User talk:74.248.39.141

Article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Hockey stick controversy, 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.

Hockey stick controversy

Please use the appropriate section of the article's talk page to discuss your proposed changes. I have explained the problem with your additions. Please don't re-insert the text without discussion. Guettarda (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And I've explained why you are wrong. The scientific method requires data be made available for peer review. The additions are directly applicable. If you'd like to edit my addition, I'll be happy to consider your edit. --74.248.39.141 (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please use the article's talk page, where I have explained the problems with your edits. Please discuss them there. And by the way, you're mistaken about the peer review process - it rarely involves the examination of raw data. You receive a manuscript that resembles the final form published in a journal (albeit a double-spaced version). Guettarda (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again. The peer review process **always** involves the use of raw data when requested. As an Earth Scientist for for 20 years I have made and been subjected to such requests. They have always been honored. In fact, this is the first example I'm aware of when the requests have been refused. --74.248.39.141 (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that the reviewers of your manuscripts and grant applications contacted you and asked for raw data? And as a reviewer you've asked for raw data during the review process? Doesn't that destroy the whole process of confidentiality in peer review? And how does that work with journals that do the whole double-blind review thing? I realise that different disciplines have different cultures, but the idea of asking for raw data while reviewing a manuscript is alien to my experience. Can't imagine how anyone would have the time to re-analyse the data for every ms they review. Not that it's in any way relevant to the article - but that's another matter. Guettarda (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Hockey stick controversy

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Hockey stick controversy, 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 10:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)