User talk:TMLutas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Babel
en This user is a native speaker of English. ro-2 Acest utilizator poate contribui în română la un nivel intermediar. fr-1 Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.
Search user languages

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, TMLutas. Thank you for your work on George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Romania, 1906, and the '03 Medicare act. Judging from the work you've done, it seems that your fortes are in history and politics; you can find plenty of articles in need of help in these fields or in others at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention.

You might find these links helpful in starting new articles or helping with existing ones: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, and About 'Show preview'. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you'd like some help from the community on starting to edit, you can sign yourself up at the new users log. If you have any particular questions, you can see the help pages, or, for individual help, feel free to add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

• You can sign your name on talk pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Thank you for your contributions; I hope you continue to help us.

-- Djinn112 00:28, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

I just noticed that you've been here since November '03; if this is a repeat greeting or none of the info above is anything new to you, sorry for the redundancy. -- Djinn112 05:53, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 System of facts and opinions 2 Dispute resolution for Virtual Inheritance (object-oriented programming) 3 Moller 4 Request for edit summary 5 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards 6 The Schlock thread 7 John Michael Botean 8 Deletion/tagging 9 shotguns 9.1 =============== 9.2 10 Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism! 11 Notability of Arbour group 12 Little context in FBI Silvermaster File 13 Alger Hiss 14 Hiss 15 Notes on Hiß 16 WikiProject Furry 17 Incorrectly tagged as vandalism 18 Global warming conspiracy theory 19 Comment moved 20 WMC complaints 21 Deleted subpage 22 Your note 23 Climate of Mars 24 Hubble reference 25 Climate of Mars 26 Three revert rule enforcement 27 Please pull back from the edge 28 help over at Priestly Society of Saint Josaphat 29 MTR 30 T.A. Bisson 31 Speedy deletion of Jacques Lanxade 32 Jacques Lanxade 33 Raymond E. Feist 34 WikiCookie for Washington Monument Syndrome

[edit] System of facts and opinions

On your userpage, you write about the idea of a system of facts and opinions that shows the logical reasoning behind each step. I thought you might like to know that there's a similar idea that's already been implemented here. This isn't quite the same thing that you were thinking of, but it's a step in that direction. Unfortunately, much of it is pointless silliness, but it's still an interesting experiment. Cheers! --Mr. Billion 21:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution for Virtual Inheritance (object-oriented programming)

Just wanted to let you know (from your comment on discussion page) I added some recommended changes and put in the articulation for the semantics of Virtual Inheritance.

Please feel free to review. I'll be removing the 'dispute' status (as per your recommendation) in a few days.

I still have to add the class Figure/Square/Circle/Triangle examples. Will add some good concise references after I update the examples.

Thanks much ahead of time.

Shawnk --Shawn wiki 15:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moller

Moller advances that FAA certification date by one year every year, and has been doing it since 2003. It's always two years in the future. He's been doing that for a very long time. See [1], where he claimed he was going to have FAA certification by June 30, 1976. That's right, in 1974, 32 years ago, FAA approval was two years in the future. --John Nagle 20:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Salut, salut, dom'le. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards

I noticed your comment on bogdan's talk page. Perhaps it's more logical to discuss the issue with the person who closed the AfD? (Or start the process of deletion review) V 01:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I came over here to say the same thing. :) -- Ben 01:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Schlock thread

Hi! I’m sorry I haven’t replied earlier, but when I posted the URL to my talk page in that thread, the blog software appended a full stop, so your reply went to a page that I didn’t watch. Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ursa Major Awards, I think the ‘I hate furries’ comment was definitely outside of what is considered acceptable here and in no way a sound rationale, but—without being able to look at the deleted article—I find the evidence for the notability of the awards, as presented in the debate, very weak. Based on the debate, I would tend to agree with deleting the article. The deletion process is based on good reasons, not democracy, and apparently the nominator was right in that there was no evidence of importance; in fact, I can’t find any, either. With my hypothetical decision on this in mind, I would not find it necessary to keep an article whose only claim of notability was by the awards, but, conversely, an article that mentioned the awards but would remain notable and verifiable even if the mention was removed should be kept with the mention.

Regarding your suggestion to ‘resurrect’ the awards article, I would do it if I had enough sources with which to write it. At the moment, I have none. —xyzzy_n 21:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Michael Botean

I hope you don’t mind, but I looked at your contributions and noticed your comment at Talk:John Michael Botean. Can you please clarify whether the permission was granted for use on Wikipedia or for use by everybody and whether it included releasing the material under the GFDL? Unless the permission was to release the content under the GFDL for use by anybody, we cannot keep the content on Wikipedia. —xyzzy_n 21:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My objection is that you haven’t actually said what the permission was. Can you please quote it on the article’s talk page? It must permit releasing the text, including the parts which you did not write, under the GFDL. This is not clear from what you posted on the talk page so far. Releasing only your modifications to the original text under the GFDL is not enough.

