User talk:Childhoodsend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you leave me a message here, I shall reply here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I will expect a reply there.

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Please feel welcome to use this space for feedbacks on my contributions or for any question you may have to which I can reasonably be expected to provide an answer that is likely to be correct.

[edit] Three revert rule

I just wanted to remind you of the three-revert rule - if you revert an article to a previous version more than three times, you can be blocked from editing. Please review the link I provided. Thanks. Guettarda 21:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the note, it was appropriate. I answered on your talk page. --Childhood's End 21:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twelve Monkeys as Christian allegory.

Greetings Childhoodsend, I've been following the discussion on Talk:Twelve Monkeys and hope you'll find the following useful. The Journal of Religion and Film has an article titled Bruce Willis as the Messiah: Human Effort, Salvation and Apocalypticism in Twelve Monkeys [1]. The Journal Of Religion and Popular Culture article The Structural Characteristics of the Cinematic Christ-figure[2] also makes numerous references to Cole as a Christ figure. Cheers -- Rydra Wong 16:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful notes. I knew that a few religious papers discussed the Christ story hidden in 12 Monkeys but I thought we needed something closer to the film industry in order to add this to the movie's page. Again, what I wanted to support was the idea that the movie is more than only James Cole as a Christ-figure, but that it is a whole Christ allegory, with many more Bible characters represented throughout the story. The Cinescape issue with these notes will support adequately, I think. Thanks again ! --Childhood's End 15:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Barnstar of Valour

 The Barnstar of Valour
In recognition of your defence of NPOV and fairness. When one man stands tall, the backbones of all others are stiffened. Remember you are not alone in believing Wikipedia should be free of censors and bias. Good luck & many thanks. -- Brittainia 20:35, 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 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Proof of conspiracy - Raul654 filed complaint just to "get this monkey off WMC's back"

The following is from my recent post, please go to the Admin noticeboard and post your views on this now exposed conspiracy by a group of Administrators. It is at: -- Brittainia 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC) [3]

Raul654, this post [4] that you made just after UBeR filed a checkuser against William M. Connolley, clearly shows that this entire complaint against UBeR was orchestrated just to "get this monkey off WMC's back". The next step should be to stop this intentional diversionary complaint against UBeR and investigate your activities instead. Your entire group [5], [6], orchestrating these illicit activities should be thoroughly investigated by all those who have wasted a lot of their valuable time on your "getting this monkey off WMC's back". It is now clear that you yourself are guilty of most of the accusations which you have levelled at UBeR above, I believe that you and your co-conspirators should be permanently banned from editing global warming articles in order to stop the kind of bias, frustration and witch hunts which you are causing by your devious tactics. Everyone should know that this group are currently being investigated and exposed by a radio show for their hijacking of global warming articles as this group already knows [7] - thus they are bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. -- Brittainia 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel word issue

Yes, I was aware of that discussion. I agreed with William and others. Hence I reverted. JoshuaZ 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Who are the others? As I said, you certainly didnt read. Here's the last contribution :
"C'mon William I think even though you know the guy well you have to give way on that. Annan is referred to widely as a Climatologist (...)" --BozMo
--Childhood's End 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the contribution to the Sandbox

I hope you can find time to help out more on the Sandbox on AGW Controversy. The comment you left was more appropriate to the discussion page and so I will move it over there. If you think the outline will flow better by changing the order, go ahead and make the change. And if you know of any especially informative links on any of the subjects being debated, please add them in the appropriate spot. Thanks again! RonCram 21:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Global Warming Swindle

Childhoodsend, I do not know if you got a chance to watch the entire documentary. You are can find it on YouTube here: The Great Global Warming Swindle [8] Best wishes.RonCram 16:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I'll watch it. I saw the preview a few weeks ago. Regards. --Childhood's End 17:31, 21 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. If you wish to disregard those who disagree with you, fine. Labeling them as conspiracy theorists is nonsense. ~ UBeR 05:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I looked at the article and I must say I had a hard time understanding the message it wants to deliver. Is it really pretending that the global warming skeptics are conspiracy theorists, or is it just saying that according to some skeptics, the global warming theory could be a conspiracy theory (in which case, I think there is some notable material)? Obviously, this article needs a lot of work if it is to be kept. --Childhood's End 14:15, 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 14:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bushism

Dear Childhoodsend, I am glad you agree with the section now. The new title for the section is indeed better than the previous one, regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the section - I am only satisfied now that it is not only sourced with a dubious blog. I tried to help it only because it survived a previous deletion request. This whole article, and mostly the section on "Other Bushisms", is funny, yes, but it is by no means encyclopedic. It is notable only in Bush-hating circles. This section is now made of quotes taken from the White House press releases and posted on Wikipedia as "Bushisms", but the fact is what is a "Bushism" is left to partisan views. I cannot give an exact count of how many WP policies are violated by this, but what is certain is that almost every statement of Wikipedia:Notability is violated by this article. --Childhood's End 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page edits

Hi Childhood's End, this is to let you know that I believe these talk page edits [9] [10] qualify as personal attacks. Although we disagree on content, I hope we can both agree that comments should stick to the content, rather than commenting on the editors themselves, sarcastically calling their thoughts "awesome", or labeling them in ways that I can only assume you intended to be derogatory. I don't want to make a big deal out of this since I know discussions on controversial topics can become heated; but for that same reason I think it is doubly important in such cases to keep the discussion focused on the content. Thanks in advance for your consideration. --Nethgirb 01:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The talk page edits you refered to (one of which was not even involving you) were perhaps made in the course of heated discussions about controversial topics, as you adequately present it, and could have been more "civil". But to qualify them as "personal attacks" is obviously far-stretched. Thanks for the note anyway, I'll consider it. --Childhood's End 14:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Faith

Re your recent comment on the FA Global Warming discussion. I also believe that you are contributing in good faith as you see it, though I have not always come across this way in our discussions. I can appreciate that you believe the science is being misdirected through political machinations, though I do not quite agree with you on the amount or the emphasis on the UN vs. the US, China, and other administrations that are uncomfortable with the opinions of the IPCC and major world science academies. Nevertheless, I do believe that you have a strong desire to seek the truth and respect that above all else. --Skyemoor 15:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Unlike yourself, most editors involved in the GW articles find it hard to accept that I am not a mere contrarian and that, as honestly and as objectively as I can, I only seek the truth with a more philosophical approach that should not be extirpated from the scientific debate. I am aware that seeking truth involves a certain amount of subjectivity that I cannot entirely escape and that I have opinions about the matter, but all my edits are done in good faith, indeed. Thanks again for your note, and I look forward to further interesting discussions with you. --Childhood's End 15:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Escaping subjectivity is indeed a monumental challenge; there have been times I have been quite comfortable in my beliefs, only to be exposed to information from sources of high veracity that forced reconsideration on my part. But reliable sources have come to be the main foundation for my beliefs (analysis a topic for another chat); home sick for a day years ago in college, I stumbled across DeBorgrave's "The Spike", which more fully opened up to me the concept of critical examination of information sources (and to good purpose). Indeed, I became a stalwart moderate Republican for the next 18 years, until the 2000 elections, at which time I decided to become independent and carefully sift each issue on its own merits. While I pull from many online sources, one of my all-time favorite news sources is "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer", due to the excellent selection of experts on both sides of the topics covered during a given broadcast (recording the show allows me to pick and choose the topics I want to spend time viewing). What are your thoughts on the news sources you like to draw from, and have you any opinions on [this study? --Skyemoor 16:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Ever read any of Jeff Cohen's works? ~ UBeR 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
(Assuming you are talking to me) I've not, though I've seen him in his various capacities on air, and am aware of his work at FAIR. Do you have any particular book of his that you recommend? --Skyemoor 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Not to take over your talk page today, I just wanted to touch again on how politics do interfere at times with the scientific process at the UN, though my reference will be in a different direction than you were implying. And if you did not see the SciAm article I mentioned last week, take a look here. --Skyemoor 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. No problem with discussing a bit on my talk page. Your first question is of importance. My view is that we should never fully trust any news source. News sources should not be seen as knowledge vehicules. They are all biaised to some point by an editorial stance. Some sources have a publicly known stance (such as Fox), which is fair. Some others are believed to be neutral (such as CNN or BBC), which is more "tricky". But as long as you have developed the ability to extirpate the editorial from the news you are getting, news are good for spreading factual events. The next problem is that they do not spread all the facts - they cherry-pick. You thus need several sources to get a better idea of what's going on. Finally, the only news that I will use as knowledge are those that I cannot refute.

