| Revision as of 10:47, 11 June 2007 editRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits Well← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:55, 8 July 2007 edit undoThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits BlockedNext edit → | ||
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
| You're kind of missing the point here. The issue is not whether you're "legally entitled" to hold that poll, the issue is whether said poll would in fact be helpful in resolving the issue. Note that ''one'' person responded to the poll, whereas at least ''five'' users pointed out that it was a bad idea, and some people even suggested you should be banned from the talk page in question. So the consensus is pretty much that the poll is a bad idea. You should therefore ask yourself whether it's a productive approach to stubbornly continue in something that is unlikely to help anyone and is likely to annoy several people. I note that discussion already continues in a useful way. ] 10:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | You're kind of missing the point here. The issue is not whether you're "legally entitled" to hold that poll, the issue is whether said poll would in fact be helpful in resolving the issue. Note that ''one'' person responded to the poll, whereas at least ''five'' users pointed out that it was a bad idea, and some people even suggested you should be banned from the talk page in question. So the consensus is pretty much that the poll is a bad idea. You should therefore ask yourself whether it's a productive approach to stubbornly continue in something that is unlikely to help anyone and is likely to annoy several people. I note that discussion already continues in a useful way. ] 10:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Blocked == | |||
| ] '''Blocked:''' I have blocked this account for two weeks. Per ] I believe you have used the account {{userlinks|Rtt71}} as a sockpuppet to make depleted uranium-related edits to ] in violation of your Arbitration case. In choosing the duration of 2 weeks I have noted that the Rtt71 account was perviously used to violated your article ban in June 2006, after the case was finalized, and was undetected until you used it again recently. I also note the suspcions that you have used other accounts including GVWilson and -Alex- and been allowed to get away with it. I see that this is the fifth block under your arbitration case. I will recommend that the sixth block (if necessary) be for a month and the seventh indefinite, as you have demonstrated a pattern of long-term and deliberate violation of your topical ban. ] 01:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:55, 8 July 2007
|
Welcome! Please append new items below. I'll reply on your talk page, and here too, if I think other people might care about the reply. Thank you. |
 Archives |
|---|
Note: Nrcprm2026's comments on Misplaced Pages are a work in progress, subject to the thread-mode disclaimer.
Thanks also to those who have asked me here.
--James S. 17 December 2005
Global warming
I enjoy your suggestions for Global warming. I think your suggestion should be adopted. Could you please go to the mediation page, and post some thoughts. the mediation is on exactly this issue, whether alternate views have the right to be added, without being excluded by the same small group several times. Thanks. --Sm8900 13:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I also enjoy your suggestions, as the financial impacts are an important aspect of the effects of AGW. Don't be put off by the squabbles between the scientists and the ones trying to dilute the findings by whatever means possible. Your contributions, in the right place, can be of great benefit. Indeed, through the discussion you helped move forward, I have learned about aspects of the Stern report and its criticism that had not previously made its way to my attention. Your quest for the truth is welcomed, and keep in mind that mine has led me to alter and refine my position over time as trustworthy peer-reviewed information became available (or was presented to me). Cheers, --Skyemoor 11:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
If you dont provide diffs
To UBeR how can he see if he deleted something? Just calling him a liar is not helpful. Try some kindness!--Blue Tie 01:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- As the person who actually deleted the peer-reviewed scientific review against his press release, don't you feel like he set you up? James S. 01:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Did I delete a cite? I did not mean to do so. And if I did it, no one set me up.. it was my own doing. But if I did something wrong, please tell me. I would try to make it right. I hope I did not do something to upset you. --Blue Tie 01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Blue Tie never deleted any citation, nor did I. I'd appreciate it if you stopped with your baseless attacks. Thank you. ~ UBeR 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Did I delete a cite? I did not mean to do so. And if I did it, no one set me up.. it was my own doing. But if I did something wrong, please tell me. I would try to make it right. I hope I did not do something to upset you. --Blue Tie 01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I did not know I admitted to it. I might have done it unawares. And I am still unaware of removing any citations. So, it would not be fair to say I admitted to it -- I am unable to admit to something that I do not know I did. But I apologized just in case I did it. And possibly you are using terminology that I am not using. When I say a "cite" I mean one of those footnote references or links. But if I did something wrong, I will cop to it, if shown and I certainly apologize!--Blue Tie 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mr. Salsman is just looking to attack people because he disagrees with them. Nevermind this. There is no evidence that either you or I deleted any references, because we never did, of course. ~ UBeR 00:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I did not know I admitted to it. I might have done it unawares. And I am still unaware of removing any citations. So, it would not be fair to say I admitted to it -- I am unable to admit to something that I do not know I did. But I apologized just in case I did it. And possibly you are using terminology that I am not using. When I say a "cite" I mean one of those footnote references or links. But if I did something wrong, I will cop to it, if shown and I certainly apologize!--Blue Tie 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not looking to attack people. I am very disappointed that some editors have been introducing press releases contrary to peer-reviewed sources, and some editors have subsequently removed those peer-reviewed sources. I do not have the time or inclination to figure out who deleted the peer-reviewed reference in question, but I know full well who inserted the press release contradicting it. James S. 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
GW
Your last edit to GW added a new sentence to the politics section. As we are minimizing this material in this article and only providing a short summary of GW controversy, put this material in the latter article to help us keep the GW article manageable. --Skyemoor 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Global Warming article ban
Based on your recent edits to Global warming, I am invoking your probation in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium and banning you from the article for 3 months. Thatcher131 02:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do not know what the issues that caused this are. I know you feel passionately and maybe there are things you have in mind that are useful to the article. I have not paid attention so I do not know for sure. If you have concerns on that page, you may present them on the talk page or on my page, and I shall try to see that your views are not completely ignored if I can. --Blue Tie 03:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
From T's talk: Accusations of disruption are personal attacks - since you've just been blocked for disruption, I don't think you've got a leg to stand on. But if you really want to follow up your baseless COI report with a baseless PA report, please do William M. Connolley 16:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please help improve Plug-in hybrid
You are listed as a participant in WikiProject Energy development, so I am asking you to please consider helping to improve the plug-in hybrid article. This is an ad hoc article improvement drive. BenB4 08:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
PHEV work
Thanks for the work on the PHEV wiki page! Jack Rosebro 22:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd also like to thank you. You've done a great job! Mahanga 22:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
James, the following statement is fuzzy to me:
"The cost for electricity to power PHEVs in early 2007 California is less than one fourth the cost of gasoline."
