User talk:Rameses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful and would recommend to all newcomers to Wikipedia:


Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 02:28, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Common Good

I moved your comment from Template:Election box metadata to Talk:The Common Good --Henrygb 15:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India Pale Ale

Sorry about that. I meant to undo the last edit you made... I didn't realize that you had several edits before it. The reason I removed the last edit was because the sentence was about modern breweries, but it looked like the link discussed breweries in the 6th century BC. On retrospect, it looks like that revision was in error to. I'll undo the revert. -- Big Brother 1984 09:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I don't see a 3RR warning here, so you'd better have one: see: WP:3RR William M. Connolley 09:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why?? Rameses 18:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

William, I read the 3RR policy and I have not performed more than three reverts. Yet you have blocked me anyway - this is an abuse of your power and further evidence of your censoring of dissenting views on Global Warming. I would like to have a review of your actions through the proper Wikipedia process - would you set that up or do you want me to do it?

You have 4 very obvious reverts at GW. Quite why you think the rules don't apply to you I don't know William M. Connolley 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, I have made one change following extensive discussions over several days. This was reverted by others and I reverted it back only three times. I would still like to have a review of your actions through the proper Wikipedia process - would you set that up or do you want me to do it? -- Rameses 23:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You have 4 edits today. You admit the last 3 are reverts. The first [1] reinserts the same text as earlier [2] so is also a revert. Goodnight William M. Connolley 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I made a change only after Very Extensive Discussions (VED) over several days see "Fight this insidious Censorship" [1]. I cannot imagine how much more effort you believe I should have made before making this tiny change? I am giving you one more chance to set up the review of your actions through the proper Wikipedia process. If you do not want to do so, let me know and I will do it myself. -- Rameses 01:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need help accumulating evidence

Please feel free to add examples of bias you have encountered by the pro-Global Warming crowd at my page...I am accumulating all of the evidence for various actions throughout Wikipedia for the pages, users, etc and your help with the footwork is appreciated. -- Tony of Race to the Right 14:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you make a user subpage(s), I would be willing to help you. ~ UBeR 20:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
User subpages are subject to the whims of the admins even if those whims are contrary to Wikipedia policy. Data collection must be done very carefully so as to not violate any rules or laws. They hide their actions in numbers of people helping them to split the reverts (thus circumventing 3RR), bury the evidence by crosslinking user pages (which is damn near impossible to find unless by accident you see it), and overwhelm the histories with scores of small edits (not marked as minor which would allow filtering them out) to make patterns of behavior difficult. They know the system and they know how to keep themselves protected. The ONLY way to help Wikipedia from them is to gather solid (non-personally attacking) data and present directly to authorities as high in Wikipedia as possible since the process has failed for 2 years to keep this behavior at bay. -- Tony of Race to the Right 05:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I found that out the hard way. Three of my subpages dealing with the infringement of Wikipedia policies by Wikipedia administrators/elected officials were deleted, along with their history. The reason cited was personal attacks (made by some "consensus"), despite the fact I made it quite clear the pages were to be used solely for gathering specific edits made by the user, rather than actually attacking the user. I let the evidence speak for itself (much like it does in Adolf Hitler), but even this is considered too harsh by a select few. Luckily, I salvaged much of what was said and all relevant links. ~ UBeR 05:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I did not get to see them (otherwise I'm sure there is plenty I could have copied). One important thing is to be absolutely devoid of commentary. Copy/Paste and the occassional note to clarify the context or reason for inclusion. -- Tony of Race to the Right 14:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Tony, an example of your above noted circumventing of the 3RR rule is going on currently at [3] right now. Good luck with your radio show - I hope you can get Jimbo Wales to talk on it. Wikipedia needs to do something about these censors particularly after the Essjay scandal. Keep up the good work guys - we'll make Wikipedia NPOV one day. ~ Rameses 04:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
William M. Connolley is at his old censorship habits again - this time on an article about a documentary film - The Great Global Warming Swindle. [4] He also makes the rather ominous comment "this thing is set to become another Climate of Mars". This probably refers to the deletion of several pages about Mars climate change, Martian global warming and Solar system warming. ~ Rameses 00:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[5] made on February 22, 2007 to Global warming