I have found much inspiration in the Austrian School philosophers. Understanding what the free market is and what are its virtues is nowadays almost lost knowledge (which generates little interest). Few people still understand that, and why, civilization is an outcome of freedom, not a creation of governments. The news, no matter which source, certainly do not take this kind of lost knowledge into account and fail to ask questions that ought to be asked most of the time.

The UN was created as an ideal worldwide peacekeeping force. Few people will disagree that it has been hijacked by politics before it started overriding its original role. The UN is now a place where good and evil make concessions to each other in order to reach some middle ground on varying topics. In the end, both communism and freedom lose, leaving social-democracy, seen as more moderate, alone in the field. But it remains that the institutions of freedom are not emerging as winners out of the UN process.

This political process has created the Kyoto/wealth redistribution file. In 1992, the UN admitted that the science was uncertain but it nonetheless wanted action[1] (see Principle 15). They needed to create certainty. Now, a skeptic like me thinks that all the scientists that could have cast doubts regarding the IPCC reports are left out of the process[2]. He also thinks that all the other scientists are humans and have now understood that in order to get a nice career, public appearances, fundings[3], invitations to UN-sponsored conferences and parties in Paris[4] and such, they need to support the anthropogenic global warming theories. And once this has gone for long enough, it is now hard for any scientist to find scientific sources to develop any new avenue of doubt towards AGW. The science is now strictly one-sided and this inevitably leads to one-sided scientific reports.

Soon, if nothing else happens, there will not exist any more scientific grounds to support any dissenting opinion. Climate predictions will be considered as certain as the basic laws of physics (if they are not already, which shows that we have a political/propaganda problem). If this happens, my only hope is that these predictions happen to be right, as I admit that as of today, I simply do not know. After all, I am only skeptic...

Regards. --Childhood's End 19:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. If I may, I would like to interject on this subject at this point, as your full reply covers several areas that are in themselves substantive threads for discussion.
I agree that some news sources prefer to (somewhat) cloak their leanings in order to reduce the amount of filtration their readers/viewers actively employ. For example, the Washington Post appears to be relatively neutral on the surface, but by reading the Washington Times, I can see crucial data and application of logic upon it that is missing from some articles which would otherwise have affected the conclusion I would have drawn. The study of propaganda can be rather detailed, though there are several fundamental techniques that merit memorization that can be found [www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/546409/posts here]. Card stacking and omission are one of the most common, though almost always accompanied by one or more others. I see several used during any given exchange by politically motivated 'experts' on "The Newshour", for example, though these techniques are in use throughout the media by everyone who wants to establish a particular scenario as a popular perception (sometimes focusing on a particular demographic). This only scratches the surface of this subject, but we can always come back to this.
I admittedly have not read any of the Austrian School philosophers, though if I may be so bold, I believe from reading the wikipage that they might be similar in outlook to writers such as Adam Smith and David Hume, whose works I have a modest exposure to. I strongly believe that free market principles are needed to enable innovation, personal initiative, community (at all levels) viability, and a number of other positive aspects of our society. However, a pure free market can run into a number of issues, many of them moral. For example, I find selling drugs to schoolchildren abhorrent, though it could be argued that we should not restrict this rightful free market. I also believe that my freedom to express myself stops at the point of imposing harm on others; for example, if one chose not to use their toilet to relieve themself, rather using their balcony railing or small urban backyard. Other issues are difficult for a society to manage without regulation; some in this country ran for office promising to shutdown government agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Aviation Administration. Complete and unfettered access to all frequencies and airspace could quickly make them unusable, and in the case of airspace, unsafe. So some government regulation, I believe, is necessary for society to function smoothly. The difficult challenge is to determine where to draw the line. For example, most people would agree that dumping trash along a road or sidewalk is unsightly and unhealthy. Still others agree that some levels of pollution impact the health of the population and merit some level of regulation. How much is too much? Should we care if it impacts the health or fiscal viability of other nations (e.g., downwind of Chernobyl)? I admit that I do not have answers that would be acceptable to all or likely even most. Identifying the probability and impact is the crucial first question; identifying and selecting the mitigation alternatives (if any) is the second step in the risk management process. Your thoughts? --Skyemoor 11:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If you ever have the chance to read it, you will absolutely be interested in the thoughtful insights of Friedrich Hayek about state propaganda that he developed in his famous book The Road to Serfdom, chapter XI, The End of Truth. 60 years later now, and how precise and premonitory it was is striking us more and more as time goes by.
The Scottish Enlightenment (of which Adam Smith and David Hume were major figures) somewhat paved the way for the Austrian School. Its thinkers discovered the case for freedom and became an alternative to the ideas of Thomas Hobbes and his Leviathan (a book which William Connolley seems to have in high esteem!). As for the problems you raise, most Austrian School philosophers were not anarcho-capitalists but rather minarchists (I am one myself). Adam Ferguson said that “Liberty or Freedom is not, as the origin of the name may seem to imply, an exemption from all restraints, but rather the most effectual applications of every just restraint to all members of a free society whether they be magistrates or subjects.” I cannot address here all the important questions that your reply raised, but among others, an interesting idea has been developed by Milton Friedman in his Capitalism and Freedom, in which he suggested that alternatives to market forces such as government intervention should be explored when what he called "neighborhood effects" need to be addressed (a basic example would indeed be an owner who, in his rightful use of his land, pollutes the land of his neighbour - for such a case, rules and an "umpire" seem desirable). Regards. --Childhood's End 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind my butting in, but even the anarcho-capitalists have ways of addressing the problems mentioned by Skyemoor, namely by privatizing everything (or nearly everything: some recognize the desirability of some public/collective property arising through voluntary cooperative action) and enforcing property rights. An anarcho-capitalist society would not be without law and mores. There is an extensive literature on these issues. Air pollution is a trickier problem, but the others raised are fairly easy. Even the case of selling drugs to children need not be a problem in an an-cap society: children are minors and their whose parents must make important decisions for them. Since the children are not competent adults yet and their parents are the guardians of their welfare, I don't see why an an-cap legal system wouldn't make it illegal to sell drugs to children without their parents' consent. It's good to see another fan of Hayek on Wikipedia. Cheers, Geoffrey Allan Plauche 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for coming by. Well, this all comes again to our preference between Hayek and Murray Rothbard :) I highly respect Rothbard for his contributions to strict economics such as his analysis of the causes and management of the Great Depression but for the whole, Hayek remains the most inspiring thinker to me. Although I somewhat support the philosophy behind many an-cap solutions, I remain skeptical that they are all realistic. As Milton Friedman best put it, "However attractive anarchy may be as a philosophy, it is not feasible in a world of imperfect men". Cheers. --Childhood's End 13:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regulation

