| Revision as of 10:47, 11 June 2007 editRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits Well← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:15, 17 November 2020 edit undoWMFOffice (talk | contribs)301 edits {{WMF-legal banned user}}Tag: Replaced | ||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WMF-legal banned user}} | |||
| <div class="plainlinks"> | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" | |||
| |align="center"|] | |||
| |align="left" width="100%"|Welcome! Please . I'll reply on your talk page, and here too, if I think other people might care about the reply. Thank you. | |||
| |}</div> | |||
| {| class="infobox" align=right | |||
| |- | |||
| !align=center|]<br>] | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| |} | |||
| {{disclaimer}} | |||
| Thanks also to those who have asked me here. | |||
| --] 17 December 2005 | |||
| {{CleanBr}} | |||
| ==Global warming== | |||
| I enjoy your suggestions for ]. 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. --] 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, --] 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!--] 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? '']'' 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. --] 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. ~ ] 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::]. '']'' 20:18, 17 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!--] 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. ~ ] 00:31, 20 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. '']'' 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. --] 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Global Warming article ban == | |||
| Based on your recent edits to ], I am invoking your probation in ] and banning you from the article for 3 months. ] 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. --] 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 ] 16:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Please help improve ] == | |||
| You are listed as a participant in WikiProject Energy development, so I am asking you to please consider helping to improve the ] article. This is an ''ad hoc'' article improvement drive. ] 08:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == PHEV work == | |||
| Thanks for the work on the PHEV wiki page! ] 22:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd also like to thank you. You've done a great job! <span class="sigInvitatious">]<sup>]</sup></span> 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 ] 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.] 18:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for the recognition (barnstar)! ] 14:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Makes perfect sense to me - don't know why I didn't think of adding those links to that and other similar articles earlier. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Redirect of ]== | |||
| ]Hello, this is a message from ]. A tag has been placed on ], by {{#ifeq:1|1|],}} another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ] is a redirect to a non-existent page (]). <br><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ], please affix the template <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at ]. '''Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate ] itself.''' Feel free to leave a message on the ] if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --] 08:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Third Opinion== | |||
| Can I get a link to the straw poll which you started? --] 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 ] 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. --] 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. --] 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. --] 16:42, 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. ] 10:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:15, 17 November 2020
 | Consistent with the Terms of Use, Nrcprm2026 has been banned indefinitely by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing all Wikimedia sites. Please direct any questions to ca  wikimedia.org.
Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |