User talk:Mnyakko/aboutme
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Need help accumulating evidence
Please feel free to add examples of bias you have encountered by the pro-Global Warming crowd at my page...I am accumulating all of the evidence for various actions throughout Wikipedia for the pages, users, etc and your help with the footwork is appreciated. -- Tony of Race to the Right 14:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you make a user subpage(s), I would be willing to help you. ~ UBeR 20:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Global warming
Mnyakko,
thankyou for your kind words. As someone who has for years been writing to the papers telling others how serious global warming could be, I am horrified by the actions of these people. I probably do not agree with you on global warming but I do agree with you that these individuals should be heavily censored and in no way should either of them be an administrator.
I don't have a problem setting forth the evidence both pro and anti global warming because I believe the evidence speaks for itself.Mike 15:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The following is from the AfD discussion page for Martian global warming:
Merge with global warmingKeep For those wondering why this is up for deletion I would like to explain a little about the edit wars around global warming which I mistakenly wondered into. There is a lot of ill fealing around the subject of global warming, and the result is groups of people who are simply deleting what others enter without comment. When there is debate it is almost impossible to find consensus on either the smallest issue (See Hockey stick controversy & Hockey stick controversy II. I'm probably totally out of my depth! There are legitimate views being silenced and numerous complaints of not adhering to WP:NPOV - If anyone with a neutral stance on global warming can help both sides work to improve the various articles you will find it hard work but rewarding! Mike 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Although it should be part of the global warming article, unfortunately that is an impossibility given the current climate - hence keep the article because it is substantiated and is an important additional piece of evidence (which would just get deleted from global warming) Mike 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The following is from Global Warming:Talk
[edit] Fight this insidious Censorship
Mike, I appreciate the work you have done against enormous odds. The way William M. Connolley and his crew of censors work is infuriating. You are absolutely correct that they completely disregard NPOV as we can clearly read above. I have also had a great deal of work and effort destroyed arbitrarily by this group trying to chase ANY dissenting contributors out of the GW debate. As an example they will not even allow the simple fact: "However, there remain respected scientists who hold differing opinions." Here is the history of what they did when I tried to keep that tiny mention of other views in the GW article:
- 17:10, 21 February 2007 Vsmith (Talk | contribs) (if "repected scientists disagree" - provide valid source)
- (cur) (last) 17:05, 21 February 2007 Rameses (Talk | contribs) (←Undid revision 109846090 by BozMo (talk) You cannot censor the simple fact that some scientists hold other views)
- (cur) (last) 17:00, 21 February 2007 BozMo (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Brittainia (talk) to last version by Hu12)
- (cur) (last) 16:48, 21 February 2007 Brittainia (Talk | contribs) (NPOV - still worth mentioning there are scientists with other views)
Their actions are equivalent to the burning of books in Germany and other totalitarian states. However we cannot give up, we must continue to fight for a NPOV in Wikipedia. The only alternative would be to give up using Wikipedia altogether. Good luck and thanks for your hard work - it truly is appreciated by us older Wikipedians. Rameses 17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This is from Talk:Climate of Mars
[edit] Well the Censors Finally Succeeded in Killing off the Martian global warming Page
Yesterday King of Hearts posted the results of the AfD poll, he stated: "This article was nominated for deletion on 18 February 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus."
Less than an hour later Sbandrews arbitrarily killed the article with the single word "redirect" as the only comment. The page is now reduced to a couple of paragraphs at the bottom of the Climate of Mars page where it will never be found or read. When the AfD was "no consensus" how do they have the right to unilaterally destroy hundreds of hours of work and go against the votes???
The documented history of Censorship (23 February 2007):
- (diff) (hist) . . Martian global warming; 21:37 . . (+33) . . Sbandrews (Talk | contribs) (redirect)
- (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Martian global warming; 20:46 . . (+96) . . King of Hearts (Talk | contribs) (Article survived AfD with no consensus)
-- Rameses 05:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- This effective killing of the article was predicted by many who protested against this blatant censorship in Wikipedia over the past month. This censorship is being carried out by a group (including some Adminstrators) with a definite POV and agenda. Read the predictions and the fight against censorship here: Talk:Martian global warming.