By the way, when starting a new section on a talk page, please put it at the bottom (unless there is a good reason to do otherwise) or just use the ‘+’ link next to the ‘edit this page’ link, which does that automatically. —xyzzy_n 23:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Gone, looked. Since they don’t mention any permission on the website and you don’t want to provide the necessary details, shall I just tag the article as {{copyvio}} and be done with it?

I’m not in the habit of contacting the copyright holder for a work that has been copied into a Wikipedia article. Either whoever copied the material (in this case, you) already has obtained permission and can post the statement of permission somewhere for others to check (which you don’t seem to want to do) or there is no (sufficient) permission (to publish the content anywhere under the GFDL) and it gets deleted. Either way, there is no reason for me to go bother somebody else.

Note that I’m doing this even-handedly. That means I treat a copy of a church website as seriously as a copy of an AP report. And in either case, I won’t wait until 2010 to have the copyright status clarified. —xyzzy_n 03:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no reason to ask. For what it’s worth, it would have been better to find some good sources and write the article from scratch.

As for procedure, no, I’m not following any guidelines; I am loosely following the policy Wikipedia:Copyrights. (Loosely because I didn’t tag the article as a violation right away although I suspected that the permission you obtained was insufficient.) I do understand the matter well enough not to need a step-by-step manual. You should have been following Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, but I’m not so much interested in those formalities.

I asked a fairly simple question. You’re evading it. Unless you provide a direct answer, I see no reason to continue this discussion here. —xyzzy_n 03:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not actually said what the permission was. Now following process. —xyzzy_n 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion/tagging

You have expressed an interest in the practice of putting up for deletion articles that needed to be tagged instead. You are therefore cordially invited to contribute to, review, clarify, and/or discuss a working draft on my userspace of a policy that needs to be clarified on Wikipedia, User:Balancer/Wikpedia:Deletion_is_not_a_substitute_for_tagging. Balancer 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shotguns

I can appreciate your question, and I suggest that a neutral compromise is to use the literal definition as written in Miller, and as written the Firearms Act, 'shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches'. That way there is no ambiguity of definition, and no risk of POV push. BruceHallman 17:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree. First, you say 'pretty much like', but 'pretty much like' is a form of original research and is not the same as 'is'. Much more neutral to just use the exact wording found in Miller ruling than to stretch the facts. The Miller article mentions the 'military use' extensively. Also, Cases v. United States establishes the military use of trench guns, so what is the big deal of your complaint? Also, the Miller decision had four points, and the legal standing does not just hinge "make or break" on the one point you are focusing upon. BruceHallman 04:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ===============

You wrote: "The difference between the conclusion of the Court and the physical history and real military use of those weapons means that there's grounds for reversal there."

Obivously, this is your opinion, not the court's, or they would have reversed already. The article should be about what is actual per WP:ATT. Not about your opinion WP:NOR.

You wrote: "That the Court got the facts so wrong in *the* seminal 2nd amendment case for modern jurisprudence is noteworthy "

They did not get the 'facts wrong'. They simply said:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia ".

You are leaping to a fallacious logical conclusion that if evidence of historical military use was presented they would have ruled differently. This is a huge logical leap. They could easily have ruled that trench guns do not help preserve the modern militia. Your logic is contrived: That the court would protect private unregistered weapons simply because of any possibility of military use? By your logic you read Miller to say the courts would strike down regulations on bazookas, stinger missiles and nuclear bombs if presented evidence of a military use.

In truth, I expect that after the 1903 Military Act, the court acknowledged the obvious. The militia at this time is the National Guard and is not the militia of 1789. The National Guard does not as a 'reasonable relationship' ever again expect to ask recruits (called up from the unorganized militia) to bring their own weapons to military service, nor even for recruits to come 'self trained' in the modern arts of war.