Thank you for your reading recommendation; I note one of Hayek's quotes and WP observations of the minarchist caution, "'It is important not to confuse opposition against this kind of planning with a dogmatic laissez-faire attitude'. The Road to Serfdom mentions the provision or regulation of sign posts, roads, pollution and noise from factory, and the harmful side-effects of deforestation, for example, as issues that cannot be left purely to the unregulated market price mechanism." I would note that GHGs have been identified by some (WW!) as pollutants, so with this admittedly crude analysis, regulation of GHGs does seems to be in line with Hayek's philosophy. --Skyemoor 14:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all scientists know Karl Popper for his contributions to the philosophy of science. But few scientists are aware that Popper and Hayek read and cited each other often. Popper once wrote to Hayek that "I think I have learnt more from you than from any other living thinker, except perhaps Alfred Tarski" and dedicated his Conjectures and Refutations to Hayek.
Hayek was foremost an economist, but he had a scientific background, being knowledgeable in biology/evolution/Darwinism, as well as in psychology and Law. Hayek esteemed science, but certainly esteemed even more a person's awareness of the limits of science and of human knowledge.
I am not certain that Hayek would have supported regulation of GHGs, but I am quite certain that he would have opposed the appeals to consensus and the kind of regulations actually proposed by the UN (Kyoto). Hayek also believed in equality before the law and that legislation should apply to all equally rather than according to status. Well, unfortunately, we will never know for sure... --Childhood's End 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Any idea what kind of measures Hayek might have suggested (or concurred with) if he embraced predominantly AGW and acknowledged the risk of the projected impacts? I realize this takes us into the realm of pure speculation, but let's explore this regardless. --Skyemoor 17:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, as you said, this is pure speculation and I do not want to go very far into it. As I said, I am quite certain that Hayek would have opposed Kyoto, probably on the grounds that ultimately, it is designed to use science for social justice (or, in Hayek's words, redistributive justice) purposes rather than for purely scientific purposes. Granted what you hypothesize, he perhaps would have supported more investement in new technologies. I also suppose that as most economists worthy of that title, he would have dismissed the Stern Review as a pure fallacy, so he would not have given much credit to the presumed economic problems of global warming (not that he would have believed there is none to foresee, but rather that he would have believed that no economist can foresee what they will be).
I see many links between economics study and climate study. Both the market and the climate are complex systems. In both fields, some "scientists" pretent that they possess the scientific tools and abilities to predict what is going to happen in the future, while in both fields, some "old guys" say that this is presumptuous and that these systems cannot be fully understood, let alone predicted. This could drive me into a long essay, but I will stop this here :-) --Childhood's End 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, we have fairly advanced energy technologies now, and I do not believe this is the crux of the problem. The Big 3 automakers in the US all came up with 5 passenger family car prototypes that achieved over 70 mpg. Volkswagen prototyped a 2 seater that acheived 285 mpg; it's evolving under tight wraps, though they've said certain expensive aspects are not yet marketable. The Big 3 convinced Bush to kill the PNGV program, because they wanted to continue making high margins on the light trucks they were advertising heavily. Engines are getting more efficient, though we've moved from 4 and 6 cylinders in the 80s and early 90s to 6, 8, and 10 cylinders. Houses in the US have gotten much bigger, and air conditioning is a given. Comfort is taken to higher levels in all seasons, so it's little wonder we're seeing an epidemic of obesity in most of the developed nations. Big screen TVs, riding mowers, and a gaggle of powered lawn tools are now becoming standard equipment. Houses are being constructed far out in what was once distant farmland, with 50+ mile commutes becoming ordinary. Every 10% we save in efficient design and implementation is swallowed up by a 25-50% increase in energy demand. There are no silver bullet energy solutions out there that will provide the equivalent of perpetual motion. Nuclear fuels themselves have eventually limited reserves. Biofuels take arable land out of food production for very marginal energy return (and so many barley acres are being replaced for biofuel planting that beer will become more expensive).
So technology is not the problem; it's consumption levels. Our two cheapest sources of energy, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, are conservation and energy efficiency ("A penny saved is a penny earned"). As one educated in power systems engineering, the best case I can forsee is limited nuclear and coal generation, with greatly expanded renewable energy production and energy storage. Europe alone has many energy challenges ahead of it, and to be beholdened to Russia for increasing amounts of natural gas and oil is almost like having the Sword of Damocles hanging over its head.
So like yeast in a beer brew, we face the dual peril of perishing from the effects of our waste (AGW), and not getting enough sugar (oil) in what amounts to an excruciatingly slow train wreck. Speaking of beer, if we were just around the corner from each other, I'd buy you a pint down at the local pub to hear your perspective. Cheers, --Skyemoor 01:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your informative view about this issue. We obviously cannot satisfyingly discuss this matter here as we could at our favourite pub around a nice pint, so I'll only add a few short comments.
I am sure technology investment alone would not solve the entire problem, provided AGW was true. But we cannot stop civilization either just like the environment activists ask (actually, what they mostly want is to stop capitalism, but they fail to understand that capitalism creates civilization and that to stop it would slowly bring us back to a primitive state). Big TVs, bigger houses, air conditionning, faster transportation to farther places, it's all become in high demand not because some evil rich people want to exploit other people, but because we demand these goods. If these products/services are successful, that's because some widely held needs or wishes are being satisfied, which is a good thing. That such goods are becoming available to more and more people is also indicative that humankind is getting more and more prosperous, not the other way around.
Economists worthy of that title would tell us that as the price of a resource goes up, demand for it goes down (it's not always that simple, but it's the idea). It is sometimes a long term process, but it works in every instance. That's how whales have been saved back in the 1800-1900's US. Whale oil was in high demand, but as whales were hunted down and their population getting scarce, the price of whale oil went up. This stimulated other people to find and sell a cheaper substitute, which of course worked and helped save the whales.
The European situation that you mentioned is a good example. As long as the situation with Russia will be tolerable enough to them that it does not become an incentive strong enough to find an aleternative, they will live with it. But my guess is that somehow, alternatives that we do not think of now would come to satisfy their needs if the situation with Russia would come to degenerate. We should not presume that we know in advance what could and could not be done in such events. Provided its innovative capacity is let free, humakind has an history for solving problems and satisfying its needs. Problem with large parts of Europe is that the free market is quite restrained and perhaps would not be as efficient as it could be in providing alternatives. Anyway... I agree we could have an interesting chat. Be well. --Childhood's End 13:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Complex systems

Thank you for your contribution to the complex system article in the past. Currently there is a Call for Deletion for the associated Category:Complex systems covering this interdisplinary scientific field. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 14:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming article

I wouldn't even try helping out with that article. There are a few people who lord over all additions, and usually revert them, thinking their sources are the best. I've tried making some useful additions during the past year, and seen most of them reverted. And I'm actually a meteorologist. It's a wierd, unwikipedialike, domain there. The article has been reported to wikipedia for its problems. Thegreatdr 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples of information that was not allowed? I would be interested in seeing this. ~ UBeR 21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. i would be interested in helping with your material in any way. By the way, ch, i likeed your suggestion of including material from that Economist article. Let me know if you have further ideas. See you. --Sm8900 02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that it is quite hard to participate honestly in the global warming articles. Some people there have intense or vested personal interests in it and have an ownership attitude, while others sometimes add to the bickering with unrelevant comments/edits. We must agree that a certain "control" is welcome. But my fear is that Wikipedia is slowly but surely being turned into a Kyoto advertisement program, deprived of any ackowledgement of the limits of science or of the existence of scientific doubts. If I can say, Thegreatdr, these articles need people like you since you are scientifically knowledgeable and that this is what is sought for over there. Some good edits make their way through the process even though they do not come from the usual participants, and even though the process is usually exhausting, indeed. Regards. --Childhood's End 15:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. BTW, i saw your exchange at Bozmo's talk page with him and Raymond Arritt, re the whole edit pratices of Global warming. And I also saw you recent comment at the article talk page re that new editor, and the people already commenting. Just want to let you know, i posted the following comment at bozmo's talk page, in the same exchange as yours. Sadly, he deleted it. But I think you'll like it. Here it is, below.
Gosh, it's nice of WMC to bear the burden of the community which leaves him to sort out the details. It must be awfully hard when there are so many people who keep covering up their POV attitude with reasonable statements; thankfully the three of you can see through that. It must be tough for WMC when so many people beat up on him personally for always being the one contending with them, when they simply don't realize, that's his job. Only he possesses the expertise to express the true voice of Wikipedia. Only he possesses the knowledge to be able to critique and evaluate every single person's intended contribution, and to lay out the standard for them to meet, which he alone can judge. So I'm glad gou both set Childhood's End aright. it sure is important to point out that being cautious and objective is not as important as keeping in place the one editor who is the only one qualified to rule on each and every submission, and to relentlessly edit others when they do not meet your version the NPOV version of what this article should be. Thanks. --Sm8900 20:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hope you like that. See you. --Sm8900 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sm8900, thanks for your support. If I may, I would only like to add that I somewhat understand Raymond Arritt's and BozMo's view that William M. Connolley may often feel under siege and is regularly the subject of some "vitriolic" attacks. Thus, I understand what they say when they explain that they feel compelled to take his side. But my disagreement comes from the fact that they fail to acknowledge that William can also fuel this "siege" by his actions, edits, or even edit summaries. My view is that they should not systematically take his side, what would help release some pressure off other editors. See you around. --Childhood's End 16:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That sounds right. I agree with you completely. thanks for the reply. See you. --Sm8900 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collectivism Article

