User talk:Crust

RE:Lesotho in South Africa article
It was indeed unintended. I had only wished to restore the article to the last complete version (Meelar's edit) and in doing so, made the mistake of assuming that all edits pursuant to his were vandalism. With regards to Lesotho, I think that "independent enclave" would suffice, or alternatively, "...and borders independent countries of Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Swaziland and landlocked Lesotho". I apologise if my revert caused offence - I sought only to correct the article.--Cyberjunkie 11:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No worries. Looks good to me now.  Thanks, Crust 15:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Cato Institute
Crust: (In re: Cato Institute) No hard feelings--I'm glad we sorted things out. Dick Clark 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hiya! get a user page!
I appreciate your edits on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Why not getta userpage and tell us what the Crust rewinn 21:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Re edits, glad to hear it, thanks. By the way, on the Kyl and Graham matter, if you want to have a stab, that would be great.  I'm new to editing legal pages and am a bit reluctant.  Ya, I should get around to creating a userpage I suppose.  Crust 21:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What, you again?
After replying to you at Talk:Chickenhawk (politics), I edited Talk:Ross McKitrick to answer a question, then noticed who asked the question. Quite a coincidence. Clearly, we both have amazingly good taste in the articles we choose to edit ... or something like that ... or something quite unlike that really ;-)

Cheers, CWC (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You put a smile on my face. I vote for good taste.  Or maybe we're just spending too much time on Wikipedia. ;) Crust 19:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Oh, sorry, wrong user. Thanks for reverting the vandalism on the article about elephants! --Yamla 17:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Was that due to the Steven Colber show? Bona Fides 14:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Crust 15:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. I spotted it just before You did it, and was concerned about the potential loss of good langage and refs in the intro. Thanks again. --Dredeyedick 04:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looks like there will be a lot of ongoing issues there... Crust 15:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth bestseller dates
You found a funny URL that points to the Aug. 20 list. Note that Aug. 11 isn't even a Sunday. If you go to this link you can see the Aug. 13 list, which has An Inconvenient Truth at number one after 9 weeks. If you just navigate from the website to the bestseller list it will take you to the most current, i.e. Aug. 20 (this coming Sunday). Crust 19:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 17-Aug-2006: I had checked all the previous weeks since June 8, and found an article dated 11-Aug-2006 with the book An Inconvenient Truth going to #1, evidentally for August 13. That keeps the dates in the past, avoiding qualms of proposed future publication dates.  Apparently, on 11-Aug-2006, reporters were ready to announce the #1 Bestseller Paper-Nonfiction, but the Sunday date does seem more traditional as a reference source, which I changed to be 13-Aug. -Wikid77 20:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Note that the 13-Aug list is actually the second time it went to #1; the first was 2-Jul. (For more info see my comments on the talk page for the article.) Crust 20:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 18-Aug-2006: OK, I also verified 2-Jul as #1, and reworded for "July 2, August 13, 2006, and again" etc. I'm trying to emphasize book importance to move book into a separate article, tied to the film (as you noticed: Talk:An_Inconvenient_Truth).  I feel that book readers are an alternate audience from movie goers, with different issues to report.  Also, different vandalism/slanting is likely in book v. film, but the Internet hype claims Wikipedia is a great source, and the book/movie are excellent important topics for encyclopedia coverage.  Thanks for the NYT links, and sorry that my bogus source-links caused trouble. -Wikid77 07:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks and no worries. Crust 13:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Chickenhawk
Sorry you are right, not all invocvations of the opeithet arrest thought... it's just the primay intent... to stun the war advocate... ad hominen as it is Bona Fides 15:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, "aim to arrest thought" rather than "arrest thought". It is sometimes hard to squeeze a precise statement into an edit summary.  Thanks.  Crust 15:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Michaels as "state climatologist of Virginia"
Hi, Crust. We've "met" a few times, here and there.

But do you think it's really wise to use a blog as a source? I followed a link from your "disputed title" edit to Patrick Michaels, and it actually confirmed what you said was in dispute.

