User talk:Sm8900

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will be out of contact for a while, until at least Sunday 4/8, and possibly only sporadically at that point, if at all. Sorry. Please feel free to leave any comments. I hope to reply by Wed., Apr 11 or within a day or two after that. Thanks. --Sm8900 15:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Welcome to my user talk page. Thanks for visiting. --Sm8900 21:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Click here to edit my current question (as of 2/19/07): User_talk:Sm8900#Question 2/19/07


Ideas User:sm8900/links User:sm8900/sonofilter user:sm8900/Abul Hussam user:sm8900/play by mail list

Contents

[edit] Ideas

Sono filter

Sono Advanced Destroyer Simulator Aegis: Guardian of the Fleet

Hohoho User:sm8900/idea Major ww2 revisions: 3/20/07, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&oldid=115799022

15:13, 17 March 2007 Jack Naven Rulez (Talk | contribs) (→Cause of war in Europe)

(cur) (last) 14:28, 17 March 2007 Oberiko (Talk | contribs) m (→Cause of war in Europe - - There was no Soviet Union during World War I) (cur) (last) 13:40, 17 March 2007 Haber (Talk | contribs) (→Causes - major removals and more stating of elementary facts)

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Sm8900! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! --  Netsnipe  ►  08:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] need help

Why does it seem impossible to find any wikiprojects through regular searches???? How would I find these? I tried and tried everything I could think of. thanks very much. --Sm8900 17:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory and Category:WikiProjects. —PurpleRAIN 17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I found this by typing "WikiProject" into the search box and then following a couple of links. If that didn't work for you, it may be that your default search preferences aren't searching in the Wikipedia: namespace. You can check this by clicking my preferences at the top right of any Wikipedia page, then clicking the Search tab. You can also set namespace preferences on a per-search basis by checking the appropriate namespaces at the bottom of the Wikipedia search page. —PurpleRAIN 17:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] finding things

{{help me}} I am having a lotof trouble finding things. First of all, how does one access the advanced search page? Whenever I do a search, i get a whole bunch of checkboxes with the search results. Is there a way to access these checkboxes easilyin general?

Also, why can't I find the page on "user boxes"? I know there is one, but I was totally unable to find it, either by searching or using the index. hope this can be clarified. thanks.

1. Under My Preferences, click on the "search" box, and you can specify which search boxes will be clicked by default when you do a search.

2. You may find Category:Wikipedia userboxes to be helpful.

In the future, feel free to ask questions at the Help desk, as responses may be quicker. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

This user is a member of WikiProject United States.
This user is a member of the History WikiProject.
This user participates in
WikiProject Israel.
TREK This user is a member of
WikiProject Star Trek
This user is a member of the
Video Games WikiProject.
This user is a member of the
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Wikiproject.
The Wikipedia Corps tag

   

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. Well, you seem to have been here a while, but I haven't welcomed you yet. Regarding contentious articles, as you say, just follow my contributions and you'll find them soon enough. :-) Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] note for users

[edit] help with ww 2 article please

Hi. could some of you guys please go over to the World War 2 article? There's currently a proposal there by only two users to rewrite most of the article, mainly to shorten it. I'm very concernred that only two people could rewrite an entire large article, consisting of dozens of people's work, without any underlying consensus. It seems to me that this would mean the removal of the work by many people by a small handful of users, mainly to attain what they consider the "correct" article length. So I'm disturbed that this is happening without any underlying consensus. i'd feel a lot better if a few more people could come over to the article, and take a look. Thanks. --Sm8900 04:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You've already left a note at WT:WWII, which is the best place for that sort of thing; please don't randomly add it to every other page you can find. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Major changes are always subject to consensus (whether before or after the fact); but the WWII article has been a severely problematic one for a long time now. In any case, I've left some thoughts on Talk:World War II; maybe they'll be of some use. Kirill Lokshin 04:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Consensus decision-making rewrite coming soon

howdy . you're getting this message because you have made a meaningful contribution to Consensus decision-making in the last couple of months. This note is to inform you that i have done a complete rewrite of the article, basically from the ground up, and will be installing the rewrite sometime after 22:00 mst (gmt -7)

i decided to undertake this rewrite because the current article had some notable shortcomings in my opinion, most notably:

  • lack of references: whole sections of the current article are unreferenced
  • section balance: the amount of detail on some sections was out of step with the detail level on other sections. for instance 'timing' is as large as 'key principles'
  • run-on writing: some sections succumb to rambling, while other sections are quite concise to the point of being terse.

all of these problems are inevitable in a project written by a group of people with different areas of expertise and writing styles.

my rewrite is designed to address these issues. most notably i have aimed to make the article more concise -- put more content in less words as it were -- and to make sure that everything is effectively sourced. i have also pretty much completely re-sectioned the article in an attempt to flow from general down to specific.

i have given this notice to you as a 'heads up' that this change is coming. i realize that you have invested a lot of effort into the existing article and i want to make sure that you are ready to make the edits you feel are necessary once my rewrite goes 'live'.

i also intend to submit the new article for peer review shortly after posting it. i think that the feedback will help us all drive this piece forward, hopefully to at least ga status! -- frymaster 23:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chock

No problem. The WWII article should actually be longer. I work on Wikipedia Aircraft, just to let you know. ChockStock 23:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sfc_1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sfc_1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] idea

Category:Star Trek-type starship simulators

Category:Star Trek-style starship simulators

Sono arsenic filter

Begin (computer game)

Game Entry

Star Trek: Starship Tactical Combat Simulator

Wikipedia tools

[edit] Sono arsenic filter

[edit] Copyright issue with Sono arsenic filter

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Sono arsenic filter, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/professor-wins-1-million-for-arsenic/20070202224709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001. As a copyright violation, Sono arsenic filter appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Sono arsenic filter has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Sono arsenic filter. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Sono arsenic filter, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Mr.Z-mantalk 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of Sono arsenic filter

As you're an established user and have made a heartfelt plea, and this is a worthy article, I have rewritten it rather than delete it, but you should know better than to just copy and paste copyright material. Please DON'T DO IT AGAIN. It's easy enough to just paraphrase like I've done. Thank you. Tyrenius 03:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There would be no trouble with copy and paste, were it not for the fact it's just verboten! It runs up against all sorts of potential legal issues and we have to play safe. Happy editing! Tyrenius 02:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question re: Project Israel

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel/Statement Itayb 19:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Question 2/19/07

{helpme}

Whenever I login onto Wikipedia, and then log out, it always remembers my login name on that computer. When i come back later, the sign-in screen still comes up with my log-in name on that computer. This has happened at web cafes, and has happened even when I was away for several days! (it happened at a web cafe which i come back to periodically). Is there any way to stop this from happening? Or is there a way to clear that field? By the way, I do not believe this is being caued by the "Autocomplete" function in Internet Explorer. Thanks. --Sm8900 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Try unchecking the remember me field on the login page.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And don't forget to click log out when you are done. --Selket Talk 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but actually I already do both of those things. (You are both right to make those points.) It still happens, though! Anyone have any ideas? Thanks. --Sm8900 01:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Most probably a browser issue.--Commander Keane 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This question has been asked many times before. See the "Design flaw in the login page?" section here. I think {helpme} cannot help you further white this question (since you have the solution). Try Help desk or WP:VP/T if you are not satisfied.--Commander Keane 02:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that the [edit] buttons were not working for my talk page, it seems someone placed a __NOEDITSECTION__ there by mistake. I ended up adding a FAQ (Nubio 149) for you question.--Commander Keane 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Nubio is the only external Wikipedia FAQ site. At Wikipedia:FAQ there is a link to it at the top ("searchable FAQ"). It is also linked in the {{helpme}} template and on the Help desk. Nubio is hosted on the Toolserver, some servers donated to Wikimedia Germany. You can view its List of projects for other tools.--Commander Keane 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

test. --Steve, User:Sm8900 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ques re searches 3/16