- The source is just a statement, and gives no source - Off-peak costs are the same everywhere is California? - Does this compare energy of gasoline to energy of stored charge? - Or does it calculate relative efficiencies of different powertrains, as well?
I couldn't use the source, for example to confirm the statement. What do you think? Thanks, Jack Jack Rosebro 16:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your respsonse. However, the statement alone should throw up a red flag: elecricity costs are capped, but not fixed, in California. There's peak vs. off-peak. There are different suppliers. There are many, many rate schedules depending on type of customer and amount of energy purchased.
- I'm really concerned that a reporter will quote this, especially since it's up at the top, as part of the "definition" of a PHEV. UC Daivs and CalCars are probably getting their info from a PG & E presentation, which claimed around $0.05 for off-peak ONLY, but $0.33 for peak. And you may want to comapre those numbers with PG & E 's own published rates, then with the rates of some other utility companies.Jack Rosebro 18:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the recognition (barnstar)! Jack Rosebro 14:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Electric Vehicle
Makes perfect sense to me - don't know why I didn't think of adding those links to that and other similar articles earlier. --User:AlbertHerring 04:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Redirect of Misplaced Pages:These Bad Jokes need to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of Deleted Nonsense quality
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Misplaced Pages:These Bad Jokes need to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of Deleted Nonsense quality, by Black Falcon, another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Misplaced Pages:These Bad Jokes need to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of Deleted Nonsense quality is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Misplaced Pages:These Bad Jokes need to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of Deleted Nonsense quality, 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 Misplaced Pages:These Bad Jokes need to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of Deleted Nonsense quality 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 08:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Third Opinion
Can I get a link to the straw poll which you started? --Savant13 15:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- My initial thoughts on this are as follows: 1) I completely disagree with your views. 2) You should not have started the poll. 3) You should stop trying to get Global Warming changed. 4) You should NOT be banned. I need to do more reading before finalizing my opinion, but it is unlikely that I will change my mind. --Savant13 16:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- My opinion is that you should not have started the poll was based on the policy links posted by others. I am about to check your past edits to Global Warming and its talk page. If you could give me some links to other polls from the archives, it would be very helpful. --Savant13 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I will support you on this. If you wish for me to comment for arbitration, just tell me and give me a link to it. --Savant13 16:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- My opinion is that you should not have started the poll was based on the policy links posted by others. I am about to check your past edits to Global Warming and its talk page. If you could give me some links to other polls from the archives, it would be very helpful. --Savant13 16:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well
You're kind of missing the point here. The issue is not whether you're "legally entitled" to hold that poll, the issue is whether said poll would in fact be helpful in resolving the issue. Note that one person responded to the poll, whereas at least five users pointed out that it was a bad idea, and some people even suggested you should be banned from the talk page in question. So the consensus is pretty much that the poll is a bad idea. You should therefore ask yourself whether it's a productive approach to stubbornly continue in something that is unlikely to help anyone and is likely to annoy several people. I note that discussion already continues in a useful way. >Radiant< 10:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
Blocked: I have blocked this account for two weeks. Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/LossIsNotMore I believe you have used the account Rtt71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet to make depleted uranium-related edits to Gulf War in violation of your Arbitration case. In choosing the duration of 2 weeks I have noted that the Rtt71 account was perviously used to violated your article ban in June 2006, after the case was finalized, and was undetected until you used it again recently. I also note the suspcions that you have used other accounts including GVWilson and -Alex- and been allowed to get away with it. I see that this is the fifth block under your arbitration case. I will recommend that the sixth block (if necessary) be for a month and the seventh indefinite, as you have demonstrated a pattern of long-term and deliberate violation of your topical ban. Thatcher131 01:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)