You claimed that Mussolini and Italian Fascist opposed individualism and supported collectivism. Please explain, I have yet to see anything from them that supports collectivism over individualism. Especially given that the original decrees of the new Fascist government in Italy were to stop government interventions into the market economy. Full Shunyata 20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand from your last comment in Talk:Collectivism#Articulating Divergent Views that you have now come to the conclusion that fascism is a philosophy centered on state authority and that this is anti-individualistic, so I may be late answering your request. Perhaps I could only add here that the word Fascism has "suffered" an important change of meaning since its early use by Mussolini and that it is now unfortunately used in a pejorative way by both the left and the right. But this should not lead us to forget what it really is and that it is at its core anti-individualistic. As Mussolini said :
  • "If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."
  • "We were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms assumed by civilization, the more restricted the freedom of the individual must become."
  • "Liberty is a duty, not a right."
It is sad that humankind fails to remember the lessons of the past and what Fascism was really about - submission of the individual to state/collective authority. This progressive denial has inevitably been the work of socialism. --Childhood's End 14:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
1) I sincerely disagree that socialism is about the submission of the indiviudal to the state or collective authority. I can't speak for state socialism (not being a state socialist), but libertarian socialism is about free of the indiviudal. Freedom of the individual to bow to neither the state nor to private landlords, bosses or capital owners. Freedom of the individual to manage themself and their own labor. IMHO, "socialism" means labor ownership of capital rather than capital owning labor. But that's just my opinion and I don't wish to engage in an ideological debate. And I certainly wouldn't classify Fascism as a type of socialism. It seems you are simply defining socialism as statism, or "collectivism" (which is a rather vague, idealistic and undefined concept, as individualism).
2) I believe the whole "individual vs. collective" debate is little more than rhetoric based in vague concepts instead of reality. I don't believe any society can be classified as "individualistic" or "collectivistic" because every society has many elements of both. I think the distinction is largely a creation of European liberal ideology. Not qualities or definitions universally accepted by all people in every culture. It gets kind of insulting when European values are imposed as self-evidently universal and objective.
3) Whatever their rhetoric may have been, their actions show that Fascism and Nazism were absolutely dedicated to the protection of private enteprise and wealthy businessman (even if monopoly capital). http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0930-25.htm They were simply not liberal capitalists. But one doesn't have to be a liberal capitalist to be a capitalis or an individualist. The claim that Fascism is a type of collectivism (especially that it was a type of "socialism", you would have clarify what you mean by "socialism") can be POV because not all scholars share that POV. So what makes one scholar (the one you left in) more objetive than the one you edited out? Full Shunyata 19:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you raise important and interesting issues which could be discussed for days - I'll try to share some of my views briefly, in your order.
1) As you pointed out, there are socialism branches which support individualism, like libertarian socialism indeed. But they remain mostly theoretical trends of thought and have never been really implemented into practice on a large scale. Also, these socialism branches are, imho, unsignificant compared to the main socialism ideas. I also disagree and I actually would classify Fascism as a type of socialism - fascism is just the end of the road. This has been first emphasized by Nobel prize Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom, a book that has inspired thousands of scholars around the world. Of course, after due reading, one is allowed to disagree, and as you said, I do not want either to engage in an ideological debate :)
2) Agreed that every society has elements of both individualism and collectivism. But I would say that the distinction is mostly about how individualistic a given society has become. Any given society starts as a collectivist entity. That is the primitive state - follow the leader as he decides the objectives/goals. Then, a given group may progressively evolve to a more individualistic system while remaining a "society". No matter what, this is a long process, and the determination you seek to make certainly involves some subjectivity. I am also sympathetic to your point about European values being imposed. Only, we must not forget that Europe has, until the 20th century, been at the centre of most of the worlds' political developments, from Greece to Rome, to the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution. I guess there's something normal about some key old concepts being defined according to European history.
3) I'm running out of time, I'll come back to you later for your third point. --Childhood's End 01:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
3) (returning) I think that if you use "progressive" sources for information about what fascism was, such as collectivedreams.org, you will inevitably find views that fascism was not a socialist system. Then, you may find references in Hitler's books that private capital must be protected and so on, but we must first look at what really happened and the fact is that in fascist countries, the state could dictate to private owners how or towards what ends to use their means of production, if not control it per se. I must disagree that such "property" can be considered "private property" or individualistic. Fascist countries have also eliminated the old "Rule of Law" principle, a key element of any individualistic political system. The core elements of collectivism can be found in all fascist experiences (National socialism, strong leader, common ends dictated by the state, no Rule of Law, restricted private property, and so on). I really suggest you read The Road to Serfdom as in this book, a thorough study of the early socialist philosophers is made, as well as it is shown how their works has influenced the development of totalitarian experiences such as Nazi Germany. This being said, the collectivism article could of course point out, without giving them undue weight, that some notable scholars think/thought that fascism is individualistic. But the article should not pretend that such a thing is actually verified or correct. --Childhood's End 16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm glad you responded. You seem to be a fair-handed editor, I appreciate that.
1) As for libertarian socialism I think the reason they have not been implemented on a large scale (except for Spain, Hungary, Ukraine and if you consider early human society to be a form of it) is because it a way of life that isn't liked by the powers that be. It has been met with violent repression by Capitalist, Fascist and Bolshevist states alike. And for Fascism, I would classify it as an extreme form of capitalism due to its highly capitalistic economic actions (such as protecting Big Business) and it's insistence upon maintaining private capital (no form of socialism tries to protect private capital) and its emphasis on class colloboration (as opposed to class warfare). It can only be classified as "socialism" if you just equate statism with socialism. But of course, under those confines libertarian socialism and libertarian communism would not be forms of socialism. If socialism is simply statism or bland collectivism. It only bothers me because most socialists classify socialism as some form of "worker ownership", which Fascism was certaintly opposed to and took actions to violently oppress and kill socialists of all types. Just as most capitalists would define their philosophy as "ownership of private capital" instead of authoritarianism or corporatism.
2) The state is usually composed of a small group of indiviudals. It's hard to classify the state as a form of collectivism or individualism, it's a power unto itself. The State can oppress both the individual and the collective (the society that it governs over). As for "follow the leader" being a form of collectivism, it depends on perspective. Follow the leader involves an indiviudal or small group ruling over the collective. In that sense it could be considered a form of "individualism" since it empowers certain individuals (leaders) over other individuals. It could be considered a form of collectivism in the sense that it encouraged groupthink and suppresses individual identity. Societies where everyone does there own thing could be seen as a form of collectivism in the sense that everyone follows the paradigm of what's considered 'individualistic' (much like the paradox of goth kids who try to be individualistic by all dressing alike in their independence) or that communal ethics are oppressed by the collective society, or individualistic in the sense that everyone moves to the beat of their own drum. I think it comes down to a matter of perception.
3) "Only, we must not forget that Europe has, until the 20th century, been at the centre of most of the worlds' political developments, from Greece to Rome" I sincerely disagree. If you look at world history, many of the ideas in Rome and Greece can be found in other civilizations as well. And the many of the ideas of Greece and Rome were either influenced by or copied from other civilizations (such as the Egyptians, the Nubians, the Mesopotamians, Persians). That's a rather Eurocentric worldview and somewhat racist, and that's why many people believe that Europe invented everything or most things of value. We are usually taught history through a very bised and Eurocentric prism.
http://twm.co.nz/eurocentrism.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocentrism Full Shunyata 11:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Only some quick answers, as such a discussion can be endless :
1) See my 3) above.
2) You ignore that a "collective" is at best an abstract concept - only the "individual" is a concrete entity. A "collective" is a group of individuals and thus, when you say that the State can oppress the individual or the collective, this seems to me misleading as in both cases, the State actually oppresses the individual. The use of "collective" is an impersonification (or anonymous) method making us forget that in the end, it is individuals who are victims of the oppression. To your next point; empowering certain individuals over others is never "individualistic" - the power to constrain others is always given in the name of the collective interest and is inherently collectivist. It is wrong and I must disapprove your attempt to try to analyze this under the angle of those who benefit from the power - the analysis must always be made under the angle of the 'subjects'. To your last point; to say that because everyone does their own thing can be construed as collectivism seems to me horse-drawn and I disapprove such a fallacious reasoning again. Being individualistic does not necessarily involve that you do not live within a society. An individualistic society creates a spontaneous order, while a collectivist society is an order which is the creation of an authoritative design.
3) I know that the early societies you refer to were among the first to trade in the commercial sense. But as for the development of democracy (the old noble concept of 'power to the people', not the corrupted concept known nowadays), the Greeks and the Romans were convinced that they were the first to make their respective "discoveries". As for whether this was true or not, I leave this determination to others. --Childhood's End 16:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting warnings

For the record, I have been the subject of a warning[11] by an administrator, Atlant, for comments that I made, on April 27, 2007. I have objected the nature and extent of this warning to this administrator's talk page as well as, in last resort, to the administrator's noticeboard.

