User talk:Barwick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Barwick, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

This message is regarding the page Ozone Hole. Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RoyBoy 800 15:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Disruptive edits

Your edits in the article space amount to vandalism - please refrain from doing so. Please read the Manual of Style. In addition, your edits verge on personal attacks. Please read the No personal attacks policy. Guettarda 02:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

  1. This edit is clear vandalism.
  2. Your formatting eliminated the introductory paragraph. How can you claim otherwise? Have you actually read the MoS?
  3. Explain your edits on the talk page first, and provide a reputable source. Your edits contradict the facts as I can see them. You said you have a source, please provide it. Guettarda 03:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three reverts

You have reverted the article three times. Please do not revert it again within 24 hours - if you revert it again you will be in violation of the three revert rule. Guettarda 03:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement WMC's parole

William M. Connelley has violated his parole. [1] The one case I have personal knowlegde of is his reverts in de lomborg case.[2] You can contribute if you wish.--MichaelSirks 20:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have continued the quest to get enforcement on WMC's parole at[3]--MichaelSirks 20:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ozone articles

Sorry about the confusion because of the auto-message I left. But your new articles do not have support of informed editors in that subject. Also having a reference from Geocities of a marginal perspective isn't something that will survive long on Wikipedia. As a mere science enthusiast I looked at your edits and they are ill-informed. The amount (7,500 tons) vs (600 million tons) is meaningless as CFC's are a catalyst that persist in the atmosphere for quite some time; and water (H20) evaporation has nothing to do with the amount of Oxygen (created by plants) in the upper atmosphere. Also its rare high energy UV light which creates Ozone, not simply UV light which is plentiful. Hopefully that clears up what William M. Connolley meant by "nonsense". - RoyBoy 800 23:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Responding to my talk page is the right place. Before I respond, 600,000,000 tons of what is coming from the oceans? (PS: please sign your posts with ~~~~ Thanks. - RoyBoy 800 04:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Just making sure we were on the same page. That argument is invalid; just as comets existing today is not evidence for creationism. (read about that edit in Ozone talk page) Suffice it to say there is a mechanism to create comets, and we know there was old comets in the past thanks to metoer showers. As to chlorine:
In short, contrary to Robinson's claims, the "35,000 tons" of annual chlorine estimated to be expelled by volcanoes seldom reaches the stratosphere. Nor does the "600,000,000 tons" coming from the oceans. These natural chlorinated compounds are highly soluble, and almost all of them (except for some that might be propelled into the stratosphere from hurricanes) precipitate out long before reaching high altitudes where they can destroy ozone. Even if some of them enter the stratosphere, the chlorine they release remains at a constant "background" level. It certainly doesn't increase annually, as has been happening in recent years.
Thus, while Robinson and other skeptics are wrong when they suggest that vast amounts of these unstable natural chlorinated compounds are getting up into the stratosphere, a great portion of our CFCs does get there -- as the balloon and satellite measurements prove.
I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but before you do so... you should do more research and/or discuss your ideas on the talk pages for those article. Editors there are very knowledgable and can explain why an article is written a certain way. All the best. - RoyBoy 800 04:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I have little interest in your statistics. As my reference points out, natural chlorine would remain at a natural background level (because every year approximately the same amount would reach the stratosphere from natural sources). We measured (emphasis on measure, this isn't a statistical assumption), we measured a significant increase in levels of chlorine in the stratosphere. This matched our use of CFC's, and it was demonstrated CFC's chemical properties makes it likely to find its way to the stratophere. The alternative theory is based on big numbers with no fundamental understanding of how CFC's differ from natural "soluble" chlorine. With that information lacking from the "alternative theory", it is safe to say their theory isn't well thought out. Your statistical proposals are guesswork, and misses the key point: the amount of natural chlorine getting to the stratosphere doesn't change much, manmade CFC's increased significantly since the industrial revolution and that was followed by a measured increase in the atmosphere.
Your rationale for comets is worse. Get this straight, perhaps 200,000,000 comets did fly by in the last 12,000 years. Who are you to say otherwise? Furthermore, they didn't need to "suddenly stop" in the last 6,000. They could have been captured 500,000 years ago and their orbits slowly degraded to their current position(s). Ultimately we don't need 200,000,000 comets because your probabilities are based on poor assumptions; and the logical fallacy of scientists not "knowing" meaning a creation hypothesis is a viable alternative won't go far here. Scientists do have a viable theory for coments, the Oort cloud. The size and composition of the Oort cloud has yet to be observed, but it serves as a reasonable and reliable source for comets; and happens to entirely agree with established theories of solar system formation. When we are able to examine space at that distance and see what's there, if we don't see an Oort cloud, then alternative theories will be up for true consideration. Don't hold your breath; and don't proclaim scientists can't explain it, because they can and have. If you want observational evidence (proof), you will have to wait along with the rest of us. - RoyBoy 800 05:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oort cloud

