User talk:24.165.233.150

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no spoon. - 68.46.123.33 22:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

"Non contributing user?" Who the hell do you think you are -- Mel Etitis? Blow it out your eye wall! --Stroker And Hoop 05:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for cluttering up my User Talk page. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Im Gumby Dammit 06:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Im Gumby Dammit 06:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hurricane Katrina edit

Hi. I disagree with your removal of the link to the Time Magazine article, Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?. Your comment was that "global warming stuff doesn't belong in this article, try the article on hurricanes..." I would agree if the link generically addressed whether global warming contributes to hurricanes; however, the Time article specifically aims to address the question in the context of this particular hurricane, which makes it relevant to the specific article. I would note that the Time article takes a very balanced approach to the question, nonjudgmentally pointing out arguments for and against such a position. -- BD2412 talk 02:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Hmmm... I see your point. The same argument will probably be made with respect to every major hurricane that comes along from this point on. Although I still think that the link is not improper, neither do I think it is necessary, so I will not continue to dispute its removal. -- BD2412 talk 03:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Hurricane_Katrina#Global Warming_issue_resolution_attempt

[edit] Hurricane Katrina links

I reintroduced all of the links simply because there is no need to take all of them out. In the talk page, I've been trying to push other users to help me clean out what is unnecessary (blogs) but leave the things that could be useful in disaster recovery efforts (official sources, though!). Don't worry, I plan on taking out a lot of them myself. It was too drastic a step, and that is why I reverted it. --Titoxd 03:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Take out the ones that were non-operative for you and we'll go from there. --Titoxd 03:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


I reverted one edit as well, simply because most of the links were working fine, and the article is covering a current event so it is still rapidly evolving.  —siroχo 03:13, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

And IPs keep adding sites. We just finished cleaning out this thing! :'( --Titoxd 03:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Yea, because people want to help, ... and adding links is the only helping they know how to do. :) 24.165.233.150 04:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katrina streams

Very clearly, there is room for debate on the usefulness of the stream link table (which fits none of the pernicious classifications you seem to like to use to describe it). I'm going to keep putting it back in, so *one* of us is going to get a 3-edit-rule warning today, clearly. If you really think it's that malicious and contrary to public policy, why don't you go find an administrator or two to tell me so.
--Baylink 18:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Um. Most of them fit 'nonworking' just fine. You've already run afoul of 3rr today, and on previous days as well. I don't need administrator blessing, as administrators aren't special. In terms of expirenced users, across the ID's I've edited under, I have almost twice the number of edits you do on more than twice the number of articles... Which is more than a few of the admins in any case. 24.165.233.150 19:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam

Thanks for helping to remove linkspam on the Hurricane Katrina article. If you can identify the user who added it, please warn them with {{subst:spam}}. Quite a few of these people have a long history of posting linkspam to Wikipedia and it would definitely be a big help if we could keep track of them. Also, have you considered registering? You've made a lot of good contributions.-Loren 04:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I have an account but don't feel like using it. :) Wikipolitics bites and I feel more like I can avoid them while editing as an IP. 24.165.233.150 04:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's Gmaxwell. And, unlike you, Loren, I take issue with Gmax' continued characterization of contributed material as "linkspam"; I don't believe that this conforms to Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith even one little bit, and I'm getting a touch tired of it.
--Baylink 20:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Baylink, not trying to be rude, but get the heck off your soapbox. I never called a single edit of yours linkspam, although I do think the streams table is not appropriate. You've been pushing that particular misunderstanding around wherever you've had the chance and I'm getting a little tired of it. The only edits that I've called linkspam are the repeated insertions of large numbers of externals (complete with sophicated wikisyntax) by open proxy IPs which have that as their only contributions. Many of these submissions have also contained links to 'donation' sites which are probably fradulant. I've left your precious stream table alone, and asked others to do the same, so get over it. --24.165.233.150 20:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I guess that's fair. And certainly there are people with better reasons than me to be stressed this month. My apologies. FWIW: one large group of such fraud sites has their DNS managed by... DirectNIC. They're going to redirect the DNS to the Red Cross.  :-)
--Baylink 20:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. :) Interesting datapoint on the fraud sites... thats a really good thing. Googling around it seems to be out of control. Thanks. --24.165.233.150 20:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
You *do* realize that DirectNIC are they guys who didn't let a little thing like the complete destruction of coastal Lousiana take their downtown datacenter offline, right?  :-)
--Baylink 21:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

So, in effect what you are saying is that if I were to edit one factual sentence into the text of the article on Hurricane Katrina, I could then, legitimately, add the site link as the external source?

Might I just say to you that the use of words like “continually” when I have only on one occasion added links that I must say I wondered at that time about, and on the second occasion I was, I believed adding a vital link to a desperate situation? You go on to threaten me with expulsion, are you willing to honestly search your mind and see what it was you were feeling as you wrote that?.