-
- Unless we stand up and fight for a fair NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and against this insidious censorship, Wikipedia will gradually become controlled by the Tyranny of the most actively vocal and devious Special Interest Groups (SIG). I am willing to fight because I believe Wikipedia is worth fighting for. Who else is willing to take the abuse, which we will inevitably incur from the SIG's, and start a struggle against censorship of Wikipedia? -- Rameses 05:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Actually I included *all* of the material from the MGW page here, about half of which had just been copied from my draft for this page anyway, and which I would have deleted earlier from the MGW page had it not been for the AfD. The result of the AfD was a clear consensus for merge, as such my actions were not arbitrary, though maybe bold. Kind regards sbandrews 09:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- You can see what the real consensus was at: Talk:Martian global warming. For your convenience I'll reprint it again here: King of Hearts posted the results of the AfD poll, he stated: "This article was nominated for deletion on 18 February 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus."
-
-
-
-
-
- Given this clearly posted result, your action to eliminate the article within an hour (and before most people would have had a chance to read what the real result was) cannot be described as "bold" - the description which comes to mind is "sneaky". If you genuinely did not mean to censor hundreds of hours of effort then I suggest that you return the Martian global warming page. Actions speak louder than words - we will wait to see what you do. -- Rameses 15:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Before the Talk:Martian global warming page gets deleted, I have copied below the relevant discussion about censorship: -- Rameses 15:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Censorship of Wikipedia by Special Interest Groups
I agree with Oren0, he is writing about Martian warming. There appears to be evidence of warming occurring on other planets and this is certainly valid information to reference in this article as it points to a likely possible cause - the Sun. I have checked on the Global Warming article and it appears that William M. Connolley is colluding with others in a concerted effort to revert all changes which reflect any uncertainty regarding the fact of man made global warming. This kind of hijacking of Wikipedia will only discredit it as a source of unbiased, balanced information. -- Censorship Bias 02:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I tend to agree. Wikipedia is being hijacked by special interest groups. Mixino1 16:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I also agree, contentious issues, such as Global Warming, have been hijacked by vocal biased groups. We need to find a solution to stop this form of censorship. We should remember that scientists had a consensus view based on Newtonian Physics - until Einstein destroyed the consensus with his Theories of Relativity. I also remember the scientific consensus view, among nutritionists and doctors, during the 70's and 80's was that we should all start eating hydrogenated margarine (trans-fats) to prevent heart disease. Now it has been proven that the worst thing for heart disease is trans-fats (hydrogenated margarines). Scientific consensus is not the dependable certainty that it is promoted as being. -- Rameses 18:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Raymond Arritt is now proposing this article be merged with the Mars article. I am sickened by this constant manipulation of Wikipedia. Mixino1 01:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Here's proof of Wikifriends, with an axe to grind on climate change, taking it out of open discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley
I quote:
"SPM
Can we give Summary for policymakers a decent burial? Or even an indecent one? Is there a protocol to follow, or can I just move the (very small amount of) useful information in the article somewhere else? It's been tagged for merger several months now. Raymond Arritt 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Don't forget what links to it... [6] Gack. Is there no automagic way of taking care of such things? Raymond Arritt 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Well if you replaced it with a redirect to IPCC it would be transparent. I quite like the existence of a separate SPM page, myself William M. Connolley 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)'"
What have you got against talking in the open? Mixino1 01:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Now they have gutted the article completely - almost everything has been deleted. This is obviously the prelude to deleting it altogether or "merging" it into Mars. This shows how far the Global warming pushers will go to hide any evidence that GW may be due to the obvious cause of the highest level of solar activity in 1,000 years (and probably in the last 8,000 years - according to the Max Planck Institute in Germany, See: The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame.). I expect to see this article and this discussion disappear soon as a result of blatant censorship. -- Rameses 18:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is a clear example of how the censors work I have bolded the last two sentences below to highlight obvious censorship This is from the Talk:Global Warming page
[edit] Svante Arrhenius