Be reasonable, the 1789 militia you dream of is archaic and anachronistic, and it not the actual militia defined by the 1903 law. The Miller wording clearly says "...at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

The court has balanced a minuscule benefit of having citizens self-trained in trench gun use for trench warfare against the very real problem of gangsters and bootleggers having unregistered sawed off shotguns in crime. This is a normal and reasonable trade off while making a public policy decision. BruceHallman 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

Thanks for your reply, but our dialog is not efficient if you do not respond and address my questions and concerns posed above. You have not addressed my concerns about avoiding original thought and original research, required per Wikipedia policy. Your claim of 'factual error' is not founded in the wording of Miller and fails the WP:ATT test. Your association between a gangster's sawed off shot gun and a military weapon known as a 'trench gun' appears to be not found in the wording of Miller and fails the WP:ATT test. Your invitation to explore the State codes about militia is interesting, but not really relevant to an article about the federal constitution, and a court case about a federal law. BruceHallman 17:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not see that any of those articles claimed that Jack Miller had a trench gun. If I am not mistaken, you are proposing to say that he did. What he did have was a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length'. BruceHallman 16:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "Jack Miller's gun, as described by the Court, fits the category of improvised combat shotgun." Incorrect. It was not 'described by the Court' like this. The court did not say 'fits the category'. You are claiming something not found in Miller to make your partisan point.

You wrote: 'a mistake of fact'. Incorrect. What mistake of fact? The Court did not endure a mistake of fact. Read Miller again. They only describe an absence of evidence. The only 'mistake' was (viewed now in hindsight) in how the defense argued the case. From your perspective that is a shame, I can see, but, there was no mistake of fact. And absence of evidence is not the same as a mistake of fact.

And, even if the Court was presented evidence of military use of combat shotguns, there is no reason what-so-ever to now conclude that presentation of that evidence would have caused the Court to rule differently. How do you make such an assumption?

Bear in mind that the Court said "...at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" I imagine that the court would have seen the statutory National Guard and Naval Militia as the well regulated militia at this time and observed the obvious. That the unorganized militia did not at this time reasonably need access to trench guns for preservation or efficiency. That is just my guess, which doesn't matter really, because my 'original research', like yours, should be omitted from the article.

I have asked you two questions today. On previous days, I have asked questions and raised issues which you refuse or neglect to answer. When you do not answer my questions, it makes for an inefficient conversation and makes it hard for me to 'assume good faith' about your actions. BruceHallman 00:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, TMLutas, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! --Thw1309 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Arbour group

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Arbour group, by Cquan, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Arbour group seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Arbour group, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Arbour group itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little context in FBI Silvermaster File

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on FBI Silvermaster File, by Vgranucci (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because FBI Silvermaster File is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting FBI Silvermaster File, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this file at a time when it had almost no content, & had not been worked on for 2 days. I never delete articles like this except at least overnight--but some admins do. There's a handy template {{underconstruction}} The present article is substantial, and in my opinion should not be subject to speedy as empty (or as re-creation). It might have been better to wait until I had responded before re-creating it. I suggest a title that does not begin with FBI--I see no other WP titles in this format, perhaps Silverman FBI file. And I do not know if a separate article is warranted--please make sure there is not too much duplication of content. DGG (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alger Hiss

This article seems to have reached an impasse concerning whether or not most scholars believe Hiss engaged in espionage for the Soviets. I think if fair minded people review the admittedly lengthy discussion on this issue it will help advance the issue, which is presently stumbling on claims that a "consensus" of Wiki users do not believe there is, in fact, a consensus amongst historians. I believe all parties concerned would welcome more participation in order to avoid senseless edit warring.Bdell555 05:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't edit the Hiss page for at least 24 hours since, in the midst of a number of re-edits, I inadvertently reverted one of those edits 4 times within a few minutes under 24 hours. To be prudent I will take a haitus of significantly longer than that. But a few notes that may be of interest to you in case you wish to look at this subject further:

- David Oshinsky, who should have particular credibility with the reverters involved here because he has been critical of McCarthy, stated orally at a Hiss love-in conference that the "vast majority of historians” accept that Hiss was a spy. http://jeffersonflanders.wordpress.com/2007/04/08/alger-hiss-wilder-foote-and-the-verdict-of-history/ See also Oshinsky's remark

What makes the March 30 [1945 Venona] cable so damning is the revelation that "Ales" remained a Soviet agent at least until 1945 -- far beyond the timetable presented by Whittaker Chambers. Worse, it further links the American Communist Party of the 1930s and '40s to espionage in the service of Stalin's well-oiled killing machine. This particular point is deeply resisted in parts of contemporary academe, where Marxist historians, in particular, treat the old C.P. with honor and respect. To accept the guilt of Alger Hiss is to admit the bitter truth about a small but sinister part of America's "progressive" past. And that may not be easy. David Oshinsky, "The Meaning of the Enduring Controversy Over Alger Hiss", The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 20, 1996

- "ALES", a Soviet spy, "is assumed by most scholars to be Alger Hiss" http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/hissvenona.html

- "Hiss' defenders have dwindled to a small handful of true believers" http://www.salon.com/media/media961119.html