I’m grateful that you took the time to discover that I’m not just some shallow spammer however I would, if I were you, take a look at the brutality of that attitude. Of what good is it to anyone? Many a great editor is going to make terrible errors in the early days of his editorial career with Wiki yet being spoken to in the vain you have chosen for me will simply make them turn their backs.

Never mind that a person repeats an error, our function is surely to gently guide one another, he with the superior knowledge, rather than inciting a feeling of separation, instead creating one of inclusion to gain the very best from minds still learning.

That said, you can be certain I will not make the error again and unless I have some editorial or discussion content to offer, I shall be adding nothing to Wiki at all.

--Robin 01:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments to my Talk page (User Talk:Soir)

Don't assume wrongly here. I'm not out to defend Katrina was caused by GW any more than I want to defend Katrina being caused by any other topic on Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina. The point of the page is to provide alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina. Some sources are asking about global warming and questioning Katrina directly because of it. Intrinsically, though, trying to prove global warming caused a specific hurricane is just as provable as any other point on that page is about proving the same hurricane.

I edited the introduction how I did because of links placed on Hurricane Katrina that were there when I checked shouldn't have been there, and I apologise for that. But if they're not meant to go there, perhaps still mention them on a more appropriate page. Allowing the citation of whatever sources are available upon Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina, and then pointing out that they are merely questions and not actually answers, would be the best way to approach this. I don't think any point on that page is going to be ratified, which is exactly why all those causes are alleged to begin with. -- Soir (say hi) 21:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I did a quick check online, just to see if anyone specifically was claiming a connection -- an environmental minister in Germany seems to be ([1]), though it looks like a suggestive caption. I can see the merit in keeping things specific, but someone commented upon the AFD currently active for "alleged causes" that statements of [this] type occur every time a natural disaster takes place. Claims of divine or supernatural causation may be common "alleged causes" for every natural disaster that causes severe damage. Does linking global warming to Katrina really require a specific named person source to be a notable mention?

Thanks for the discussion, anyway - in view of recent thoughts of notability I'm changing my AFD vote. May the articles you watch refrain linkspam-free. :) -- Soir (say hi) 22:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of Hurricane Katrina

The GW material is in precisely the same boat as the other stuff there. It is quite separate from the general trends (in the tropical cyclone article), it is about the politics. As the article is likely to be deleted anyway, please refraining from deleting information. Rd232 23:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

And for God's sake get yourself a username (Special:Userlogin). Nobody likes talking to a number. Rd232 23:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It's quite simple. A, it covers different material than tropical cyclone does (or should). B, it is reasonable to present an answer to a question raised by many media, including correcting misconceptions about direct links between GW and Katrina. People have those questions, and we should clearly answer them. But since you keep deleting it, the section never gets clear. Rd232 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

In the circumstances I think this statement was not unfair: "Since an anon user insists on repeatedly deleting the global warming section, falsely claiming the material is in tropical cyclone..." Whilst some of the scientific material was in tropical cyclone, the political material isn't and shouldn't be, and you repeatedly deleted the entire section without adequate discussion. However, if you get yourself a username, I'll remove it, since the section now stands (albeit the article may well be deleted anyway). Rd232 19:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What political material? ... Without adequate discussion? Are you refering to the initial discussion with BD on Hurricane Katrina when he was trying to add it there and he was told no firmly enough that he went and created the alleged causes article? or are you refering to my talk page post on alleged causes which no one has still replied to yet?. As far as your little ultimatum, I think I'll pass. I have a username, I just haven't felt like using it much recently. I think your bogus accusation looks worse for you than it does for me anyways. --24.165.233.150 20:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
It was an offer, not an ultimatum. I wasn't aware of discussion elsewhere; perhaps it would have been helpful for you to point it out when you deleted the section. Anyway, under my new do NOT edit current events articles because it's way more trouble than it's worth policy, I officially don't care about the articles in question. Rd232 20:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Correction to above, I see that BD did finally reply to my talk page post. --24.165.233.150 20:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
NB - if you really can't distinguish science from politics in the material in question, that would explain the deletion. No longer my problem, fortunately. Rd232 20:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
It may be absurd, but there certainly are people who claim that global warming = bigger, badder hurricanes, and who are now pointing to Hurricane Katrina, going "see? see?" But my point all along has been that this particular hurricane has been a focal point for those seeking to score political points, whether it be through claims of global warming or divine intervention. Also, as I've mentioned on the deletion vote for the article (which is soon to be gone, in any event), I was never "told no" to adding the global warming link (the only thing relating to global warming that I added to that article) by anyone but you. I chose to move it to the political effects article, because I agreed that it didn't belong in the main article, and I chose to move it, along with the divine intervention discussion and the "weather control" theory from there to the "alleged causes" article because I realized that there were more serious issues to discuss in the politics article. But it's all good. Sorry to have put you to the extra work, and I hope you've found the debate to be as much fun as I have. -- BD2412 talk 04:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You asked me to drop you a penis. Your penis is ready to be picked up here. Enjoy. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/4/2E/User_talk%7E24.165.233.150.html"