Considering the essence of the comments made thereto and what was said previously, I have decided not to let show on my talk page the accusations made against me and thus deleted them. Yet, for transparancy, I feel obliged to make this story available through this thread. Those interested will follow the links provided above. --Childhood's End 21:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The WikiProject Systems

Thanks for joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems. I'm looking forward to exhanging ideas about this project and the things we can for each other. I've seen that you 've been editing complex system article, and that's something I like to know more about. I'm more a specialist in the older general systems theory and systems engineering, and know less about the recent developments. I also seen you made worked and talk about ecological items. A thing I would like started are working groups in the wikiproject around complex systems and ecological systems theory. Maybe these are things that might interest you. Please let me know? - Mdd 22:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

These things certainly interest me as from what I see, parallels are constantly being made between economics and weather/climate/ecological systems through complex systems analysis, notably for what regards predicatory capabilities. I'll be glad to share ideas and contribute where I can with inputs about Austrian Economics and Law systems where relevant. Perhaps I could note that I have also recently expanded a bit the article on Spontaneous order. Regards. --Childhood's End 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you made a good start with the David Orrell article. As you probebly have seen, I make some wikification there. By putting an WikiProjectSystems template on the talkpage you triggered the automated assessment system (and this came to my attention). Your article is now the about the 271th article in the WikiProject assessment. I also upgraded the importance of the article from low to mid (because almost all persons in the field are assessed mid). Regards. - Mdd 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems Engineering Initiative text. I've seen that you've been in quiet some discussion on the Talk:Spontaneous order page. Teardrop onthefire made a remark about it on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems page, which I didn't quiet understand. Should I look into it some more? - Mdd 21:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. As for my discussion with Teardrop onthefire, I think it has been settled, or so I hope... He wanted the concept of spontaneous order to be associated with anarchism prior to, or on equal level with libertarianism. I tried to explain that it is not as core to anarchism (except for a few anarchist trends of thought, such as anarcho-capitalism) as it is to libertarianism. He did not find much support for his stance anyway. Cheers. --Childhood's End 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this summary. That really clearifies the, from what I've seen the rather complicated, situation. I'v your so good in making summaries, and (I guess) you read David Orrells Apollo's Arrow, could you make a summary of that book in his article. This is one of the things I like to improve in the systems articles. Their are a lot of systems scientists mentioned, but still little is writing in the Wikipedia about their actual individual ideals? - Mdd 22:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I won't request a summary of David Orrell work anymore, but I could use some feedback on the Talk:Systems theory page. And thanks for the respons on the WikiProject Systems talk-page. Interesting that we came to the same conclusion!? - Mdd 01:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming/skepticism and NPOV

In case it means anything to you, I agree with the contention you seem to have that certain editors (including at least one administrator) tend to monopolize all global warming-related articles and revert any edits they don't like. If you'd like, you can add yourself to the Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming by adding {{User:Oren0/GWSkeptic}} to your user page. When some of these editors bully other editors, try to delete pages, or perform other egregious behavior, I've used the category to notify interested editors and increase collaboration.

Also, if you feel you've been wronged by an editor in any way, I encourage you to report it via the proper channels. Oren0 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Understanding warm bias in the temperature record

I know you have an interest in global warming. As you may know, there are serious problems with the temperature record being biased by UHI or similar warming biases related to land use changes, etc. ClimateAudit.org is organizing an effort to photograph sites. Understanding the issue will help you be a better editor and improve the quality of Wikipedia articles on AGW. If you are interested, you could be a part of the effort. Please take a look here. [12] RonCram 05:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I will give you a few links that will speed you along when you find the time (if you can). The effort is led by Anthony Watts, a regular contributor to ClimateAudit.org. Some of the pictures indicate that increasing temperatures are probably a result of changes at temperature stations. The website is here. [13] Steve McIntyre fully supports the effort. [14] And so does Roger Pielke Sr. [15] RonCram 07:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unwarranted adjustments to the temperature record

The Global warming controversy article needs to address the controversy around unwarranted government adjustments to the temperature record. I am hoping you may be able to help with this. Compare the historical temperatures ranges in the two images and relative changes to years 1935 and 1998. The image from 1999 can be found here. [16] The image from 2007 is here.[17] In 1999, temps for 1935 and 1998 were the same. However, by 2007 the temp for 1998 was considerable higher than 1935. I have done enough reading now to be convinced that the 1990s were NOT warmer than the dust bowl years of the 1930s. I believe alarmists like Jim Hansen are playing with the temperature record. In effect, these "adjustments" to the temperature record are done in order to create evidence of global warming. I need some help locating additional reliable sources on temperature adjustments. If you would like to participate in this effort, you can go to my User Page and click the "Email this user" button and we can discuss where this information may be found.RonCram 11:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Your theory would be interesting if true, but a simpler explanation is that the first plot shows temps for the whole year, while the second shows Jan-May only...as it says in the titles. --Nethgirb 11:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ron, thanks for coming by and for your efforts. For the moment though, I'm just an observer to this debate and I am more interested in the complex systems issues. But I'll keep an eye on it. Regards. --Childhood's End 14:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Nethgirb, that is embarrassing. I missed that. However, unwarranted adjustments to the temps are happening. I will have to find other images to show what is going on.RonCram 14:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Nethgirb, check out this [18] and this. [19] I came across this on Comment 15 here.[20] I thought I had found some images the GISS had forgotten to clean up. I was about those images but not about the unwarranted adjustments.RonCram 15:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIVIL

Leave out this kind of junk please [21] William M. Connolley 19:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? That was said in absolute good faith and was anything but uncivil. Do you maintain that your self-described behaviour is consistent with your administrator status? You must learn to accept legitimate remarks as none of us is perfect. --Childhood's End 19:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree William M. Connolley 19:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
At least trust that it was said in good faith. It really was. --Childhood's End 19:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the remark again. Its uncivil. Please don't re-add it. If you have any complaint about my actions vis-a-vis admin status, place it on the admins complaint page. As editors, we're equal to everyone else and you have no call to comment William M. Connolley 19:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not uncivil. WP:CIVIL is not a basket in which we can throw anything that tickles us. I have no complaint to make vis-a-vis your admin status. I merely pointed out that what you were doing in this instance was not consistent with this status, period. Now, perhaps I have no call to comment. If that's really the case, that does not look good for administrators' accountability, but even then, that would only be my mistake and would not mean that I have been uncivil. Don't delete comments only because they dont suit you. --Childhood's End 19:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Like I say - if my behaviour or editing is inconsistent with admin status, report it. Otherwise, leave it alone William M. Connolley 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Like I say, dont throw around uncivility accusations when you know that there is no case for it. You can disagree that I am entitled to comment your behaviour with regard to your admin status, but that does not make my edit uncivil. --Childhood's End 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, round again, how very familiar: I believe that your remark was deliberately uncivil William M. Connolley 20:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Come on now, stop repeating that my remark was uncivil and please explain what in this remark can lead you to consider it uncivil. Right now, it seems that you consider uncivil per se my remark because it's a remark about your admin status and/or your behaviour, but pending your reasons I am willing to believe that this is not the case and that something escapes my attention. --Childhood's End 20:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Me thinks Mr. Bill doth protest too much. --Britcom 06:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calm down