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 21:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


I made a change after Very Extensive Discussions (VED) over several days see "Fight this insidious Censorship" [2]. How much more effort do you believe I should have made before making this tiny change?? -- Rameses 23:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This administrator, himself, has stated before he is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. ~ UBeR 20:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well - that much is clear from his actions. He certainly seems to be trigger-happy with his 3RR's. Now how do I go about getting a Wikipedia review of his practices and whether he should be removed as an Administrator? -- Rameses 20:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
You may Request arbitration. Be weary, however, as many of his peers sit on that committee. It requires a lot of work, time, and evidence. He has had two official complaints reported against him in the past ([6], [7]). In the meantime, you may help gather complaints and other evidences of his misconduct at User:UBeR/WMC. ~ UBeR 22:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
You may also want to check out WP:AN/I, or, at at the very least, get a comment from WP:RFC, though I doubt their usefulness. Be assured, however, you are not alone in your dissent of this user. ~ UBeR 02:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boring

Re [8]. Please stop trolling about admin abuse, unless you intend to do something about it (which you clearly don't). But Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges is the place if you do (which you don't) William M. Connolley 21:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of Wikipedians who would be delighted to see your administratorship revoked. Do not be so arrogant. ~ UBeR 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
More trolling. You too are going to do nothing about it, even though I've provided you a nice link to just the place. Boring William M. Connolley 22:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
William, I am currently doing my research on your activities. You are the most controversial Administrator I have come across - just how many formal complaints have been lodged against you?? This is going to take a while just to read about your past misdemeanors. Now call me boring again - I find it mildly amusing. lol Rameses 22:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If anyone's the troll, it's William. In his own words, "Boring William M. Connolley." ~ UBeR 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
As expected, Rameses has wimped out William M. Connolley 09:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It's as if you want to be called upon for your actions, like you already have, which would be too easy. ~ UBeR 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, I'd love you or Rameses to put your actions where your mouth is. But you won't. And I'm sure you noticed the happy ending in that last case William M. Connolley 16:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I would point out the reason that last case was opened (by Mr. Schultz, interestingly enough). "he felt "parole has been imposed more out of a perceived sense of "fairness" ("Hey, it is a bad edit conflict - let's punish all!") than any real need. It does not serve any useful purpose, but instead is used by some users (in particular User:SEWilco, who has a long history of conflict with WMC) to stalk WMC and to claim "violations" even on uncontroversial and trivial edits (e.g. Kyoto protocol)." Somehow I am still trying to understand how THAT qualified in the ArbCom policies and precedents. Another note to point out, that request to re-evaluate the parole came after a failed Admin attempt where much of the opposition cited, among other reservations which have proven true, the fact that there was a standing parole for an admin candidate. -- Tony of Race to the Right 05:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits and AfD activity

Please see my user page, under "Objection 1" and stop pandering conspiracy theory. That is all. Michaelbusch 04:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


It is NOT a Theory I have plenty of evidence of this conspiracy to censor all articles relating to global warming. There are also many other editors who are sick of this hi-jacking of Wikipedia. All we ask for is a fair NPOV showing both sides of the debate. Your methods are to delete whatever does not fit your POV. As an example look at what I found on your talk page:


from User talk:Michaelbusch:=I think you'll enjoy this one

Solar system warming Someguy1221 04:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretty bad. Someone should have caught it before it passed the speedy deletion deadline. Michaelbusch 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


Like I said it is NOT a theory - there is plenty of evidence of a conspiracy to silence the other side of the debate... ~ Rameses 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a conspiracy. All the editors concerned simply have an interest in maintaining some level of scientific credibility on Wikipedia. Re. the above: Someguy1221 is a friend. He knows that I try to remove pseudoscience, and that I have dealt with your particular case before (see Talk:Mars). All of this is in the open, and not concealed. You confuse people talking to each other with conspiracy.