Svante Arrhenius's 1896 scientific predictions is mentioned above (on this talk page) and are detailed on his own article, but have no made it into the global warming article proper. This seems like a massive oversight to me. Would anyone be interested in starting a section (which may eventually bud off into its own article) on the history of global warming science? —Pengo 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- ...(As the one who mentioned it on this page) I thought this was common knowledge, but yea, I suppose it should be mentioned. Raul654 02:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The article already is way too big. But you're absolutely right, Arrhenius (and Fourier) should be mentioned. It's important to point out that the science behind GW isn't some newfangled scheme that was cooked up 20 or 30 years ago. Since the present article already is too long, it would be best to follow Wikipedia's summary format with just a couple of sentences here and a pointer to the subsidiary article. You seem to be interested in the topic, so go for it! Raymond Arritt 02:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Unfortunately, Svante Arrhenius has some problems (i.e. the standard sceptics claim that water vapour is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect). Will somebody with more knowledge about sources than I write a sufficiently nuanced sentence there? --Stephan Schulz 07:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I've fixed that by removing it. It wasn't relevant there anyway William M. Connolley 09:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
-
Who is going to join me in fighting this hi-jacking of Wikipedia: GW? -- Rameses 20:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Responses
- Tony, thanks for the note. I did not find contact info for you. You can email me at roncram2004@yahoo.com if you like.RonCram 16:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Tony,
If you want to see evidence of censorship, look at the recent "major rewrite" of the Martian global warming article. By the way the GW proponents have been trying to kill this article off since it began. The history of the article is very illuminating as to their tactics. Rameses 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Below is the text of the AFD page which has been created to bury this article. You will find interesting examples of stifling of anti GW opinion:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martian global warming From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Jump to: navigation, search
[edit] Martian global warming
Martian global warming (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
See WP:V, WP:OR, either merge, delete, or redirect to Mars--70.107.112.158 03:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
* Merge into Mars--TBCΦtalk? 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC) * Merge, this should be a section in Mars. Dave6 talk 02:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC) * Comment There was already a proposal to merge (which I made), so I'm not sure why the AfD was proposed before the merge discussion was completed. I'd rather the material not be deleted (clarification) be merged rather than deleted outright (end clarification) but abstain from !voting as I was the proponent of the merge. Raymond Arritt 02:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC) * Do Not Merge and allow the information many people are adding to remain so the article has a chance to become fuller instead of constantly deleting valid information. Rameses 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC) * Merge into Mars. bibliomaniac15 02:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC) * Merge into Mars. Information seems valid, but it makes more sense to me to have this as a paragraph in the Climate section of the Mars encyclopedia. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC) * Merge. Why is this even in AfD? The nom should have been more precise as to delete, merge, or redirect. This should be in the Climate section of Mars. Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC) * Merge into Mars. --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 09:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC) * Keep. Definitely not delete or redirect, and do not merge. The Mars article is currently already long. This notable issue deserves its own article and this article stands a good chance of getting longer soon. Many good sources and external links. I see no violation of WP:OR and WP:V. PeaceNT 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC) * Merge into...well, if Mars is getting too big, why not Atmosphere of Mars? Some sections from the Mars article (such as Climate) can also be brought into there, fleshing out that article nicely. I don't think this issue is significant enough for it's own article right now, but in the future, if this particular issue does become so, it can be forked out again. Just a thought. --UsaSatsui 16:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC) * Merge Not enough info to merit its own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomXP411 (talk • contribs). * delete or merge - there is almost no real content here; this is last-gasp nonsense from the solar variability people which is so non-respectable that mainstream solar people (Solanki) won't even touch it William M. Connolley 19:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC) o May as well point out that Mr William Connolley himself is a climate modeler (potential interest with article). SYSS Mouse 03:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC) * Keep may seem silly... but Mars is 62K and given that talk of climate change and global warming is all the rage these days, it's a curiousity. Can't be systemically biased in favour of that one blue rock called Earth. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC) o Yeah, because we wouldn't want to offend all those people living on Mars, or present Neptunians with an Earth-centric view of Martian life. --UsaSatsui 23:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC) o That rock is not blue: it is the water that coated the rock that make it appears blue. :pSYSS Mouse 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC) + That should be "that makes it appear blue" while we're pointing out obvious stuff. :)CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC) * delete While it may be verifiable, an observation for three years does not show anything worthwhile of an article. SYSS Mouse 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC) * Delete the whole premise of the article violates NPOV. Selket Talk 05:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC) o Explain that, please. --UsaSatsui 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC) + The article exists solely to advance the position that global warming is due to solar and not human activity. --Selket Talk 18:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC) # ...you do realize this article is about Mars, right? --UsaSatsui 02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC) * Delete (or merge