- "To a dwindling band of zealous believers, Hiss was one of the first victims of anticommunist hysteria, an American Dreyfus. Yet the weight of historical evidence indicates that Hiss was what he steadfastly denied ever being: a member of the communist underground and a Soviet spy." http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,985571-1,00.html

- "The basic question — whether Alger Hiss was a spy for the Soviet Union during the 1930s and 1940s — was finally settled during the 1990s ... Today, only a small band of true believers, headed by Hiss’s son, still tries to argue his innocence." https://cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no4/alger_hiss.html

- The website of Tony Hiss (http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15) is described by Rutgers historian David Greenberg (www.scils.rutgers.edu/~davidgr/) as "the best defense mustered of [Alger] Hiss by the dwindling band of those who believe in Hiss. I don't think anyone is going to treat this site as the repository of truth, except for those who have already made up their minds that Hiss was innocent". (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/16/technology/circuits/16HISS.html?ex=1183953600&en=1aeb9bd6710ec366&ei=5070).

- "the publication of the Venona intercepts of wartime Soviet espionage referring to "Ales" settled the matter -- to all but the truest of believers, "Ales" only could mean Alger Hiss." http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20040806_kutler.html

- "In 1996 the release of secret Soviet cables intercepted by U.S. intelligence during World War II provided strong evidence of Hiss's guilt." http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9367140/Alger-Hiss

- "The corraborative evidence now availble puts that identification beyond the reasonable doubt" Mitrokhin, Vasili, Christopher Andrew (2000). The Mitrokhin Archive: The KGB in Europe and the West. Gardners Books. ISBN 0-14-028487-7. Page 792 (note 81, VERNONA decrypts... ")

- "Analysts at the National Security Agency have gone on record asserting that ALES could only have been Alger Hiss" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/dece_hiss.html

- "Alger Hiss ... role as a spy was eventually proven" http://veracity.univpubs.american.edu/weekly/102406/102406_beisner.html

- "The evidence now, following the publication of VENONA and The Haunted Wood, is simply overwhelming." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/118

- See the resume of Mark Kramer (http://www.jatsbulgaria.org/show.php?type=author&id=2) who wrote that the "attempts to explain away all the new available evidence" by "diehard supporters of Hiss" "are thoroughly unconvincing."

- See also the exhaustive work of Klehr and Haynes, and the report by Senator Moynihan's (Democrat) inquiry.

- Finally, there is a great deal of praise for Allen Weinstein's late 1970s book, Perjury, from intellectuals from across the political spectrum. Alfred Kazin said that after that book's publication "It is impossible to imagine anything new in the case except an admission by Alger Hiss" (See Oshinsky article in Chronicle, above, for cite for this quote). Praise also came from Irving Howe, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Garry Wills, John Kenneth Galbraith, George Will, Walter Goodman, Murray Kempton, Merle Miller, William F. Buckley, etc. Sam Tanenhaus' bio of Chambers, Hiss' accuser, has also received widespread praise for its scholarship. There is also G. Edward White's "Alger Hiss's Looking-Glass Wars: The Covert Life of a Soviet Spy".

Bottom line is that re "The bulk of researchers currently believe Hiss guilty", I've looked extensively and haven't been able to find even ONE professional historian who has published anything in the last 25 years claiming Hiss is innocent. Even the couple of contemporary journalists / media personalities who attack the evidence indicting Hiss do so on a piece by piece basis and have been careful to not make the laughable assertion that when considering the totality of the evidence, Hiss is innocent.

On an different note, I note that the claim "For the GRU to name Hiss openly, not by a codename, would be radically unorthodox for Soviet espionage protocols if he was, indeed, a spy. Both the NSA and the FBI have insisted that once a codename was assigned it was used to the exclusion of the real name" in the article is misleading if not simply false. There is no cite for the NSA. Bob Lamphere of the FBI did once tentatively identified JURIST as Samuel Rosenman and noted that "Rosenman is mentioned by the MGB... by his real name on one occasion and it has been noted that the MGB, once it designates a man by a cover name, thereafter uses the cover name to the exclusion of the individual’s real name". However, 1) Lamphere fingered Rosenman anyway at the very time he made his observation 2) ALES was run by GRU and GRU and the MGB were distinct intelligence agencies. There accordingly ought to be a cite for the claim that GRU is being "radically unorthodox". Note that "Soviet espionage protocols" is used in order to attribute the "protocols" of the MGB to the GRU without having to justify it.