It's only halarious because you don't understand the presence of the oort cloud has more scientific evidence than god:

Recognition of the Oort cloud gave explanation to the age old questions: "What are comets, and where do they come from?" In 1950, Jan H. Oort inferred the existence of the Oort cloud from the physical evidence of long-period comets entering the planetary system. This Dutch astronomer, who determined the rotation of the Milky Way galaxy in the 1920's, interpreted comet orbital distribution with only 19 well-measured orbits to study and successfully recognized where these comets came from. Additional gathered data has since confirmed his studies, establishing and expanding our knowledge of the Oort cloud. [4]

Hence its presence is inferred from the orbits of the comets which tells us how far out they came from, and discoveries of new objects on the outskirts of our solar system like Sedna. Do you honestly believe that on your say so, there isn't more objects further out? If the oort cloud wasn't there it wouldn't just be a problem for comets; it would be significant evidence against theories about how our solar system formed out of planetesimals; a theory well supported by the presense of an asteroid belt. Your skepticism is cheap, as a lack of direct evidence (simply because we cannot observe small objects at that distance), does not mean a lack of existance. Until we can your God of Gaps argument isn't persuasive. I encourage you to do further research on this subject; otherwise people may start laughing at you for saying things like: "every once in a while, a comet forms in that sucker". Since the Oort cloud is a cloud of comets/asteroids (not mist or ice particles), there isn't a need for a comet to form "every once in a while". - RoyBoy 800 17:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

In short, he hasn't proved it as the oort cloud has not been observed yet. However, it and the substantial body of evidence following his calculations strongly indicates it is the most likely explanation given comets from outside our solar system would be very rare, and probably would have so much speed they'd just fly through. If you believe you've found a better explanation, please post it (in summary form) on Talk:Oort cloud. If you'd like to learn about the evidence for the oort cloud, look it up yourself; I'm not your research assistant and I think you'd gain substantially from the experience. Best of luck. - RoyBoy 800 20:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other people's posts OPP)

Hey Barwick, I noticed that you deleted Ze miguel's original Afd nomination. I think it did make sense for you do that (since he did change his actual vote to a keep vote) but at the same time calling it "slander" in the comment field might be a bit harsh. In the interests of Wikipedia's guidelines of civility I would have recommended that you go to his talk page and request that he remove it himself. I noticed you are somewhat of a newcomer (see Wikipedia:don't bite the newcomers), so I understand if maybe you hadn't experienced that editing other people's posts is usually offensive to them. I am not worried about it, but I reverted your deletion to preempt a flame war. MPS 15:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your note to me: FYI, in an "wikipedia:AfD, we are voting on whether or not to keep the article. This Afd is not a wikipedia article in the strictest sense since it is a page where we vote on whether to delete another article in the encyclopedia. The standard practice is for the person who doubt's that an article is encyclopedic (in this case the Team of Destiny Article) to create an AfD page and list his/her reasons for listing it as an Article for deletion. In Wikipedia shorthand, Advertisement for non-notable Amway MLM team Ze miguel 18:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC) means that Ze thinks that it should be deleted from wikipedia because it violates the wikipedia:notability (not significant or notable) requirement and the wikipedia:vanity (self-advertising) guideline. I don't think he was trying to tell everyone that TOD sucks, he was just giving the criteria that led him to want to vote for deletion. He has since changed his opinion, but for historical record, we need to retain the original criteria that Ze proposed for deleting the article. I think you and I could both agree that an article on your mother would not be encyclopedic, but that is not an insult to your mother, it's just your and my opinion on whether or not your mother's biography belongs in an online encyclopedia. To say that your mother is non-notable has a specific meaning on wikipedia and shouldn't be seen as slander against your mom. Does this help? MPS 16:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Regarding your comment: Great! Ze agrees with you now. He doesn't believe that those criteria apply anymore either. After we discussed it, Ze changed his vote so now he believes that TOD is notable and that this is not a vanity article. This is an excellent example of democracy in action. Sensor, Calton, Jareth, and Paul still remain to be convinced. Paul has stated what it would take to convince him and the other three are probably drive-by voters who we'll never see again. So the vote stands at 4-3, which will probably be a weak keep and we can continue editing the article. Ze has already added links and categories. Feel free to keep adding sourced material if you know where to get it. Isn't wikipedia fun? MPS 17:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Got to have a brain.