at the very least): This subject is not notable. See WP:Notability. There are NO scientific articles directly related to "Martian global warming." By creating such an article, and by giving evidence that was never published in a scientific journal, this article also violates wikipedia's policy of no original research. See WP:NOR. This article has NO content (the content of the title is almost as informative of the content in the "text"). If people believe that the one sentence of this article merits some note in an article (even though it violates wikipedi policy), then merge it with Mars or Atmosphere of Mars, or both. Better yet, create an article such as Climate of Mars; this topic is notable and is an embarassing gap in wikipedia Mars series. Furthermore, this stub can not be expanded to an article because there is no published source of material relating to this subject. Finally, the title of this article is very deceptive. Lunokhod 18:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC) * Keep Given that talk of climate change and global warming is of huge interest these days, it's worth having pages like this which will be among the most viewed on Wikipedia. Having well read articles and both sides of the debate will promote Wikipedia and give it more relevance. Brittainia 19:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC) * Merge to Climate of Mars, which seems to have just been started and needs a lot of work. Unless that article is to be deleted, this content would belong there, and if this proves relevant, it could be split off again. Mars is too big to add all of this in detail. Atmosphere of Mars is about the content of the atmosphere, which is not directly related to the climate (any more than we think of air and weather as linked on Earth). Rigadoun (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC) o I suggested "Atmosphere" because I would suggest merging "Climate" into "Atmosphere" as well, since climate is a function of the atmosphere. --UsaSatsui 16:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC) + Actually, no. On Earth, ground and oceans also play a major role in the climate system, and I suspect ground does on Mars.--Stephan Schulz 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC) # Details. I wasn't defending my suggestion anyway, just explaining it...merging to "Climate" is fine by me. --UsaSatsui 16:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC) * Merge to Climate of Mars. Mars is already too long and it fits much better into the climate article. Oren0 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC) * Delete or possibly merge to Climate of Mars. I've considered improving the article, but I see no way to do it substantially. About the only verifiable fact is that the southern ice cap has shrunk over the last 3 Martian years, possibly due to dust storms. That is not worth an article by itself. All the rest is speculation with no reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz 22:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC) * Keep I fail to see why it needs to be merged. This is more about political expediency among the Wikipedia members that want to stifle climate debate. This is in case anyone draws a parallel between Mars and Earth. The article is primarily about Mars. Just because it is inconvienient, it doesn't make it less interesting. Leave it alone. Mixino1 10:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC) * Merge to Climate of Mars. It's the best place to put it. MER-C 12:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC) * Delete There is no "global warming" on Mars. Instead there is climate change of unknown magnitudes and unknown directions of temperature change on numerous time scales.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jespley (talk • contribs). * Delete - non-noteable biased unscientific speculation designed to mislead people trying to understand the Earth Global Warming evidence. WAS 4.250 21:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC) * Merge any valid sourced claims into Climate of Mars. -- Scientizzle 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Martian_global_warming"
Categories: AfD debates (Science and technology) | AfD debates
[edit] Global Warming
Mnyakko,
I can appreciate your fealings about various people on the Global Warming pages, but to prove that they are not acting with good intentions it is necessary to show that everyone else is acting with good faith and courtesy and above all to avoid getting into any kind of a fight. I know there has been a lot of ill fealing, which I believe could be reduced if the articles were reorganised. Could you have a look at the proposal on time to accept change Mike 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting - a prohibition was imposed on William M. Connolley by the Wikipedia board at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2
[edit] William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles
2) Due to a long history of reverting, often without giving adequate explanation for the reverts, William M. Connolley is hereby prohibited for six months from reverting any article relating to climate change more than once per 24 hour period (vandalism excepted). Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate (see #Relative value of references). This includes but is not limited to all pages in Category:Climate change. Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations and administrators not directly involved in the dispute should act accordingly. Determining what constitutes a climate change-related page and determining what is a 'reputable source' is left up to the discretion of the blocking administrator (who should follow the guidance at #Relative value of references). William M. Connolley may apply to the Arbitration Committee in one month for the removal of this prohibition.
[edit] WMC and buddies circumventing 3RR Rule again
Tony, an example of circumventing of the 3RR rule is going on currently at [1] right now. Good luck with your radio show - I hope you can get Jimbo Wales to talk on it. Wikipedia needs to do something about these censors particularly after the Essjay scandal. Keep up the good work guys - we'll make Wikipedia NPOV one day. ~ Rameses 04:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Now they are trying to delete Solar system warming too!