It would be entirely reasonable to expect that the rest of the article is chock full of inaccuracies, critical missing information, and misleading undue weight as well. However, I've never had time to look at the rest of the article and perhaps no one does.Bdell555 20:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hiss

re. [2]. This is not bad English. Please undo your revert. Thanks. RedSpruce 19:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is bad English. At least three users disagree with you, Redspruce.Bdell555 20:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I recall now that you had a lot of difficulty understanding the sentence, Bdell555. I forgot that in the midst of our discussion ("discussion" on my part, anyway) about the content of the sentence. Thanks for reminding me. Clearly the sentence should be made clearer. RedSpruce 20:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is bad English because you want to use "apparently" for "mistakenly" and the two words have different meanings. Changing it to "mistakenly" would indeed help clarify and would be better English, although "mistakenly", or something like that, would be highly contentious. Find a source where Gordievsky says "apparently" (and thereby stop stuffing "apparently" into Gordievsky's or Akhmerov's mouth) and I doubt you will have so many editors opposed to your edit.Bdell555 21:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're still confused, I see. "Mistakenly" is not what I mean at all, in the least, in any way. But anyway, the place to discuss this is in the Hiss Talk page. RedSpruce 10:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on Hiß

I did reſtore the laſt known good verſion. Juſt check how badly broken the firſt few notes were.

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 06:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Furry

[edit] Incorrectly tagged as vandalism

I meant to simply revert your change and not tag it as vandalism. However, whether or not it is propaganda is clearly a point-of-view. If it is obvious based off the rest of the article and reliable sources, then it doesn't need to be said. If it is not obvious, then it needs to be referenced. If it is challenged, it should not be in the lede. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming conspiracy theory

Since you and I are most likely going to disagree more than we agree, I thought I'd take this moment to make sure I state that I absolutely agree with this change. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea why we should always disagree. We might convince one another after all. TMLutas 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We might, but I suspect that you're as stubborn as I am. (That said, I'm not as stubborn as some I've witnessed here.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment moved

Please don't hide stuff like this away:

It's not directly on point for this ban but since September 7th, Ben Hocking has kindly made available a sandbox on this climate of mars section. The NPOV tags came out because of WMC's tendentious edits and his notorious history regarding how he applies such blocks against editors who have a legitimate difference of opinion but who might not be sufficiently paranoid about their adherence to the letter of the rules. I am the only one editing in the sandbox as of now and I am extremely reluctant to continue contributing directly to the page on this issue because of what I see as WMC's abusive tactics. He's quite good at skating shy of getting his admin privs revoked but also good at furthering the vibe that wikipedia is ideologically rigged. The latter should trouble anybody who cares about the long term viability of wikipedia. TMLutas 16:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you mean this seriously, put it onto complaints about admins - I can find you the exact place if you can't. If you just want to rant - don't. As far as I'm aware, I have used no abusive tactics. If you seriously believe otherwise, you should complain in the proper venue. As far as I'm aware, I haven't come even vaguely close to any admin sanction, but perhaps you've been watching more closely than I have William M. Connolley 21:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

TMLutas, Please do keep me informed of your progress regarding William M. Connolley, and don't hesitate to call upon me for any assistance. Also, you may find the information on my user talk page of use, as well as my, and WC's, edit history on Talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, Cheers. --Britcom 14:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Be careful of the company you keep [3] William M. Connolley 19:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks WMC, there's one for the file! TMLutas 19:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WMC complaints

Incident list for William M. Connolley. May it remain short and incomplete. TMLutas 00:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted subpage

Hello. I have deleted the /WMC subpage as meeting the criteria for speedy deletion, criterion G10. Regards, Navou ^banter 04:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

TMLutas, I have emailed a copy of the code for the above page to you. Cheers.--Britcom 05:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. You sent an old copy. The inappropriate application of G10 is the point so I'd like my page back. I can make these pages all day long if I have the text and they'll do no good but set me up for a ban if admins don't honor the exception to the no attack page and apply the rules as written. If WMC didn't think it was an attack page (and he tried to edit the thing to make it longer, look at the history if you can) it's a bit rich that it was insta-deleted by somebody else (I don't think I got any notice at all, just a flyby deleteion). TMLutas 12:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you're getting frustrated: want to know what alternative I have to individually bringing up all the pissant issues until the actual underlying problem is sufficiently exposed, that WMC seems to have a pattern of pushing things beyond the limits of what an admin should do. One of the things that winds admins up is being accused of misusing admin powers when all they are doing is normal editing. You should strive for clarity. As far as I can tell - for example over the Mars stuff - I haven't used, let alone abused, my powers on the page itself. If I blocked anyone over it, I've forgotten. Meanwhile, I'm happy to use my powers to the extent of mailing you a copy of your deleted page if you like, but you'll have to enable your email William M. Connolley 17:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to keep the distinction better between the two but no guarantees I'll get it entirely right all the time. There's no reason for us to knock heads over something as trivial as my confusing editor/administrator actions. I regret that I did that and I'll put a copy of this on your page as well. That doesn't change the underlying complaint, mind you, but I should have stated it accurately.