Your statements claiming that there is a conspiracy against you (or what you call 'the other side of the debate', when there is no debate for there to be different sides of), could be considered personal attacks, which are not tolerated. Further such statements might be reason for a block. You may consider this 'evidence of a conspiracy', but it is not. It is simply me explaining the rules of Wikipedia. Michaelbusch 06:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We shall soon discover all the ails of Wikipedia should Rameses' comments above be considered personal attacks. ~ UBeR 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am being reviewed

Hello, friend. I'd like to inform you of the attacks and claims made by Raul654 to the administrator noticeboard regarding my actions. I whole heartedly believe my actions are just and warranted. Please review the current situation. Thank you. ~ UBeR 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you are under attack. The more I read of the history of these folks the more I realize that the next step for them is to do RfC and blocks of varying levels. -- Tony of Race to the Right 05:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family

Regarding your family, I can understand why you are somewhat upset, but if you read WP:SOCK before hand, you might have understood why your editing pattern was problematic and triggered a checkuser. In general, when a group of people are editing from the same machine, it is highly advisable for them not to push the same POV. That should be obvious. JoshuaZ 06:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I cannot agree with your characterization that we were all "pushing the same POV". My daughter, Persianne, certainly didn't involve herself with global warming. On the other hand, my wife and I are both interested in the global warming debate and would like to contribute to it. I also disagree that family members should not all contribute their views. Your idea is unfair, as it requires that one of us would have to be silent on every topic in which we share similar views. This is against the fundamental right of "Freedom of Speech" and means that Wikipedia does yet not have room for families. This is clearly a situation which will have to be corrected as Wikipedia becomes more widely used and edited by more families worldwide.
In fact, if you read the Global warming pages you will see that they are very much pushing a pro Global Warming POV. Let us take the introduction to Global warming controversy for example: The global warming controversy is a debate about the causes of observed global warming since the mid-20th century, as well as the expected magnitude and consequences of future warming. A major part of the debate centers around what actions, if any, society should take in response to the prospect of future warming. Can you detect any controversy there at all? The wording accepts that there will be future warming without question. By contrast, there are respected scientists who disagree and predict the world will start cooling soon. Even this article which is supposed to be discussing the controversy not the consensus view is heavily biased to the GW POV.
All we were trying to do, was to introduce some NPOV into these articles. There is unfortunately a cartel of GW pushers who have been reverting or deleting anything which does not fit their POV. You can see this in the obviously one sided introduction to Global warming controversy. These people (including some administrators) employ devious tactics to drive any other contributors out of the GW arena. These include edit warring, constant reverting and launching witch hunts against those who object to their tactics. They did this with UBeR and my family recently when UBeR formally requested a checkuser against William M. Connolley. Their witch hunt succeeded - not only did they not get checked - Raul654 abused his Admin status and instantly checkusered (and then smeared) my family instead. Unless the other Administrators are willing to take these allegations seriously this group will continue to get away with their activities with impunity. Already a radio show has exposed these individuals and their activities on Wikipedia - Global Warming see: [9]. Also the leader William M Connolley has had three complaints against him already see:([10], [11], [12]) Please let me know if you are willing to help get this matter seriously looked into. ~ Rameses 19:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I would argue it's rather difficult for a family not to base themselves on the same set of shared principles and beliefs. To each their own, as the saying goes, I suppose.
The decision to peer into the family's hermitage was made somewhat arbitrarily. I can do nothing but to extend my support, much as they have done to me, as they are my patrons in my quest for equality and quality on Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 06:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud. The solution then, is to edit different topics. Anyone who was remotely aware of the relevant policies (or even was thinking about this topic in a common-sense fashion) would understand the problem. Furthermore, no form of family privacy violation occured- the only thing that happened what that all the editors were traced back to each other. Rameses then started claiming his family privacy was violated. Now, I can understand how he might feel that way, but to call this "arbitrarily" "perring into the family's hermitage" is just ridiculous. JoshuaZ 06:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Then we must agree to disagree, and leave it at that. ~ UBeR 06:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming skeptic userbox

