Talk:Research data archiving

message: William has deleted a section discussing one controversy around the lack of data archiving in climate science.  He claims it has the look of an "attack."  The section was not written as an attack but to explain to readers how the issue has played out in different examples.  William is welcome to edit the passage to make it better, but a wholesale deletion is not warranted.RonCram 22:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to do a complete re-write to make it something other than an attack pice, but until you do, please don't put it back. Wholesale deletion of what you added was entirely warranted William M. Connolley 13:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William, I already put it back.  If you can point to something in what I wrote that is not accurate or well-sourced, I will change it.  But if you cannot, there is no point in attempting a rewrite.RonCram 13:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ron, I already took it out. If you can't see that the whole thing is badly unbalanced, you shouldn't be trying to edit this stuff William M. Connolley 13:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William, your POV is showing.  You cannot point to a single misstatement or single ommission that would make it unbalanced.  Your response is to just delete it.  That is not Wikipedia policy.  I am afraid we are going to have to seek some kind of conflict resolution here.  You and I both know the facts are correct.  If you want to add something and can support it, please do.  But data withholding in climate science is a big issue and the Mann/McIntyre controversy is the most commonly known example.  I do not see how we can avoid discussing it.RonCram 14:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ron, I'm getting really bored with you and yours citing fake policy to try to force your edits in. Bad text can be deleted. I think your text is bad - the whole thing is just hopelessly one sided. Data withholding in CS is *not* a big issue; and the M&M stuff is the only example. I'd be happy to have it discussed in a neutral way, though. Why are you afraid of seeking conflist resolution? William M. Connolley 14:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It didn't take an act of congress. What exactly are you referring to? William M. Connolley 14:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: William, Mann did not provide his source code until Congress got involved.  (I corrected your typo. Hope you don't mind)  BTW, I agree with Childhoodsend.RonCram 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ron Act of Congress is as described. If you don't mean that, what do you mean? William M. Connolley 17:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William, I didn't mean act of Congress in the technical sense, only that Congress had to act - hold hearings, call Mann to testify and ask him to release his code.  To avoid misunderstanding in the future, I will say "nearly took an act of Congress." RonCram 12:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ron, if you say AoC you can expect people to assume the std meaning. Its deeply misleading to suddenly veer off into an alternative meaning. As to your proposed new words... how can you possibly defend that? Firstly, we've no idea (now) in what sense you mean AoC. Secondly, how can you possibly know that it "nearly" to an Act, or was it jsut an act? William M. Connolley 13:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I am responding late.  I just found this note.  The latest version (which is now part of Scientific data withholding links to the letter from congressmen asking Mann to provide his data, methods and source code.  This was the act of Congress I referred to, an act of investigation. I made a mistake in that I thought the technical term for making a new law required a capital A as in "Act of Congress."  RonCram 05:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: William's deletion of the subsection Climate Science Research

message: similar definition; and data archive is mostly a list of external links fgnievinski (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Data library]] into [[Research data archiving]]