I would correct one error in your own evaluation. I'm not frustrated over the Mars stuff or even the deletes. I expected it from the moment I started the page back in the day. There's a growth process necessary to get to consensus on controversial issues and a certain amount of tail sniffing, ear nipping, and belly peeing seems inevitable. We are not vulcans. If anything, I'm frustrated at some admins' obsession with britcom and their deciding to respond to his (so far fairly bellicose and non-strategic) comments and are ignoring my own. That's just distracting and not doing the community any good. Hopefully that's going to end soon. TMLutas 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've tried to stay out of this whole discussion, but "belly peeing"? What does that mean? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's one of those things that lower status wolves do when they're really worried the higher status wolf is actually going to rip their throat out. They go on their back and pee on their bellies. Dogs do it too, much to the dismay of most of their owners. It's a hierarchy dominance/submission thing. TMLutas 18:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have heard of this before. Anyways, I'm glad to see that things between you and WMC appear to have calmed down a bit. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you misunderstand the situation. If I would have been mad about things, I would have blogged about it. For personal reasons, I don't write so much lately but I'm a 'b' list blogger and can drum up plenty of outrage if I wanted to. I've never wanted to on this matter. The maddest I actually got over the whole thing was getting physically ill at the che worship going on over at El_C's page but that's nothing to do with WMC, just another unsavory adherent that I don't hold against him personally. TMLutas 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you resist a redlink? belly peeing Navou ^banter 18:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Hi TMLutas, and thanks for your note. We've seen many "anti-fan" pages here before, and, in my opinion, it just doesn't prove to be conducive at all to the dispute resolution process. If you wish to proceed along the dispute resolution pathway, the next best step would be an RfC; and you're welcome to use a user subpage to help construct your RfC. Hope you guys are able to sort things out amicably, and let me know if there's anything I can do to help -- Samir 18:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate of Mars

In commenting a recent edit you say "edits are unacceptable. TMLutas, have you not paid attention to talk?" This can be taken several ways so I thought I'd ask for a clarification, what are you trying to say with this? TMLutas 02:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That no other editors have supported your edits, and several disapproved of them, so unilaterally adding them to the article is unacceptable (WP:CONSENSUS). I could debunk your statements re. Mars climate, on grounds of basic physics and certain aspects of planetary science I have knowledge of, but based on your edit history, you are unlikely to accept my explanations, so I will simply enforce policy. One point that is not contentious: Hubble res. on Mars is ~10000x best orbiter res, and ground-based resolution isn't improving much past that (despite what the lucky imaging and AO can do). This doesn't mean that ground-based observations aren't useful for Mars, of course, but they don't have spatial resolution at any high level. Michaelbusch 03:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting off topic here, but am I to understand that you're saying the Hubble resolution on Mars is better (and 10,000x better, at that) than the resolution we're receiving from Mars orbiters? That sounds backwards to me, although I'm just using common sense which I know can get one into trouble. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

10000x is bad, as I say below. Michaelbusch 19:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the ref link, the hubble image I added had an astounding resolution down to 10km, pretty darn good from that far away. I find it unlikely that the orbiter cameras are that poorer. I suspect hyperbole. TMLutas 18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi-RISE, MRO. Resolution 0.4 m = 1/20000 Hubble res. 10000x res is bad on this scale. Re. reverting your unilaterial changes to Climate of Mars: if you read the deletion discussions on Solar system warming and similar articles, you will find the debunking. I'm against clogging the Wiki with duplicates, and have more important things to do than repeat myself endlessly. Michaelbusch 18:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

From the picture caption"Frosty white water ice clouds and swirling orange dust storms above a vivid rusty landscape reveal Mars as a dynamic planet in this sharpest view ever obtained by an Earth-based telescope. The Earth-orbiting Hubble telescope snapped this picture on June 26, when Mars was approximately 43 million miles (68 million km) from Earth -- its closest approach to our planet since 1988. Hubble can see details as small as 10 miles (16 km) across. Especially striking is the large amount of seasonal dust storm activity seen in this image. One large storm system is churning high above the northern polar cap [top of image], and a smaller dust storm cloud can be seen nearby. Another large duststorm is spilling out of the giant Hellas impact basin in the Southern Hemisphere [lower right]."