I hate to see editors heading for trouble... can I suggest you chill. Your problems stem from disputes over content, which are easily resolved. Articles can reflect more than one opinion, but you do need consensus. Can I suggest that by going through an uninvolved third party, you can work out your differences? --Dweller 14:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for this advice. I actually tried to reach out to Raul's talk page and to simply delete his personal attacks, but nothing worked. He even pushed it himself to the admins' noticeboard, asking that someone keep an eye on me...(!) I have now shared my view of this therein.
Just curious... which third party could have (or could still) settle this? --Childhood's End 14:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Find an experienced user (an admin is good) who doesn't edit on the subject and has some time to spare. Ask Raul (nicely) if he'd be happy with this approach and then approach some of the admins. --Dweller 14:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I strongly (very strongly) recommend you stop editing the relevant articles and talk pages straight away while you seek a mediator, as all you'll be achieving now is keeping the conflict heated and making the mediator's job more difficult. Unless of course you've chosen to ignore my advice, which is of course your prerogative. --Dweller 14:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I dont think that Raul is much interested in mediation. For him, there is truth (his views) and false claims (the others). I mean, even the IPCC and the other scientific editors agree there is a margin of uncertainty about global warming science which necessarily allows for legitimate opposing viewpoints. But I did stop editing these articles since this dispute has erupted, except for trying to explain to Raul the difference between what he calls "reality" and information found in newspapers/magazines which he uses to call me a liar. But I dont think I'll get anywhere with this either, so I'll abide by your advice. Thanks. --Childhood's End 15:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. Good luck, whatever you choose to do. --Dweller 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi, Childhoodsend, long time no see. I would not ordinarily devote so much of my time to Wikipedia nowadays, but to see such erroneous and such meritless attack campaigns for the purpose of silencing opposition is so wrong and so inconvenient for Wikipedia to allow. I am sure the Wikipedia community will see through Raul654's ploys and absolve of you of any major wrongdoing. I can only hope that the same people will finally see Raul654 for his deceptive and embarrassing behavior that is so counter to what Wikipedia indeed strives to be. Best of luck. ~ UBeR 22:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi UBeR,
Thank you for your time. As I said, I'm somewhat stunned by the events, but having some support encouraged me to defend myself against Raul's witch-hunt. --Childhood's End 00:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Childhoodsend/Balance check --Stephan Schulz 20:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Radiant's close might have been the general view. Shouldn't have closed it so early, however, and you might ask that admin. to reopen, and could take it to DRV if refused. Suggestion, however, is to find another way to deal with the material. Do not call it "balance check"-- call it something bland. And do not limit it to a single issue, even at first. It will be easier to defend that way. And when you link to individual users, do it as [[:User:DGG]] with the colon. That way it links, but doesn't add to the clutter in "what links here" DGG (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Smith and Darwin

Hi, I have a question about you recent edit to Natural selection. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 21:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate change denial criticisms sandbox

I've created a sandbox that I'm inviting you and others to contribute to. Don't get me wrong, I still think you're wrong (about the notability of pundits making the connection itself as opposed to the notability of pundits reporting on those making the connection), but I want to give you the chance to convince me without a lot of deleting going on. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a look and left a comment. Thanks for the initiative. But I think the article is hopeless. In case you did not notice yet, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/money and politics task force. Best. --Childhood's End 17:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Schools : Austrian School

Hello, CE. I didn't want to respond on the Economics Talk p. above, b/c it would have involved interrupting a nice little dance going on there, which one hopes may have an immediate impact in improving the look & readability of Economics.

On your points, in the previous History section of the article, the labor theory of value is treated relative to post-classical and post-Marxist theory in the following Neoclassical econ. subsect. (which can be read to include the Austrians of that time). As to current schools, well, Austrians are still around. My point was that earlier treatment there was too fragmentary (and in that resoect misleading) to warrant keeping it. I have added this ref.:

Israel Kirzner (1987). "Austrian School of Economics," The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 1, pp. 145-51.

to Austrian School#History, end of 1st para., which you might find it a reliable scholarly source. As discussed on the Econ Talk p., the History & Schools sections may be merged in not too long. P.S. If you wish to reply in the next few days, I'll see it on this page, or if you wish on my p. --Thomasmeeks 21:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did not answer

Well, much as I'd like to, I'm not on-line every day. So I didn't spot your question earlier. >Radiant< 08:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Understand that, no problem, although you were making edits on both August 15 after my question and August 16... Anyway, no biggies. --Childhood's End 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Heh. ~ UBeR 14:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MFD

I noticed your useful contribution. I wondered if you'd care to extend that slightly to offering any users who do not wish their names to appear the opportunity to delete them, mischaracterisation or not. --Dweller 15:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. I actually seriously pondered it, as I am very serious that this page is by no means meant as an attack or anything similar whatsoever. Raul654 will never trust that I am good-faithed, but I am, despite my divergent views about global warming. The reason why I did not extend to this offer is that I think that from the moment one or two will opt out (Raul will, and likely Raymond Arritt and Stephan Schultz as well), it will leave the others singled out, what would essentially terminate the page. It would also make the information seriously incomplete. But I am of course open to any suggestion that could ease how this page can be perceived. Thanks again for your helpful thoughts. --Childhood's End 15:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
My 2 cents:
  1. Removing them from the list would not remove them from the page history. A note saying that some editors have been removed would cause those interested to peruse the history. You could have a count in the list saying how many administrators "have been removed from the list upon request". As this would be backed up by history, it wouldn't weaken your overall point, IMO. (It would, however, weaken a possible point to examine how these particular administrators administrate. Again, history would still be available, an argument that could just as easily be used against this suggestion.)
  2. Alternatively (or additionally), allowing them to add a comment as to why they don't belong in that list (which I assume you would do), seems fair.
Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CE

Just to make sure: I assume you don't mind being called by the nickname "CE", right? (Since this could be expanded to "Common Era", a term that you might have problems with, it just now occurs to me that you might not like this nickname.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem there :) --Childhood's End 17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Balance Check"

User:Childhoodsend/Balance check is wrong. User: Dragons flight is not an admin. He resigned. This illustrates another proble with your list - who keeps it up to date? User pages and sub-pages are rarely watched and edited by others, so it would be your responsibility. I really suggest you do your "checking" offline. --Stephan Schulz 14:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the page's title should be changed by the way. I just dont know how during a deletion review. As for Dragons, I'd be glad to remove him if you're right, but he still appears in Category:Wikipedia administrators. Are you sure? --Childhood's End 14:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
See here. Categories are driven by category entries on the user page, not by the database back end. I've fixed his page. --Stephan Schulz 14:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I think we can reasonably expect that such other errors would be handled as quickly as this one... ? --Childhood's End 14:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that is very unlikely. You have been around for a while, but still did not successfully recognize this error. Not many editors would notice. Now apply the categorical imperative and imagine what happens if many users have these lists. BTW, I'm still failing to see what legitimate purpose this page has.--Stephan Schulz 14:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, perhaps this list would be as likely to be out-of-date just as any other article (quite less I think, but still), including articles that must comply with WP:BLP, but aint it an issue for any WP entry rather than only for my page? As for the purpose, as said before, it's really nothing more than to evaluate the corpus of admins involved in the global warming material, as it seems allowed, to me, under WP:USER. --Childhood's End 15:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
As the arguments for/against keeping this list seem to fall much along the lines of those supporting/not supporting IPCC, I'd appreciate your comment on Raul654's citing of an informal list of "anti-science POV pushers". Just making the comment, of course, is common on both sides of the debate, but citing back to that comment does not seem materially different from CE's list (i.e., he has stored that link somewhere so he can trot it out when he feels like making a point, just like CE and others can cite this user page) — except that its correctness is not as easy to challenge (and is a lot harder to delete). I'm not claiming that Raul654 is the only one doing this (or that he's not), but to the degree that there's a difference, I prefer CE's more open list. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd also say that Raul's list serves as an open-attack field ("anti-science POV-pusher") and that Raul's immunity against warnings or any sanction whatsoever raises legitimate questions (or they're at least legitimate in my mind). --Childhood's End 14:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, sorry. I did not mean to suggest that "known to adhere to the IPCC view and underlying scientific support of anthropogenic global warming" (or "known to clearly support the theory of anthropogenic global warming") is anyways near as bad as "anti-science POV-pusher". Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a substantial difference, though. One is clearly an opinion, while the other is stated as a fact. --Stephan Schulz 15:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, are you sure? (my emphasis) "Note: I expect that some of hte other anti-science POV pushers will show up here to complain about this ban proposal. Just so nobody is fooled, this group includes: Iceage77, Rameses/Britannia (proven sockpuppets), Rossnixon, UBeR, Mnyakko, RonCram, and Oren0" Raul654 17:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Childhoodsend (talk • contribs).
What makes it clearly an opinion? I looked at the comment again, and other than the inflammatory words previously mentioned, nothing makes it look like any more an opinion than CE's list. Would you prefer CE's list if he used more POV-laden terminology to make it clear that this is his opinion? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of who writes the words, or where they're written, the comments Raul654 made were personal attacks and uncivil. ~ UBeR 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked Raul654 not to write alleged POV editor lists if your page was deleted. I have no interest in global warming topics, so if he does it again, you'll have to let me know. I hope this resolves everything. I think volunteering to have it deleted was most civil—especially gracious because the debate seemed to be turning your way. Cool Hand Luke 19:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I think that Raul's list is an attack, something that my list was not, I care less about it than about his other direct blatant attacks which have been deemed 'acceptable' so far (you should read this thread). At least for consistency and integrity's sake, I would have hoped that something was done about it, because I have this feeling that had I pronouned these words, I would have been the object of at least a swift block, as you can see by the warnings that have been posted on my page for innocuous events... Also, thanks for all your thoughtful feedbacks during the recents events. --Childhood's End 13:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Hey, I am not sure about what to do when it comes to that merge. In terms of the content of the page, I am neutral since I enjoy reading about not well known theories. Yet, I have a feeling that the article is being given too much weight. I study economics and I have never heard of that. Are you going to take it to Rfc? Also, most comments come from single purpose accounts and the IPs trace back to London or the Netherlands Antilles. I am pretty confident that it is at most 3 people. Let me know, because merging these articles might given them a better chance to become featured. (You may reply here). I see a big chance that nothing will get done. Brusegadi 21:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think it's like 3-5 editors who are very passionate about the subject. The article has way too much weight right now, although perhaps, only perhaps, binary economics are barely notable enough to deserve an article of their own. I am although concerned that right now, the article is used as an advocacy platform and is sort of a self-advertisement for Mr. Shakespeare. Perhaps a Rfc would be a good idea, yes, good point. Not sure I want to get involved very much though. --Childhood's End 00:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I am going to forget about it. I think a Rfc will be too demanding and, probably, nothing will get done since most people will simply assume that it is relevant. It is also a pretty good article, the only problem is the weight and the ad like feeling you get when reading it. I will remove any instances of synthesis and let it be for now. Oh well. Brusegadi 05:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for deletion.

