![]() | This user may have left Wikipedia. Elhector has not edited Wikipedia since August 8, 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Elhector ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I wish contest this block. The revisions I am being blocked for were to revert the inappropriate removal of another editors valid discussion on an ongoing content dispute on this article. Removing discussions that are valid and pertinent to content in the article itself is against Wikipolicy. My revisions were made only to correct this violation of policy. I understand I broke an important policy but I did not have any other recourse as the offender is an admin and all complaints i made were not taken seriously because of this. If it is not possible to undo this block it would be greatly appreciated if someone could tell me how I should handle a situation where someone is removing valid discussions from an articles talk page for no valid reason. Thanks! Elhector (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The content removed might be borderline - it's original research, anyway, and the percentages are meaningless without comparison to the results for other films. But in any case, you edit warred, you continued it after being warned, and you rules-lawyered and were somewhat uncivil about the warning. Just wait it out and then go forth and sin no more, as they say. — Adam Cuerden talk 00:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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)
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)
Please mark your reverts [3] as such William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
I see you found my RfC. Thanks for weighing in. There is also a comment on me at WP:ANI if you are interested. They are going to topic ban me on commenting on William M. Connolley because of my past editing on his BLP.
Sorry I just dropped off the face of the earth on you, but I had to take a break. This crap is just too draining sometimes. Are you going to be around for a while or are you just checking in randomly?
Anyway, see you around! -- GoRight ( talk) 03:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Have you stopped contributing? Vegasprof ( talk) 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Given our past interactions on various topics I thought I would make the following offer.
If you ever have something you want me to offer an opinion on or that you feel I might personally be interested in anywhere on wikipedia, its talk pages, or within any of the official forums such as noticeboards, RfCs, RfAs, and the like, please contact me directly on my talk page and feel free to reference this standing request. I trust your judgment in deciding which topics might be of interest to me, and please keep me informed of any topics in general as well as items specifically involving you personally. -- GoRight ( talk) 00:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You might be interested in what I just put there. Vegasprof ( talk) 03:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
[6]. I appreciate the support but things have been calm on that front and it would be nice to keep them that way. Just FYI. -- GoRight ( talk) 23:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns?
I've been ordered to fix the page so that it accords with my understanding of the NPOV policy. I'm happy to do that but I have a lot of work at my job. Now I've been told that I must make the changes by April 30th or the NPOV tag will be removed. I simply can't learn how to use Wikipedia as a newcomer, become familiar with all the sources, and make the edits if I must do it all by April 30th.
Would you look over the Theosophy page? Also, can you recommend anything? Thanks much, Factseducado ( talk) 15:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This user may have left Wikipedia. Elhector has not edited Wikipedia since August 8, 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Elhector ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I wish contest this block. The revisions I am being blocked for were to revert the inappropriate removal of another editors valid discussion on an ongoing content dispute on this article. Removing discussions that are valid and pertinent to content in the article itself is against Wikipolicy. My revisions were made only to correct this violation of policy. I understand I broke an important policy but I did not have any other recourse as the offender is an admin and all complaints i made were not taken seriously because of this. If it is not possible to undo this block it would be greatly appreciated if someone could tell me how I should handle a situation where someone is removing valid discussions from an articles talk page for no valid reason. Thanks! Elhector (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The content removed might be borderline - it's original research, anyway, and the percentages are meaningless without comparison to the results for other films. But in any case, you edit warred, you continued it after being warned, and you rules-lawyered and were somewhat uncivil about the warning. Just wait it out and then go forth and sin no more, as they say. — Adam Cuerden talk 00:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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)
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)
Please mark your reverts [3] as such William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
I see you found my RfC. Thanks for weighing in. There is also a comment on me at WP:ANI if you are interested. They are going to topic ban me on commenting on William M. Connolley because of my past editing on his BLP.
Sorry I just dropped off the face of the earth on you, but I had to take a break. This crap is just too draining sometimes. Are you going to be around for a while or are you just checking in randomly?
Anyway, see you around! -- GoRight ( talk) 03:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Have you stopped contributing? Vegasprof ( talk) 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Given our past interactions on various topics I thought I would make the following offer.
If you ever have something you want me to offer an opinion on or that you feel I might personally be interested in anywhere on wikipedia, its talk pages, or within any of the official forums such as noticeboards, RfCs, RfAs, and the like, please contact me directly on my talk page and feel free to reference this standing request. I trust your judgment in deciding which topics might be of interest to me, and please keep me informed of any topics in general as well as items specifically involving you personally. -- GoRight ( talk) 00:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You might be interested in what I just put there. Vegasprof ( talk) 03:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
[6]. I appreciate the support but things have been calm on that front and it would be nice to keep them that way. Just FYI. -- GoRight ( talk) 23:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns?
I've been ordered to fix the page so that it accords with my understanding of the NPOV policy. I'm happy to do that but I have a lot of work at my job. Now I've been told that I must make the changes by April 30th or the NPOV tag will be removed. I simply can't learn how to use Wikipedia as a newcomer, become familiar with all the sources, and make the edits if I must do it all by April 30th.
Would you look over the Theosophy page? Also, can you recommend anything? Thanks much, Factseducado ( talk) 15:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)