Then again, maybe my source is bogus. Is the Space Telescope Science Institute reliable? According to what I see, they actually *administer* Hubble and they also supplied that caption. Now it could be that they're simply *wrong* but I'd start out with the idea that maybe something else is going on. YMMV TMLutas 19:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mars orbit, not Earth orbit, is what I refer to. Hubble is the best near Earth, but anything near Earth can't compete with MRO's resolution. And yes, STSI is a good source. I've worked with many of them. Michaelbusch 19:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure TMLutas understands the numbers (and I'm not implying he doesn't), 0.4 m < 1/20000 of the 10km value you posted earlier. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, pretty clear to me that this particular item is a great big misunderstanding and we're all vehemently agreeing with each other. Stepping back a pace, I just wanted to include the idea that some Mars climate data is coming in from terrestrial and Earth orbiting instruments. If I was confusing or made a mistake in how I expressed the sentiment, I have no problem in a correction. A wholesale kill of the concept of terrestrial insruments giving useful data today is less acceptable and that's where we currently stand. TMLutas 19:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

One last thing MB, I think I visited solar system warming once because somebody made a reference to it on Climate of Mars but I don't recall editing it and I don't monitor it at all. You can certainly debunk by reference, ie say "I already debunked this argument elsewhere, go here (with a functioning link) to get the details." and I will not protest. I may have a novel reply and want to further the conversation or I may not. I deserve at least a link to the debunking though. TMLutas 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Martian_global_warming. I may have been a little over-eager in reverting, but as I've said I've lost all patience with this. Re. Earth-based observations: while they can be useful, they are definitely second-rate compared to Mars orbit. I say this as one who has made ground-based observations of martian weather. Michaelbusch 19:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You have no signed commentary on that page that I can find. Please give me a string to search on so I don't have to wade through the whole page. Were you contributing under a different ID? If you have lost all patience sufficient that you're getting over-eager with reverting, it might be time to step back. I've done it. I'm currently *doing* it as I'm not even checking on my WMC subpage that got recently deleted. I got a bit too hot under the collar there and am backing off. You might consider it until you can kill my stuff without getting overeager. TMLutas 20:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See also Talk:Solar_system_warming and its archives and the Solar_system_warming_2 and Solar_system_warming AfDs. Michaelbusch 20:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Solar_system_warming/Archive_1#Plaut_quotewas something I found and there's stuff a bit further down as well. The rest of your links don't work at all and I just don't have the time to chase things down. Chasing down the one was hard enough. Stuffing solar warming theory down the memory hole also stuffs the inline debunkings down it too. Debunking by reference doesn't work well when your stuff gets moved.

If you say that the underlying papers do not support the Plaut quote I put into the Climate of Mars page, I'm willing to be persuaded but the pathway might be a little rougher than you might think. It's to do with verifiability. One can have a notable opinion in a reliable source that does not trace back to a peer reviewed paper. One could always ask Plaut of course, but I'm not sure if that isn't original research. So barring that shortcut, you're going to have to demonstrate the link between the statement and the papers you haven't provided links to or even named and evidence that Plaut was misquoted or otherwise misrepresented. I won't defend misrepresentation but you'll have to first demonstrate that it *is* misrepresentation. TMLutas 20:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This may not be entirely valid, but Earth-based observations might have an extra temporal component that Mars-based observations do not. I'm not sure when the last time was that we didn't have a satellite around Mars, but whenever that was, we were still presumably making Earth-based observations. A big problem in identifying long-term climate trends with Mars (if any such trends exist) is that we haven't been recording long enough. So, although Mars-based observations are superior where they exist, Earth-based observations are superior to no observations, if that makes sense. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but we've had continuous coverage around Mars for 11 years now (MGS was the first), and before that there was Viking. Michaelbusch 20:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We do not have continuous coverage on Mars. The DoD doesn't even have continuous coverage on Earth and their satellite budget is comparatively large. We have much better coverage than we used to but I would say that it's a pretty big overstatement to call it continuous. There, that nit is picked. TMLutas 20:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, but by "continuous" he means we've had one satellite or other in orbit for 11 years, and although we don't have enough satellite coverage to monitor every spot on Mars simultaneously, we don't need that to get a reasonable representation of the climate averages. Also, since we're comparing Mars-based observations to Earth-based observations (of Mars), we don't have that type of continuous coverage from Earth (towards Mars), either. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If this conversation has a point at all, it's whether or not we should mention terrestrial instruments as productive Mars climate research tools. Where do you stand on that? TMLutas 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

MB: I don't think 11 years is enough time to get a solid handle on long-term climate variability, though. Do you? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A climatic signal anything close to the changes on Earth would be rather blatantly obvious. Michaelbusch 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hubble reference

The wording in the article was:

Modern Earth orbiting instruments are also providing ever more detailed measurements of Mars^[1] that help in studyng Martian weather and climate.