Is anyone else having trouble with doing searches? I just did a search for the word "Charles," and it told me it couldn't do it. Anyone else? (BTW, please do not delete the 'helpme' tag right away.) Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, although you can always try Googling Wikipedia when it's not working for you. Xiner (talk, email) 17:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My revert on Effects of global warming

Hi Sm8900! Sorry for reverting you (again). I'm certain you are trying to be helpful. But I have trouble understanding what exactly you are trying to do. You seem to want to build a collection of recent topics. But the climate change articles are organized not chronologically, but by topic. I just don't see where such a collection of remarks would fit, and how it would contribute to an encyclopedic article, i.e. something that should have some persistence and stability. Also see WP:NOT (a directory). --Stephan Schulz 00:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Lost Tribes

I accidentally reverted your recent edits on Ten Lost Tribes just now, I have since undone the edit. Sorry about that, I thought it was vandalism. Terence 15:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Advice

Got your advice on mediation. Thank you. I shall figure out what to do. But I have a neutral thinking mind which sometimes gets me into trouble. --Blue Tie 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming (a few)

Sm8900, i'm quite willing to defend your hill, if you can convince me that its more than a handfull. I've been following this debate for some time - and am actively discussing GW in other fora. From my experience in reading sceptical literature (of which i've read quite a bit more than non-sceptical ones) i cannot honestly say that i think they are more than a few. Suggestion: how about actively trying to find more sceptics for the Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming article first - to establish dissent(ers)? And please do not be shocked about the discussions that such inclusions at times lead to - there really is honest debate there, which is primarily to establish that we do not unintentionally include the wrong people. --Kim D. Petersen 15:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kim. that's fine. My real intention is to try to give more voice to the Wikipedia editors who are striving for diversity. The specific point I was editing in the article just now is not the main issue. Let me know, if you want, if you feel like there is many others supporting an effort to bring more diversity to the main GW article. Thanks. --Sm8900 15:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Global warming

Sm8900, I am really trying to assume good faith and assume you are for real not just trying to wind people up. WHAT is the notable alternative view on Global warming missing from the article? You have said many 8 or nine times that it only gives one view etc but I can see a wide range of theories and effects. So what is the article missing as a perspective? --BozMo talk 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bozmo. I appreciate you good-faith towards resolution. I really wish I could respond with a brief direct answer which would be as effective as your constructive helpfulness. However, the problem is not any one viewpoint, but the entire editing style which has steadily taken hold. there really is no foundation for a small group of editors repeatedly deleting new edits because they feel it gives undue weight against what they feel to be the consensus. Wikipedia articles are just not supposed to work this way. When editors make coherent, relevant contributions, they are supposed to be given some leeway, not deleted within 90 seconds.For instance, when I changed "a few scientists" to "some scientists," it is really amazing for someone to change it within 30 seconds. Even if that phrasing were totally wrong, (which it is not), there really is no call for any Wikipedia article to be so contentious.
The answer of the pro-warming side is that their side has the weight of consensus. Sorry, but no article here is designed to reflect of one side or another. They are simply supposed to reflect both sides adequately and accurately. If Uber wants to add references from the other side, and they have proper sources, then there really seems to me to be no justification for preventing those edits. That's just the way i feel. So i really appreciate you putting so much time and energy into open communication. That's very helpful. So thanks very much. Hope what i have written is helpful. Sorry, but I have to sign off within the next few minutes. I may not be online again for a few days. Please feel free to leave any comments, and I will try to respond at a later point. Thanks. (sorry for any typos, BTW). --Sm8900 21:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I am curious to know how quickly it would have been reverted if you'd changed "a few" to "hardly any" or some other increment in that direction. If inching one way is more aggressively removed than the other way then we certainly have an issue. At the risk of speculating I reckon I have noticed that reverts one way are quicker when Europe is awake but not the US and the other way after the EU has gone to bed. --BozMo talk 18:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bozmo. i replied to you at your talk page. For anyone else watching this, i am now signed on. thanks. --Sm8900 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
.."Are you saying you completely agree with me, re that specific edit?" >> (1) The "IF" was a real if. I am not sure whether edits pro GW are reverted faster than edits anti GW, I would need the time to look through examples of this, but it does seem very plausible. (2) FWIW I marginally prefer "some" to "a few", but it really is marginal. I personally have changed "a number" to "some" in this sentence, so I must think "some" is ok.
.."do you agree with me re my feelings on the direction of the article itself?" I think "no". Personally I have found the "anti GW" editors much more aggressive, much less civil and more inclined to personal attacks than the "pro GW" editors. That's probably a function of which way my first edit went and what reaction I got, but also I have tended to find the arguments presented more coherent. But perhaps thats about the editors being better rather than the references. I am certainly open to be convinced but don't yet see systematic bias. I am thinking about Blue Tie's proposed new agenda, but haven't made up my mind yet.--BozMo talk 21:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bozmo. I appreciate your helpful and constructive reply to me. part of the reason you do not see any systemic bias by the pro GW side is that they've alrready done such a good job of enforcing their views and locking down the article, that they're little need for them to fight or contend any more. in my view, the entire article is mis-written and mishandled. My reason for this is very simple. I do not think this should be just an overview of the global warming theory in the first place.
i think this article should, rather, be an overview of the evolution and history of the global warming issue/debate itself. This means the article would present societal views, history of the debate, overview of political movements and ideas, dissenting views, as well as the theory itself. this would be much more comprehensive, and much more in keeping with other "overview" articles of a similar type. So that's my basic idea. Hope that sounds good. Feel free to comment. thanks. --Sm8900 21:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think to justify the shift you need a precedent from other articles or the manual of style. I haven't really looked around. What's your favourite on a comparable subject? Acid rain? --BozMo talk 06:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair question. How about this as a useful precedent: Nuclear power. Covers many subtopics and concerns at once. --Sm8900 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Practical joke

