User talk:Ronjamin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Pittsburgh WikiProject

You might be interested in joining the Pittsburgh WikiProject, which organizes and edits articles related to the Pittsburgh metropolitan area. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I joined. I would like to write an article on St.Peter's Episcopal in Oakland. I helped to get the Landmark plaque for it before it burned. Any suggestions?Pustelnik 12:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Pittsburgh - request for collaboration

I've put a lot of additional work into this article, based on feedback from when it was a Featured Article Candidate. Also updated the maps to give them a more standard appearance. I'm going to submit the article for peer review and then FAC again. Before I do, though, I need some help from the WikiProject Pittsburgh. Please take some time and help with these tasks:

  1. improve the article with changes, additions and deletions
  2. some stern proof-reading, please
  3. give it a quality/importance rating at Talk:History of Pittsburgh
  4. leave feedback at Talk:History of Pittsburgh

Thanks. I'll be leaving this note at the talk pages of the project members who have been most active in Pittsburgh-related articles. Tomcool 14:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics of global warming

Hi, Ronjamin. I've been around Wikipedia since it's first year, and I'd like to offer a bit of advice regarding this addition to Global warming:

  • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a political body consisting of delegates of the United Nations that does not conduct scientific research, but relies on "peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature"[1] to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. The (IPCC) has not considered or has minimized other scientific evidence, positions, or theories, such as Solar variation[2] in relation to global warming. [1]

If you feel an article on science is biased, don't try to prove it in the body of that article. Take it to a controversy or "politics of" article.

Wikipedia's science articles reflect whatever the current "consensus" is about science, even if that consensus reflects a bias. Remember, 140 years ago nobody knew that germs cause disease. It wasn't until the last quarter of the 19th century that men like Pasteur, Lister and Koch began to attract positive attention to their work (see Germ theory of disease and Ignaz Semmelweis). --Uncle Ed 19:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo work

I've notice the great photos you have been adding to articles. Nice work! --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed--love the photos you took at Rolex. Hoping to get there myself this April and try to shoot a few, between watching the action. I dont suppose you have any of the dressage phase, do you? Eventer 04:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I just came here to express my respect about the hptographic work myself. Thanks! --Klaws 15:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of Pittsburgh

Thanks for all of your work with Pittsburgh-related photographs. To make it easier for other editors to find and use these, please add [[Category:Images of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania]] to the pages of the images you have uploaded. If you have any questions, please ask me. Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Even better, please upload your photos to Wikipedia Commons with Category:Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (or one of its subcategories). Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it a word?  ;-)

<<Montanabw, is unencyclopediac really a word?  :-). Ronald C. Yochum, Jr. 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)>>

Well, correct spelling is actually "Unencyclopedic" with or without a hypnen and it appears to have been invented on wikipedia... http://www.reference.com/search?q=Un-%20encyclopedic&r=d&db=web

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unencyclopedic&redirect=no

Apparently will eventually be coming to a dictionary near you! ;-)

See also http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Uncyclopedia

So, given that spell-check would miss this...I'll remember to remove the extra "a" next time! Montanabw 19:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relaunching WikiProject Pittsburgh meetups

You are receiving this message because you are a member of the WikiProject Pittsburgh. In the past we have discussed a meetup idea - let's see if we can make it a reality during the summer. Please see this thread for more information.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Pennsylvania

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 04:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming

You have been reversed by three different editors, and have now exceeded 3RR. Please take your proposed edits to the talk page. --Michael Johnson 02:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is up to you how you want to approach editing. Deleting large swathes of referenced text in a frequently edited and featured article without seeking consensus on the talk page will more than likely get you reverted. Continuing to revert will more than likely get you banned. --Michael Johnson 03:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Hello, I've suspended editing from this account for 24 hours, edit warring on Global Warming. To contest this block, use the {{unblock|reason here}} template on your user talk page. Regards, Mercury 03:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "You blocked me unfairly.

The first time I was warned about the 3rr rule, I immediately took my edits to the Talk page of the topic as instructed by the person who warned me.

Also, I've emailed the overzealous editor, yet he ignores me. I realize the topic at hand is politically charged, and I feel that I have been discriminated against unfairly.

Please unblock my account so that I can continue the discussion in the talk area. I believe that my edits conformed to the neutral point of view rules, but they were removed by overzealous and politically biased editors."

Decline reason: "You knew your edits were contentious, you brought them up on the talk page, and they were discussed. There was no consensus for them, yet you went ahead and made them anyways. You were reverted. Instead of discussing further, you commenced edit warring. This is totally unacceptable. — Haemo 19:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

HAEMO! You have shown your complete contempt, indifference, and incompetence for a fellow contributor and the Wiki by not completely doing your job and investigating the facts. I am completely offended and intend on escalating this up through the chain of command if I do not receive an acceptable resolution to this problem, both here and in the Global Warming talk/article.

Firstly, your time-line of events is completely erroneous. My edits took place first, and were reversed BEFORE I was warned. Only after I was warned did I move to the discussion area. Much later, and with no further edits, did MERCURY suspend my account.

Secondly, whether my edits are contentious or not is irrelevant, and for you to make any judgement is irresponsible and not your position to do so. The content of the Global Warming article is, by it's nature, contentious and completely biased toward a consensus view, not a balanced and neutral view. In fact, it completely disregards reason and the scientific method. I would go even furthur and say that the entire Global Warming issue is completely politically slanted toward one view that must be questioned. My intial edits were not biased, but reflected neutrality.

Thirdly, I moved to the talk pages and never went back to the article: first on the first editors account, expressing my dissatisfaction with his heavy-handedness in removing the edits and lack of a civil explaination, only to have him give me a terse warning after I reversed his removals. My opinion is valid and was directed to him in his area. He responded to me and that was the end of the discussion.

I then moved to the talk area for the Global Warming article as instructed and offered a reasonable edit proposal. In no way was my proposition contentious, with the exception of my insistance for debate, which was summarily cut-off by an overzealous editor named MERCURY. My contribution is reasonable and respects the purpose of the Wiki, which is to maintain a neutral positon in instances like this. This issue hasn't been resolved and I intend to escalate this in the discussion area as well as up the Wiki chain of command.

I would go further and complain that there hasn't been a debate on the talk page, just flippant, intransigent and unyielding responses from people that have obviously made-up their minds on this issue. This isn't discussion or debate. Again, as I asked the first editor, what's the point of this talk area if no one is going to have a discussion?

Finally, I did not continue edit warring. I ceased immediately when warned (rather tersely and without any civilized discussion or explaination from the editor) and moved to the discussion/talk area.

So, your denial is totally unacceptable, unprofessional, and shows your complete disregard for this process and the neutrality of the Wiki.

Again, restore my account immediately!

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Rolex Sunken Road 1242.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Rolex Sunken Road 1242.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shinerunner (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Image copyright problem with Image:Rolex Sunken Road 1242.JPG

When I originally tagged this image, there was no license information tag on it. I see from the edit history that you have corrected this problem and have removed the tag. That was the only problem with the image. Thank you for your understanding and help in this matter.Shinerunner (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)