User talk:Dean1970

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Human rights in Saudi Arabia

In a quick and brief response to your comment, you should know that the unkown (or at least what you didn't mention) is worse, much much worse. -- Eagleamn 12:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S: As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.

[edit] WP not a soapbox

Greetings Dean1970 and welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that all your edits so far have been postings on Talk pages, often somewhat polemic and of dubious relevance to the article itself. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it's not the place for personal opinions voiced for their own sake. Perhaps you should think about starting your own website or posting them on some discussion forum. Meanwhile please feel free to edit Wikipedia articles, in a strictly objective and verifiable way that will help us improve the encyclopaedia. Here are some links you might find useful:

Best wishes, Flapdragon 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking talk pages

Hi Dean1970, can I ask you not to blank comments on Talk pages, especially when to do so makes nonsense of what is there. Unless content is completely nonsensical or objectionable in some way there is normally no reason to remove comments, and when a Talk page gets too full they can be archived. Thanks. Flapdragon 19:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link to British

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom or Great Britain by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sign with four tildes

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! jd || talk || 01:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:DVD cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DVD cover.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

Please be aware of WP:3RR William M. Connolley 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that my head isn't full of mince and tatties --Dean1970 22:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? William M. Connolley 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL for both of you, please. -- THF 23:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appearances section

Please refer to Talk:John Christy#Appearances section for explanation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk • contribs) 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Indenting comments

Welcome to Wikipedia! If you're having a threaded conversation with another user on a talk page, you can make the flow of conversation easier to read by indenting your comments - just add a ":" to the start of each paragraph (with increasing numbers of ":"s for each level of indentation). --McGeddon 10:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the English lesson, "Perhaps you can teach Ms Williams a lesson in decency?" --Dean1970 22:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Demos Logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Demos Logo.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please be civil

[1] violates WP:CIVIL William M. Connolley 19:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am civil, you and your airs and graces pop at me William wasn't. Also removing edits in a bad-faith way, discuss before chopping (others should bear that in mind too), I didn't place the tag there, I was acting on it in good-faith (leaving a message on the talk page etc). Regardless, I apologise to you. --Dean1970 22:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dean, just so you know, the edit WMC identifies isn't civil. Administrators will justifiably block for that kind of language. Moreover, making those kind of edits will make it difficult to make legitimate complaints about others' wrongdoing in the future, because others will simply throw mud back at you, and in a mud-slinging battle, the more established editor is going to win. -- THF 23:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Christy, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Zeeboid 23:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Christy.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] AfD nomination of The Greenhouse Conspiracy

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Greenhouse Conspiracy, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greenhouse Conspiracy. Thank you. --Kim D. Petersen 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Demos Logo.gif

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Demos Logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, DeSmogBlog, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you.

A tag has been placed on DeSmogBlog, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:DeSmogBlog. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. -- Coren (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


The article James Hoggan & Associates has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki 03:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edits are unsigned

{{helpme}}

I am signed in making edits and when I hit 'save page' the history shows my i.p, not name. I'm signed in, how is this possible? Thank you. --Dean1970 13:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The only way that can happen is if you've got logged out by mistake (possibly because you didn't access pages for a long time and your browser forgot your login information). Turning on the 'remember me' feature (at Special:Preferences or when you log in) is one way to workaround this if it happens a lot (although it's a bad idea to do this on a public computer!). --ais523 13:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

ok thank you. i wasn't signed off though. i was still signed in after i hit 'saved page' but i'll keep an eye on it, thanks. --Dean1970 13:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Hoggan & Associates

(copied from User Talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen)