Glad you liked it! Silas Snider (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St Online

Actually, I don't know the first thing about ST online -- I was using Lupin's anti-vandal tool to check for spelling errors as they were saved, and I came across your edit. Silas Snider (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The tool is at the above link (User:Lupin/Anti-vandal_tool), and the part I was using was the 'live spellcheck' tool. I actually live in Eugene, Oregon, not the UK though. Have fun with the tool! Silas Snider (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin powers

As I wrote on KBs talk page, I'm out of the mediation until a mediator steps in to restrain the PA.

Part of that is your apparent belief that I've abused my admin powers to intervene. As far as I know I haven't. If I have, do please list examples here. If you can't, then withdraw your remarks William M. Connolley 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As i tried to make clear, I was not trying to cast any aspersions on you as an individual, or perhaps even as an editor. However, what I do feel is that your admin status gives undue weight to the pro-GW side. one example I would offer is the fact that you were able to lock the article recently; i realized it is now unlocked. However, the locking itself was not the main issue, as you have been also able to do numerous reverts in order to counteract what you consider to be unwarranted edits. That's pretty much it, in a nutshell. --Sm8900 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Admins have no priv as editors. If people tend to respect them (clearly not amongst the skeptics, of course) then you might want to ponder if there is a reason for that and it may not be "undue". When exactly did I lock the page, anyway? And you do realise that Raul, DF and BozMo are all admins, don't you? William M. Connolley 19:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi William. No, i didn;t realize they were. I'm not saying you did, but it seems like you did. Let me ask a question which is sincerely for information. Who locked the page around the time of the starw poll? I thought you had locked it, and were unlocking it? And you are the one who stated that you were protecting the page. that's why I was aware you were an admin.
Ok, just checked, and it was Bozmo, so maybe all my comments are valid, but in regards to him, not you. hmmm. have to think about this. So I guess you are saying you have never locked the page? I do appreciate your reply. BTW, I'm not claiming to be any kind of arbiter; as I said, I was not trying to cast aspersions on you personally. thanks. --Sm8900 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I've semi-d the page: as far as I'm aware thats as it should be. I would only lock it under extreme circumstances, because I *am* involved. Did you mean 2007-03-25T23:43:08 Michaelas10 (Talk | contribs | block) protected Global warming (Edit warring. [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (Change)? Re arbiter: well of course not. And I don't understand as you have been also able to do numerous reverts - I've done no more than anyone else could William M. Connolley 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
yes, but when you do them, and also say (elsewhere) that you are protecting the page, people understand that you are an admin, and become reluctant to press the matter further. I know you'll disagree with that, but since I am an ordinary editor, I do know it does happen to be a fact from that vantage point. --Sm8900 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You haven't answered my Q re rv. I don't lean on my admin status: please don't flash it around in mediation. My request to you to withdraw your remarks remains. Meanwhile, you were defneding the finance stuff on GW Users do sometimes have the right to try out some new ideas, without having a few people veto them for no solid reason. You're unaware of N's history over this, clearly. But anway, I've listed some stuff against Stern and the current state of the finance section and invite you to defned it, if