Admirable. Good on you. --Dweller 20:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note Dweller. Best. --Childhood's End 15:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello :-)

I appreciate the cleanup you do now in the progressive rock article, nevertheless, there's something i dont agree with. 1. Moving the image of Little Tragedies to the festivals doesnt fit the section, why? Because the image was not taken at a festival but after a band's concert. 2. I on purpouse putted them to the 90's-00's section. Why? a) They represent a "third-wave" 90's band. b) They are the most famous prog-band in Russia and one of the most famous in Eastern Europian prog-bands. and by that... c) They represent both the East-European and the not-English-speaking bands (and the genre is very alive their, it's just that the editors of the article in the English Wikipedia, well, most, think it exists only in the English speaking countries). M.V.E.i. 20:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I am sympathetic to your point about having a worldwide view, but the article is already quite worldwide (most the bands discussed are from various corners of Europe, actually). I think that Little Tragedies are just not notable enough to deserve a mention in the article, or certainly not along big names such as those with who you associate them. I know it's tempting to add our favourite bands to this article but we must resist this appeal... Nevertheless, I opened a thread at the article's talk page - be welcome to add your point of view. Cheers. --Childhood's End 20:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but those world-wide bands are usually progressive metal, and sing in English. They sing in Russian. Belive me, they are probably biger then those bands. M.V.E.i. 20:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You kinda evidenced my position... "Believe me" is usually indicative of something that is unencyclopedic... Also, remember that this is the English Wikipedia; readers dont necessarily expect to be told about barely notable bands that sing in Russian. Imo, that's not within the world-wide perspective objective. --Childhood's End 23:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no law that only English information should be here. "Belive me" is a phrase i sometimes use in my language without thinking :-) I answered you more on the progressive rock talk page. M.V.E.i. 12:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD closure

Hi - I understand from your comment on the AfD talk page that you're unhappy with the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exposed: The Climate of Fear (second nomination). If you're not clear on why the closing admin acted as he did, the best idea is to leave a note on his/her talk page asking them to go into more detail about the rationale for the close. Ultimately, if you feel strongly that the closure was incorrect on procedural grounds, you can go to deletion review, but it's generally recommended that you contact the closing admin first. MastCell Talk 17:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I'll let it go. I although regret that the way some admins do things forces editors to waste time in procedural technicalities to the point of exhaustion instead of simply being transparent or restrain themselves when they should not act. --Childhood's End 14:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on AIT Talk

You may wish to clarify the meaning of your first sentence. The text of your comment seems to indicate that you favor including "controversial" in the summary, but the end of your first sentance seems ambiguous on this point: "should be presented as it is." To me this reads like the current description should not be changed. I am not trying to influence you in any way with this post, I am merely drawing your attention to a potential ambiguity in your post and asking that you consider clarifying your meaning. --GoRight (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I see what you mean. I'll change it. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPCC reviewer status

How much do you want to keep that in? I'll support you if your want to continue on that front but, as was pointed out, this makes the treatment of others on the list unblanaced. So I suppose we either have to agree to leave it out or lobby to add it to whomever else it applies. Thoughts? --GoRight 18:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I really dont mind about this mention if it troubles them so much. I find their bickering childish and wont participate :) Of course, they find it hard to accept that the IPCC may be shown has a non-consensus thing, but what I find the most important is to report the relevant opinions. Cheers. --Childhood's End 18:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate modelling vs economic modelling

As I strangely expected, William Connolley deleted from his talk page a conversation that he himself spurred about the reliability of climate models vs the reliability of economic models after it got challenging. I'm willing to lend space to push this discussion a little further for those who would care to participate. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

__________________


(cuts...) You're burnt out. I burnt out long ago. And William is leaving the climate field entirely. Why is it that anyone wants to contribute this place anyway? Dragons flight (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Good question really. Love of truth I suppose. But the infighting is less amusing William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, some of the people we're fighting with also love the truth. (Of course, we all know that "truth has a well-known liberal bias".) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's here take a moment to remember what was the model-generated "truth" in 1999 [22]. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to argue that economics modelling is far worse than climate modelling, I have no problem with that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
US$3/gal is low! ~ UBeR (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Why would economic modelling be worse than climate modelling? Economic models are just as "advanced" as climate models, if not more. They can also recreate the past pretty well. But in matters of prediction, they have a bad track record just like in any other matter where humankind attempted to predict complex systems. "Scientists" trained to believe in and work with modeling think that models output is the truth, and they're proven wrong once the timeframe of their predictions has gone by. Nothing new there. --Childhood's End (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
That's one reason why I laugh so heartily when the same people who tell you how unreliable climate models tell you that with dead certainty that our economy will be devastated by trying to reduce CO2 emissions. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ben, we dont need an economic model to predict the overall outcome of overtaxing and government overspending - these are known elements, just like we know that overfishing is likely to destroy the fish stocks. --Childhood's End (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Not that I'm particularly interested in economics, but of course it it very possible to shift taxation from e.g. income tax to CO2 generation, or from generic VAT to fossil fuels without a net increase in taxes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Well thanks for this input, but I would have liked more development about the comparison between economic modelling and climate modelling made by William... As to taxes, what you propose could have a small effect, but generally, when the prices of essential goods go up, people re-arrange their consumption of non-essential goods so that they can maintain their consumption of essential goods at the level that is convenient for them. The solution, imo, resides in transforming fossil fuels in a non-essential good (i.e. technology). --Childhood's End (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Neither taxes nor government spending are required to reduce CO2 emissions. As far as economic impacts, recent studies have shown that economies have actually improved following such cuts. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I have not heard much about CO2-reducing measures that do not involve taxes or government spending (i.e. buying carbon credits and such). And economic studies that have "shown" improvements following emissions cuts are, as far as I know, i- relatively fringe, ii- produced by econometric models, which brings us back to our main point. --Childhood's End (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting global warming studies and such

I have compiled a list from some info I found on the internet. You may find it interesting. The list I created is here. Elhector (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kramm and Izrael

You, myself, and few editors obviously agree that these 2 belong on the list for sure. I've posted a very long reply under the Kramm discussion outlining why I think he should be there and also my overall concerns with the wikilawyering that's going on with the inclusion criteria. I'm not sure that we're going to be able to reach an agreement with the other editors on the otherside of the debate. Do you think at this juncture it would be a good idea to setup and RfC on these 2 guys to maybe get some outside input? Elhector (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the case is made for Izrael; I was just waiting for input from other editors before including him. There's no hurry. As for Kramm, I also think that an RfC could be appropriate since KDP is obviously wikilawyering this to the bottom. This list is made to include scientists like Kramm. --Childhood's End (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Imagine this.