Hi Kim, I don't appreciate your tone my friend. I was quickly looking for some refs I could add to the article because article was deleted before for a lack of them. I thought the publication was RS, it was about subject. So I included it. Nothing sinister. p.s. if smearing is your big concern, afford some of it to your pals. --Dean1970 13:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Dean, i wasn't commenting on your editing - but merely on the source - and had to cram enough information into the edit comment - so that it wouldn't be necessary to go to Talk... WP:BLP makes it very important that you do not add references such as this - without sufficient reasons - and getting background information about Hoggan would not be such a case. The NP article is rather obvious as a smear piece - so bad that the NP had to post the retraction. A Google search for "James Hoggan" finds quite a few sources to pick from. --Kim D. Petersen 13:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I read the retraction. It should not be a ref. Even though I don't get it. A free press should be able to ask why a public relations firm would establish a "climate activist" blog to go after scientists they believe are Exxon spokespeople when the PR firm behind that smearblog represent a firm [2] who have a "key relationship" with Exxon, whose corporate website, would you believe it (scroll down the bottom, to media contacts) [3] actually lists them as a media contact. That's a real head scratcher. I mean, if you're going to point your finger at individuals about their relationship to Exxon, methinks it best not to be so involved with them either! --Dean1970 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Senior consultant to afore mentioned PR firm involved in environmentaly friendly[4] billion-dollar mine sale (Gerald Prosalendis Corporate Communications Consultant) [5].


[edit] Milk and Biscuits

My being an admin or not makes no difference. As long as we both stick inside the rules your views are equally valid to mine. Just to explain I have no objection in principle to Global Warming linking to Live Earth. I just feel that what people click on should reflect where the link is pointed. In the case of Wikipedia they expect a definition of what the word says (we have just been through this on the text "a few individual scientists"). Personally I wouldn't have minded the link being under the text "most notably" in brackets after the phrase for example; other people might dispute it. The fact other articles are bad in this respect doesn't make this one wrong. As for the rest of your message I am more than happy to accept what you say and assume good faith. And I should say I am more than happy to have you helping us here. I am cynical about lots of scientific majorities too (e.g. on GM Foods) but I tend to try to keep my edits in line with consensus not my own opinions. --BozMo talk 12:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That link is no longer an issue. What I don't understand is that you deleted it for being a "google anchor". That would be acceptable if it was an advert, to a blog and the like. This was a link to a notable example of "raising awareness". The sentence was already in place, nothing was changed, "groups raising awareness"...I simply interlinked "an example". On the flip side, the groups that "downplay" GW suchas certain thinktanks have direct links....perhaps they should be changed to "groups" too with no direct link? Doesn't really answer why "music events" are acceptable on other articles though, but not this one. Also, there are far more admins who support AGW floating on these articles, the ratio is out of whack, certain things can be added, certain things cannot, smacks a little elitist. Add dubious links about oil and tobacco connections to sceptics, dang, Gore was a tobacco farmer, who are these editors trying to fool here? TGGWS was deleted and AIT was kept (for a short while) on the GW article because "creationist propaganda" doesn't belong in Evolution articles, ok. Certain irony crops up though when you consider the creator of TGGWS is an alleged commie, and AIT creator is a baptist, hmmmm. Party politics getting in the way of an article? --Dean1970 13:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest US politics is completely beyond me, politicising science on a right wing versus left wing thing is totally bizarre. And the irony you mention is beyond me: is a baptist supposed to be righ wing or something? I also don't know what AGW or AIT are but I don't like Al Gore if it helps. I saw the TGGWS when it was broadcast though and it was absolute trashy rubbish. On the google anchor thing I thought (wrongly as it turns out but I cannot change edit summarises) the purpose of the misleading link was to get the article returned by Google for people searching for the anchor text. There is a lot of that and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam tries to find and kill them. --BozMo talk 13:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't help me that you don't like Gore, lol, I actually think he won in 2000 and was robbed blind, but that is history. I agree totally, that kind of politics (R vs L) is getting bizarre. As for TGGWS, it bucks the trend. The economist from Africa had some ideas, developing nations should aggressively modernise using its fossil fuels, third-world debt seems like loan-sharking to me (in my conspiratioral mind). Anyway, thank you for taking the time to clarify a few things. p.s. I don't have a problem linking any documentary about GW in the "see also" section. But I guess the consensus is that they're linked from other articles, no mind. --Dean1970 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC) sorry, AGW = anthropogenic global warming. AIT = an inconvenient truth. No, baptist doesn't mean right wing. --Dean1970 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way on Live Earth this might amuse you: [6] --BozMo talk 12:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)