In my view, what makes a person a person is their brain -- no brain, no person. I wish we could go back to Roe v Wade, where states (NOT the federal government) could outlaw abortion after the first trimester. But I strongly favor giving students contraceptive information as soon as they are old enough to understand what contraceptive means, and I favor the morning after pill. Rick Norwood 15:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You have a good point. On the other hand, I would hesitate for the government to require that this brain dead guy's relatives have to spend the next twenty years of their lives taking care of him. I do not see the question as one sided, but as one of competing interests. Rick Norwood 15:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from Talk:Abortion

How about "no". How about all the people on here face up to the facts? How about they quit playing the double-standard game when one thing conveniently agrees with their POV, they don't require mountains of evidence, just a "some scientists think such and such", and when it doesn't agree with their POV, they blow it off because there's "not enough evidence".

It's crap like that that is going to drive away perfectly good writers from Wikipedia. They go to edit an article, then someone deletes it and says "talk about it on the discussion page". They go and do that and get nothing but crap about "well we don't know for 100.1% sure, so we're not going to even mention it..."
This place has pissed me off sufficiently enough that I'm about done with it, and will not recommend it to my friends and associates. It is NOT the unbiased source that it claims to be, but rather a collection of people who've got their own set of beliefs on how things should be, and are determined to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
We discussed this inserting "human being" into the article, and the only complaint people had was "being" implied personhood. I disagreed, we went back and forth, then in the interest of a compromise, I said "fine, get rid of the word 'being'", and then they come back with a whole new set of complaints. It's getting old fast. Is a revert war is the way to go about changing things? It seems to be the only way to get anything changed around here, since plain and simple arguments on the talk page doesn't do anything.

This comment was removed as a breach of WP:Civility, WP:NOT and generally disruptive to Wikipedia. If you wish to continue your soliloquy, you are welcome to do so here or on user:Barwick, and I invite your comments on my own talk page at user talk:Tznkai although I will expect a certain amount of maturity if and when you do so.--Tznkai 16:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please sign your edits

Please sign your edits using four tildes ( ~~~~ ) - Thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 20:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Hey Barwick - my personal views aside, I know there's been a lot of butting heads at the Abortion page. What I've found - when I have a personal view on something (and that is one page where my views are very well defined) I have found that rather than trying to directly force an issue, it has worked better to find compromise, so that both sides of a view can be presented. You'll notice, if you look back over the page, that the Abortion Debate section has changed drastically to not represent pro-life with such the negative slant that it used to; the article has also had the fetal pain section added back, with a lot of hard consensus work, after a long hiatus. Same goes for the failed abortion section, where the "expelled fetus" has now accurately been termed an infant/neonate. These are sections that took a lot of work, but have slowly brought a more NPOV status to the page. I know consensus can be frustrating, but the reality is - not many come to wikipedia to change their views (that usually happens person-to-person - I can't think of a single opinion of mine that has been altered over the web). But by working with patience, you CAN help eliminate information that is blatantly biased. Anyways - just trying to say, butting heads doesn't work - putting them together can be frustrating, but often achieves results.DonaNobisPacem 08:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Barwick - just so you're aware, my comments on the Abortion page were not aimed at you - they were aimed at Cyde's insults and belittling comments.DonaNobisPacem 06:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not give up at the abortion page. I apologize if I have offended you or if you disagree with the content of the abortion article. We may disagree, but your input is certainly welcome and important. I know you are a relative newcoer... don't give up because you have "lost." Wikipedia isn't about winning or losing, it is about making good articles. I know that you can help do that! -Parallel or Together? 08:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Good luck with your business and your book! Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and all that good stuff as well! -Parallel or Together? 09:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Image158.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Image158.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bev net

The Bev net quote looks good. Can you add the cite too? David D. (Talk) 02:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XS Energy Drink

Dude. I have no personal feelings about this energy drink. Never tried it. Nor do I have any personal feelings against you. My issue was that you put up a quote without referencing it. It's not my precious page that I referenced you to, it's Wikipedia policy - and makes good sense. If people put up quotes of others without attributing it, how does one know it's the truth? To show you how it is properly done I have reformatted the reference and added the web page on which it appears. I hope this helps.

I must say I didn't appreciate your choice of expletives either. Ifnord 00:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you had cited the " F***ING QUOTE" from the begining it wouldn't have been deleted multiple times. There is no need to over react, especially since it is your sources that have been lacking. In fact, you should never react in such away, you lose any credability you had and label yourself as a 'POV warrior'. David D. (Talk) 06:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PROD

[edit] XS Energy Drink

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article XS Energy Drink, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:XS Energy Drink. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Will Beback · † · 20:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)