Hubble's resolution has been flat-lined for its entire life, and higher resolution instruments are not foreseen (JWST is larger but longer wavelength). Ground-based AO is still limited. 'ever more detailed' is most problematic. Invoking ground-based observations is fine, but the phrasing is nonsensical. Michaelbusch 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking now, it *is* pretty bad, but the cure for it isn't to kill the whole concept of treating terrestrial instruments but rather replacing it with a better text. So, got a better text? TMLutas 02:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate of Mars

I apologize if I have been a jackass. Michaelbusch 19:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Accepted. Nobody (including myself) goes without slipping sometimes. TMLutas 20:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule enforcement

I am investigating your report of RedSpruce. In this edit your edit summary is "as per 3rr rules, you revert to the violators non-preferred version". I would like to know what your understanding of this rule is. As an admin who has closed more than a few three revert rule reports, I know of no such rule. The three revert rule is not about content but about editor behaviour; the fact that an editor may have blatantly broken the three revert rule says nothing about the merits of their edit. It has not been my policy, when blocking a user for violating the three revert rule, to revert the article in question if their preferred version happens to be in place. Could you point me to this aspect of policy? Sam Blacketer 23:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I am not asking for any reverting on your or anyone else's part, but I think you have misinterpreted the suggestion that editors who break the 3RR by mistake should 'self-revert'. As I wrote above, the 3RR is about editor behaviour and disruption, rather than content. Self-reverting is a very good way for editors to indicate that they have ceased to revert war. Administrators are only expected to block if it prevents disruption, so an indication that an errant user will no longer disrupt is a good sign. To revert another editor's change is not any help. If there is an ongoing dispute then asking for outside views may help - say through a third opinion or a request for comment.

I explained my block length on the three revert rule report page; in essence they are that RedSpruce had taken care before to avoid being blocked for disruption, so this was his first block; that he was active on the talk page talking to those with a different view to try to reach consensus; and that one of the edits seemed to me to be a questionable one in that it sought to label all those who disputed Elizabeth Bentley's accusations as "spy" or "double agent". Whether that description is true or not (in some cases, their status is disputed to this day), it is still better to let readers make their minds up for themselves and not write in such a way that suggests an obvious conclusion. Sam Blacketer 14:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please pull back from the edge

Libel is a serious charge, not to be tossed around lightly. Some of your other recent edits have bordered on badgering and tendentiousness. Please don't cross over the edge, because I think you can make positive contributions to Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt 02:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not plan on continuing to directly comment on the Watts project. I'm deadly serious that what WMC did was libel. It's not legally actionable but he engaged in a smear, an accusation that assumed Watts was lying without providing a scintilla of evidence. That's not something that I have the time or the resources to fix so I took it out of wikipedia and am not going to pursue the matter in this project. Watts can look to his own reputation. He knows.

The major portion of my commentary over the course of this incident was a struggle to figure out the shape and contour of how the gw page network monitors were misusing the rules. That work is going to have to be picked up at another time, probably with a sandboxed page though I'm likely to get a blog posting out of it before then. TMLutas 14:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help over at Priestly Society of Saint Josaphat

Hi there - would you be able to lend some assistance over here? I'm getting increasinly frustrated. InfernoXV 06:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MTR

Your input is requested on the MTR talk page about how to phrase the opening paragraph.D-rew 21:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T.A. Bisson

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of T.A. Bisson, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.conservapedia.com/Thomas_A._Bisson. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Jacques Lanxade

A tag has been placed on Jacques Lanxade requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

contested and the speedy delete's already pulled TMLutas (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacques Lanxade

I sd'd it because you did not include enough detail in the stub, in my opinion , to establish WP:notability. . .your complaint on my talk page was substantially more comprehensive. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I did not see notability. However, the Sd admin did. Try to keep it civil and assume good faith. If people keep deleting your stubs, that may be telling you something. . .perhaps you need to include more binding information in them. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an argument with you. You may be right; there may indeed be a cultural snafu happening here; however, I looked at your stub and re-read several times before sd tagging it. I tend to assume that when someone puts me in the same category of "jokers" that they are not being entirely civil.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond E. Feist

Hi TMLutas - seeing from your contributions you have been fairly interested in the works of Raymond E. Feist – I plan to start a new wiki-project (or a task force on an existing project) and are seeking out pople who may be interested – if you are could you kindly sign at WP:COUNCIL/P or leave a message on my talk page. Thanks! Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiCookie for Washington Monument Syndrome

TML, I added your references (from the Talk pg) into the article; glad to help. Btw, I use the citation tool refTools and it is soooo helpful. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)