Did you read the TimesDispatch.com article?
 * Michaels, who has been the state climatologist since 1980 ...
 * Hanley's letter also addressed the question of whether Michaels' position as state climatologist is an appointment of the governor or of U.Va. Hanley does acknowledge that Michaels was originally appointed state climatologist by Gov. John Dalton in 1980. (emphasis added for wp discussion)

Clearly he should not be using his affiliation with Virginia to imply that his GW views are endorsed by the governor's office! Especially not when, "The governor's office has repeatedly said that Michaels does not represent the state with his opinions about global warming."

Scientists indicate their professional affiliations so that people know they're not crackpots, that's all. James Hansen does it, even when contradicting the White House. John Christy did it, although he left NASA recently.

As Wikipedians, we can help clarify things (when readers might be unaware) by pointing out who does / does not speak for their organization. --Uncle Ed 20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A better choice of word on my part might have been "controversial" instead of "disputed". Since you've presumably read the TimesDespatch.com article, you must know that there is a lot that is controversial about Michaels' use of this title.  Indeed, here's the first sentence of the article:

The governor's office has sent a letter to the University of Virginia requesting that Patrick J. Michaels not use his title of state climatologist when conducting his private consulting business.
 * With regards to the 1980 appointment by Governor Dalton, the article says: However, she [Hanley, secretary of the Commonwealth of Virginia] said the code of Virginia "does not provide for the governor to appoint a state climatologist.
 * Crust 13:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Judge Posner, your user page
Hiya Crust! Thanks for that note. Thanks also for your recent edit to Glenn Reynolds, BTW.

Re Richard Posner: I've downloaded that podcast, but haven't listened to it yet. The conservative and libertarian bloggers I read all admire Posner greatly, but I can't say I've been much impressed by the stuff by him that I've read. So I may end up agreeing with Glenn G's conclusions, if not with all his reasoning!

Since you've been so slack ;-) about creating a user page, I've created one for you. It's the most innocuous one I could think of, so I hope you won't mind. (If you do mind, I'm sure there's an easy way to get it automagically deleted.) The edit summary is a little less innocuous, however.

Cheers, CWC (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I enjoyed your recent edit summary about "internet tube surfers" also.  On Posner, I've read a tiny bit of his vast output and heard him once in person.  He strikes me as one of these people who is sometimes reasonable and sometimes not, but somehow manages to sound at least superficially reasonable even when he is not (David Brooks is another example of this phenomenon).Crust 14:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark Foley Scandal
Please note that I have just nominated Mark Foley Scandal for Featured Article status. You can find comments about its nomination here. I am leaving this message because you have significantly contributed to the article. Thesmothete 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Spencer Ackerman
You really improved the Spencer Ackerman section in the TNR article. Do you think he's notable enough to give him his own article? Makgraf 09:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words, Makgraf. Yes I think an article about him would be a good idea.  I encourage you to be bold and create it if you're so inclined.  Crust 15:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I did. Makgraf 07:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent, looks like a good start. Crust 14:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD
I've nominated Obama Republican and McCain Democrat for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Help with the National memo article
Hi. I noticed that in 2006 and 2007 you've made several professional contributions to Gene Lyons's article and decided to ask for your help with The National Memo article. Lyons is a frequent contributor to it so I assume that you know this media (and the liberal press) quite well. The article has been undergoing dramatic edits and I ask for your assistance in editing/improving this article.

I while ago I was asked to make several minor edits to the article as paid editor (properly stated according to WP COI editing rules). At that time the article had minimal content and was no more than a stub. I’ve added some information following the structure of such articles as Salon (website), HuffPost, Politico adding infobox, improving categories and adding some well-referenced info. The article started to look like a normal website/media article. After that it got heavily edited in two waves by editors deleting large chunks of well-written (ok, my personal view :)) and well-referenced information. I believe that some of these edits/deletions are extraneous and actually make the article worse/less useful to Wikipedia users. I also believe that The National Memo article has an undisputable notability. There is an interesting discussion about this at the article’s Talk page.

A lot of what is going on around this article is plain nonsense. So if you are interested in the subject/in improving the article, please take a look at January 10th version or January 29th version. Also if you have any suggestions on improving the article, please share.

I've also created a topic about it at Project Journalim. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)