you still wish to William M. Connolley 20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here's my answer. You have made several reverts. You have also identified yourself as an admin, and protected the entry. As far as I'm concerned, these two actions are related. i understand that you sincerely feel they are not. i don't question your sincerity, or your good faith. However, i do feel that these factors are giving undue weight to the pro-GW side, and are very relevant to the mediation and are therefore worth mentioning. --Sm8900 20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't understand. Do you understand the difference between semi-prot and prot? If you do, what is this "relation" you're talking about? William M. Connolley 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say you misused your admin powers to prot the entry. I said the fact you have used your admin powers in this article at all makes people reluctant to challenge your reverts.
Given the history of skeptics reverting my edits, I thinks thats obviously wrong. I'm giving up at this point William M. Connolley 20:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
If this is an issue because it appears I justified any personal attacks on you, i will gladly withdrw any comments which appear to justify such attacks. However, my feelings re the admin issue still stand, and are only reinforced by the fact you are not the only pro-GW editor using admin power. I appreciate your input and feedback, BTW. thanks. --Sm8900 20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
hi. I appreciate your replies, and I will continue to give them some thought, as they obviously and clearly deserve. by the way, let me just add that you have my highest respect, for the fact that you do identify yourself openly, in your entry, and make no secret of who you are or your beliefs. that's different than many people here who generally remain anonymous, myself included. so my respect for you as a person is sincere. thanks. --Sm8900 20:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Global Warming

I appreciate that you probably have a viewpoint which casts your actions on this article in a favourable light but please bear in mind that a perception exists that the article as is is pretty fair, well maintained by about 20 editors and gives due weight to both positive and sceptic views. If you keep going around trying to recruit minority view editors from around the place you will make an acceptable situation much worse. I think this isn't an impressive thing to try to do, and its seriously undermining your personal credibility with me at any rate. What's next? You post on the Republican Party talk page asking for right wing political editors to go there; someone posts on the science pages asking for scientific editors to go there and it becomes 200 to 50 instead of 20 to 5? Gosh won't that make the world a better place. --BozMo talk 06:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bozmo. You raise some valid concerns. However, i guess the main difference we have is that I don't view Global Warming solely as a science article. That's one of the reasons for our editorial differences as well; I think the article should cover a wider variety of sub-topics. However, just to reassure you, that last canvass was the only one I planned to do. As you know, those were posted a week before they became an issue, and I have not done any since then. Your point re whether there is existing consensus is valid; I was responding mainly to the open mediation, and also to the existing arguments which obviously occur at the article's talk page.
I appreciate your feedback and input. I do not feel I did anything wrong, so I wouldn't stop doing any of this based on those grounds. However, your point about how together we can just pursue some constructive means to pursue this article's quality is always a valid subject, obviously, so I don't mind a continuing discussion about that, now or anytime. Thanks for all your points. See you. --Sm8900 13:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/m/8/User_talk%7ESm8900_ef88.html"