Imagine the following sentence:

"While the Marxist approach to economics differs from the current method advocated by the majority of contemporary economists, the Marxist method derives from a long line of deductive economic thought stretching from the 15th century to the modern era and including such major economists as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, and David Ricardo."

True: Austrian economics, like Marxianism, is largely based on classical economic assumptions because this is precisely what makes them pseudoscientific: You wouldn't push this nonsense in the case of Marxism. Why are you doing it here?

And both schools have plenty of ridiculous assumptions that are totally ignored by invoking the most respected economists historically to support what is a heterodox economic school. That is not a POV. It is a fact.

The lead gives creedence to Praxeology which you could argue was based largely on Classical assumptions, but the name-dropping is clearly just intended to conflate the theory in the lead. This is also known as an appeal to tradition. It would be like claiming creationism is based on science because it was more widely-held by scholars hundreds of years ago.

As such, the previous edits will be restored, in accordance Wikipedia policy. Your existence as a single-purpose account to violate WP:FRINGE demonstrates bad faith and, as such, is not covered under 3RR. Zenwhat (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note also that on the article on George Reisman, a sharp distinction is made betwen Classical economics and Austrian economics. This appears to have been put in there by someone who believes the same things that you do. Zenwhat (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you're obviously blinded by your passions and rage, I'll dismiss your personnal attack for now. Speaking of POV-pushing accounts, your own page speaks for itself and sweaths scientism. Marxism is not largely based on classical economic assumptions, contra to what you seem to believe. I dont know many Nobel Prize Marxists. And both classical economic assumptions and Austrian economics are rooted in the Scottish Enlightenment and thus share the same roots. Now please try to be more constructive and less biaised. --Childhood's End (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow dude, not cool. I'll vouch for the fact that Childhoodsend's account is not a single-purpose account. Elhector (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration involving you.

A request for arbitration involving you has been proposed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Austrian_economics Zenwhat (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rouge admin comments

I kind of agree with you that the Rouge Admin page does not take people who challenge admins seriously enough. However the problem is that the percentage of these challenges which is a well founded reasonable challenge on COI is less than 10%, and admins need to stay sane, they are no different from anyone else. Assuming Good Faith becomes like Matilda's aunt, the effort very nearly kills you. Worst is challenges to external links but POV editing and people wanting an article included on their topic is bad also. And of course these challenges tend to go to review etc., and always are accompanied by very verbose and inconsistent accusations. This means by the time we deal with thoughtful queries on whether we have got something right it is hard not to be trigger happy, especially if people are stroppy about it.

I also am inclined to believe that there is a bit of herd mentality among admins. Have you read 1006 and all that (the bit about the Magna Carta and only 12 robber barrons being a fair jury for a robber baron comes to mind). I think the herd thing is pretty understandable mind you, but undesirable. I have in the past complained about other admins for 3RR etc and was disappointed by the lac of ban. Personally, in general I always tell people about incivility first, but it very rarely works. --BozMo talk 08:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to leave these comments. As I indicated, I understand that admins are under a lot of unwarranted or dumb criticism and that probably only a small part of what is said about them is legitimate. But there are problems, and Wikipedia should address them imo.
I have seen editors being blocked for very innocuous civility issues, and I myself have received warnings that cannot even be considered defendable (see this for instance), while unmannered admins like Raul654 or WMC obviously enjoy a free pass. From my experience with this, the problem is not exactly the herd effect but rather an unconscious group solidarity (some kind of unwritten scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours rule). Admins somewhat refuse to blame each other, which is rewarding in the end, probably. But there are exceptions and I have seen very courageous and fair admins, whose efforts maintain the hope everyone has in Wikipedia...
Overall, there are a few editors who should not hold the admin status, and Wikipedia should be more proactive in this regard. Those who enjoy power should not be entrusted with it. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that "Those who enjoy power should not be entrusted with it". There is an argument that making admins too vulnerable would make it impossible for them to do their job: this is reminiscent of an argument I remember in the old days at school that prefects should never be demoted because the others would be scared. So I agree we need to do more. Perhaps I should do more about abuses (and I see odd ones which make me skirm) but I hate confrontation online. If it cheers you up one of the two 3RR blocks I did (I generally block for vandalism) was deblocked by WMC (annoyingly he was right I had included a non-revert in my count) and I wouldn't hesitate to return the favour if I thought he was wrong. The only block I can remember overturning was a newbie who turned out to be vandal-only (sigh). On average I think 20% of all blocks being overturned on appeal is probably healthy; less is a sign of your unwritten rule. I wonder what the percentage is. --BozMo talk 17:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] kudos

I loved this comment of yours. NCdave (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! But I think William Connolley made it even better when he deleted the whole thing [23] ;-) --Childhood's End (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Big Bang

This is an issue that crops up again and again. As it is now the article should not have a criticism section because the discourse in the community about such criticism is close to zero. Find me a standard cosmology text (other than Jayant Narlikar's ramblings) that treats the subject in such a way and we'll talk. As it is, the sourcing is done to out-dated, fringe material which has been excluded at Big Bang for years due to undue weight. Please read the archives. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair thing to disagree with me, but not so fair to throw pov-pushing accusations [[24]]. Mainstream or not, the viewpoint of a Nobel prize physicist is a legitimate addition to the article; we're not talking about some religious tale here. Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Alfven made the criticism in 1984 at a time when the Big Bang was not on as sure-footing as it is today. We mention the appropriate weight of ALfven's opinion in the history section of the article. I'm not accusing you of being a POV-pusher, per se. However, the prose you added has the effect of POV-pushing because it is so ridiculously unduly weighted. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "sure-footing" but you're entitled to believe it, whereas I don't think that certainty is something in which a majority of scientists believe, especially not in cosmology. What they propose is the best explanation so far, and that's what matters. Even gravity has issues (see [25] for instance if you're interested). This being said, the developments that occured since Alfven's articles do not make him change his mind. Perhaps the prose was incorrect though, yes, although remember that was a quote. I did not compose it... --Childhood's End (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Alfven is dead, so he's hardly likely to change his mind. I think you may be out-of-your element here. It would be best if you did some research before coming back at me with grandstanding about certainty within science. I'm well-aware of the current controversies and issues in astrophysics. So-called "criticism of the Big Bang" is not one of them. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh I'm pretty sure I am more in my element than you are when it comes to epistemology if you think that certainty exists in science. This being said, your self-claimed expertise is hardly authoritative in this encyclopedia, as I have learned for myself in other articles more relevant to my field. And the point is not that there is a controversy, but that there are dissenting views that are worthy of note, such as one from a Nobel-prize physicist. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with your crusade. You'll need it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
What crusade? No need to reply, I think you rested my case ;) --Childhood's End (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's clear to me you have an agenda to place all science as "controversial" even when it isn't. This agenda will wear itself out in short order. I've seen more than my fair share of people with approaches such as yours blocked and banned. Cheerio. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems obvious there are many things that appear clear to you that do not appear so clear to the people closer to the said things. It's ok to question our own beliefs sometimes you know. Oh, and my block history is clean. What about yours? --Childhood's End (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When you find a reliable source that establishes that Hannes Alfven is one of the big names in physical cosmology, let us know. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So there are reliable sources that say who's a big name and who's not in physical cosmology? And I don't suppose that being a Nobel prize in physics for developping MHD would be anywhere near relevant for this determination. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, let me know when you come up with a source that contradicts me. Yep, a Nobel Prize for MHD does not make one a big name in physical cosmology. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok! At least you got yourself as a source. That's a start... --Childhood's End (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that ScienceApologist is active on your page warning and baiting. Haha, he's busy little bee, isn't he? He's been on my page warning and threatening as well. When I got done yawning, I responded. Send me an email if it's gets to be too much and we can pray for him. ;-) Supertheman (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont think his immature games are worth minding about, but in any event, he's got an incivility file as thick as a brick, which is indicative of a few things. Also, the bullies in the schoolyard always end up in the director's office, unless the school does not care about its rules and reputation. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming

I'm looking for contributors who are willing to help me with a Criticism section on the Global Warming page. We need to first do a plethora of research to gather together reputable and qualified scientists who take issue with some (or all) of the tenets of global warming. This article is one of the only pages that doesn't have a criticism section and it is sorely lacking in that regard. I have already gathered a great deal of reference material, and a good friend of mine is an atmospheric physicist willing to help. Please let me know on my talk page if you are willing to help.Supertheman (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)