Now Raymond Arritt and William M Connolley are trying to eradicate the Solar system warming article. I am sick and tired of this continuing censorship. If you agree with me, go and vote to save this article. Thanks, ~ Rameses 04:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Someone should have caught it before it passed the speedy deletion deadline
Here is evidence of more people who are willing to delete articles to stop people reading and deciding for themselves - from User talk:Michaelbusch:=I think you'll enjoy this one=
Solar system warming Someguy1221 04:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Pretty bad. Someone should have caught it before it passed the speedy deletion deadline. Michaelbusch 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to get NPOV on Wikipedia against these tactics? ~ Rameses 05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] UBeR is being reviewed
Tony, I hope you don't mind my contacting you but it is very urgent. I just got this message from UBeR, he is being persecuted by William M Connolley & Co. and he needs our help: 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) We should write our views of the situation with the proof to show the degree of frustration which Uber and we all are suffering over the censorship and control of all Global warming articles. If we cannot save Uber from this injustice, WMC and company will simply extend this witch hunt to all who do not support their POV. Thanks, -- Brittainia 00:07, 1 March 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) [2]
Raul654, this post [3] 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 [4], [5], 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 [6] - thus they are bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. -- Brittainia 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Global Warming skeptic userbox
Thought you might be interested in having a userbox on your user page that expresses your skepticism of anthropogenic global warming. It looks like this and will also add you to Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. If you're interested, put the following on your user page:
{{User:Oren0/GWSkeptic}}
Feel free to tell your friends. Thanks! Oren0 21:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] St. Cloud
Are you in the St. Cloud area? I currently am in St. Cloud for a while. I was not aware the radio show is from this area. ~ UBeR 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This thing is set to become another Climate of Mars - WMC
William M. Connolley is at his old censorship habits again - this time on an article about a documentary film - The Great Global Warming Swindle. [7] He also makes the rather ominous comment "this thing is set to become another Climate of Mars". This probably refers to the deletion of several pages about Mars climate change, Martian global warming and Solar system warming. ~ Rameses 00:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More conspiring
From: [8]
We have a series of very similar edits recently at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, which to me are unsupported POV: Zeeboid [8], Rameses [9], Rameses [10], Brittainia [11], Brittainia [12], 76.64.57.201 [13]. At what point, if any, does this become an actionable problem? --Nethgirb 07:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Insertformulahere
-
- Are you actually saying removing the opinionated (i.e. subjective) word "small" in place of nothing is a POV? That's laughable. For more, however, if you are serious, I suggest you check out WP:AWW, WP:NPOV, and WP:A. ~ UBeR 17:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Nethgirb, I have blocked both Rameses and Britannia for 3rr violation (being established sockpuppets, their edits are accumulated together). I'm seriously tempted to block 2 of those 3 accounts (counting the third one I discovered) permanently.
- As for when it become actionable, I'd say it becomes actionable whenever you can provide clear and compelling evidence that they are pushing a particular POV - and that shouldn't be too hard. Raul654 19:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- User:Zeeboid is definitely not a sock of Rameses/Brittainia. Raymond Arritt 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have to say, this is hilarious from my perspective. I haven't been accused of being WMR's sockpuppet since I created this account over a year ago, with Pgio and the Aetherometry AfD, and this whole accusation went through without me even hearing about the accusations, even though I had been checking my watchlist daily. --Philosophus T 10:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia Foundation contact info
Wikimedia Foundation Inc. 200 2nd Ave. South #358 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-4313
Phone: +1-727-231-0101 Email: info@wikimedia.org Fax: +1-727-258-0207
Its listed as Fax being the best way to communicate do to a large number of phone calls.--Zeeboid 14:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why is the Principal Investigator of the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System not given a similar Vanity Page as his junior William Connolley?
He is William Connolley's boss's, boss's boss after all. I followed the link provided to http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/BAS_Science/programmes2005-2010/ACES/index.html
Where William Connolley's name is not mentioned at all, but it clearly states that the Principal Investigator of the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System (ACES) is Dr John King. I then checked for him on Wikipedia and lo and behold he doesn't have a page. If William Connolley who is a highly prolific editor and Admin on Wikipedia truly believed that he is himself notable enough to be on Wikipedia, then he surely would have written a page on the much more notable Dr. John King. Since he has not done so over the past four years while his own page has been on Wikipedia he clearly does not believe that his superior is notable enough for Wikipedia. Thus exposing this page for what it really is - a vanity page, pure and simple. ~ Rameses 15:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Martian global warming resurrection
I'm resurrecting the Martian global warming page. I've been participating in the Climate of Mars page (35k of good text from zero in February) and have fought the good fight on having a reasonable examination of the scientific evidence available up to date. Since Fred Thompson has signed on to the theory and he's a significant candidate, there really ought to be a politics page examining the policy consequences of accepting this theory and I've picked Martian global warming as the place to do it. I'm writing this on your talk page because you commented on the page and I would like your perspective on how to proceed. Right now I just want to sandbox it in talk so we get a nice page from version 1 so head over here if you care to contribute. TMLutas 02:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)