the main issue, well, you say models should make predictions, but what about "should they make 'reliable' predictions"? It's easy to make a prediction, but it's quite harder to be right. I know models are used to make predictions. In deterministic or linear systems, it works (I'm simplifying). But predictions of complex systems have never been reliable, and there is no reason to believe that they are now - the systems still are complex. Human nature has always wanted to be able to predict everything, from the weather to climate to the economy, but there are reasons why these systems escape model-based predictability. In less politicized fields, scientists have fewer problem to admit the limits to their prediction capacity, but when it comes to the economy or climate change, that's a bigger problem, notably because politics are involved. --Childhood's End (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "how would you call something that there is no equations for, such as turbulence", there's two parts to that answer. First, there are equations for turbulence and they're quite well understood. However, they're also unpredictable for large systems due to non-linear effects. That makes them intractable in those cases. Secondly, for systems where we do not have equations, those systems can either be shown to be not computable, we just don't have the equations yet, or we don't yet know if they're computable. (We can show that some things are not computable, and it's possible that other things are not computable that we do not yet realize are not computable.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I did not know you worked in neuroscience research... since you're probably also interested in cybernetics, I wondered if you ever heard of or read Friedrich Hayek's The Sensory Order... --Childhood's End (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not. That you capitalized it, suggests to me it's a book. What is it about? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I am not sure at all, I've been pondering reading it for some time. Perhaps this summary will give you an idea [4]. Seems that it was ahead of its time and inspired neural network models. [5] --Childhood's End (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for the information. I refer to Hebb all the time (although I'm ashamed to admit, I've read very little of his actual work), so I'm surprised after reading that, that I'm not familiar with Hayek. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I'll agree that computer models can be used to make predictions. I'll even call them educated predictions. With the example you use of the rats above it makes sense to run models, make a prediction, and then test that prediction once the actual experiment takes place. The issue I think with climate modeling is though that once a model is run and a prediction is made that prediction gets taken as gospel without any sort of experiment being run to test the prediction. With things like climate modeling there is no real way to run an experiment to test the prediction except to sit and wait and see if the prediction is accurate. Then you run into the problem of moving variables. Things change over time, for example CO2 output from man made sources may increase or decrease, vegitation may increase absorbing more CO2, or we may find more out venting from the oceanic sources, the list can go on. IMO opinion there are to many unknowns to predict what the climate will do with the accuracy that people claim these models have. I think the big issue is that way to much credit is put into the climate models. The recent hurricane seasons are another good example. They run models to predict how active an upcomming huricane season would be and for the last 2 years at least those predictions have been woefully inaccurate and everyone seems to be totally confused. It's obvious something went wrong with the modeling. I think a lot of the time we're trying to predict the unpredictable. That's just my 2 cents though :-) Elhector (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Granted, that it's harder to test predictions in climate science as we only have one climate that's easily accessible (although we do have access to other climates now, those climates are still very poorly understood, even when compared to our incomplete understanding of the Earth's climate). That said, predictions have been made, those predictions have been measured against results, and that comparison speaks well of the models. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)