Thought you might be interested in having a userbox on your user page that expresses your skepticism of anthropogenic global warming. It looks like this and will also add you to Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. If you're interested, put the following on your user page:

{{User:Oren0/GWSkeptic}}

Feel free to tell your friends. Thanks! Oren0 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Oren0, I have displayed it on my userpage. Although, I am not entirely skeptical of AGW - I simply don't believe that it is significant yet compared to Solar and cloud/H2O effects. I am of course willing to be swayed by convincing evidence - not by the laughable models that the alarmists are using. All of these models end with the Earth's oceans boiling away or freezing solid within a tiny geologic timespan (a geo-second). How these pseudo-scientists expect us to place our faith in such obviously flawed models, I really don't know? Especially when they fix them to reflect their alarmist ideology. It reminds me of the 1970's - the Ice Age is coming! alarmism. I look forward to chatting with you more in the future. Regards, ~ Rameses 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The All Seeing Eye

Thank you for the first ever All Seeing Eye. I am very pleasured to receive this monumental award. Of course, I do so on the behalf of all Wikipedians who strive for a better Wikipedia based on quality, equality, and fairness. I was surprised, because I did not have my "Awards" subpage on my watchlist, though I thought I did. Together, we can make a better Wikipedia. Again, thank you. ~ UBeR 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the award

I am grateful to know you appreciate my contribution to Wikipedia. Please join my effort to produce a better outline for the Global warming controversy article found at User:RonCram/AGWControversySandbox. I need more links to reliable sources on many of the issues. I also need to work on making it NPOV. The Warmers who said they were going to help have not helped so right now it probably looks pretty POV to them. RonCram 13:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. IntelligenceSquared held an interesting debate on Global Warming. Based on the votes of the audience, those who said it was not a crisis won the debate. I thought you might be interesting in reading about it. [13]RonCram 17:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connolley using Wikipedia to blog?

One administrator thinks so. ~ UBeR 23:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Undoubtedly he is. Although the term blog is too honest a term for what he is doing. A blog is an openly acknowledged opinion piece. What William Connolley is doing on Wikipedia is much murkier and less openly honest. He is controlling the global warming and the anti-global warming articles to push his POV and stifle all information which goes against it. This is destructive to the very fabric of Wikipedia itself. I have lost a great deal of my faith in the information on Wikipedia as a result of finding that there are administrators like Connolley blatantly controlling important sections of OUR world encyclopedia. The war for Neutrality, Truth and Fairness has begun. We can only be vigilant and hope that truth wins out in the end. ~ Rameses 05:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Check out User:UBeR/Contravention, possibly to be used in a request for comment. Need diffs and supporters. ~ UBeR 06:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguing against the notion of anthropogenic global warming makes you a conspiracy theorist?

According to this article you are. Vote to delete this nonsense here. Quite obviously the article violates notability (a few journalist may have classified it as such), NPOV, verifiability (few sources actually concurring with the article), and POV forking. ~ UBeR 05:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on Scientific data archiving

Please take a look at this Talk page, especially the part on "pseudoscience" and William's reverts. The POV of certain editors is preventing them from objectively dealing with the facts. The concepts involved are not difficult but they do take a little investment of time to understand. You may need to spend some time in the Pseudoscience article to be fully comfortable. I hope you are able to find the time to help out. Thanks! RonCram 15:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

It's always nice to know that work is appreciated. Thanks for your kind comments. -- Leland McInnes 19:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/m/User_talk%7ERameses_ec58.html"