User talk:Grazen

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Apis ( talk ) 03:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Speedy deletion of Creating content for wikipedia
Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Nsevs •  Talk  13:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Signing
Please sign your comments. And please read the guidelines for what is acceptable comments on talk pages. As long as you stay civil, and address the article, noone will object. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And please do not delete sections or refactor old comments. There is a difference between this and reverting. You may even want to read WP:POINT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''Refactoring talk pages is considered vandalism. Try to act mature - that means comments that are civil, to the point and not addressing other people's "supposed" agendas.

I couldn't care less if you have an agenda. But keep within the rules and etiquette. '' Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing contents from Talk:Naomi Oreskes, and especialy not just to make a point. If you have a problem with another users edits, there are other ways to deal with it. If you continue, you may be blocked! --Apis 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Edits
Grazen, you are making the same mistake that Kim did to you. You should never remove/edit information on a talk page: with the sole exception of your own personal edits. If you put your foot in your mouth: go ahead and edit. If someone else did: leave it. 75.132.193.145 (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to throw more things at you but, you may wish to look over this and WP:BITE since you seem to have been bitten. Just trying to help as a 3rd party outsider. Shoot a message at my talk page if you want.  75.132.193.145 (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Grazen, thanks for your kind words. I agree with the above about removing/editing other people's talk page entries. However, one thing to make your comments on talk pages more readable: you should use colons to indent your work to be one level indented from whomever you are responding to. This makes it much easier to figure out who you are writing to in a long, complicated thread. Here's how:

A response to my comment above, so it's indented twice (two colons). If you respond to this comments, then you use three colons. ~


 * Looks like this:


 * I type this comment like this. A response to my comment above, so it's indented twice (two colons). If you respond to this comments, then you use three colons. Wellspring (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope this helps... I saw you are relatively new, and little formatting touches help prevent thread-untangling migraines. :) Wellspring (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help, very kind of you to assist a newbie rather than throw some vile venom in my direction. Hopefully this works as suggested and I didn't mess it up!Grazen (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Benny Peiser
I would appreciate if you didn't accuse me of vandalism for no reason! -- Apis 20:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oreskes
Your comment:
 * And as an aside, yes, this is my POV. That's why it's on the discussion page, so that we might discuss our POV's in terms of what should be included in the "official" Wikipedia page on Oreskes', which unfortunately is locked in a rather unfortunate state right now

Shows that you've still not understood WP:TALK and the basic pillars of Wikipedia. I suggest that you take another look.

As said several times: If you allow Peiser, then you also have to allow the quite devastating critiques of his self published dissemination. And we also have to mention that Peiser has admitted to several errors in his original. Including going so far as saying that he's glad Science didn't print it.. As well as Peiser's admittal that there is a strong consensus - albeit not a unanimous one. .

I'm interested (on a personal note) how you can determine which side is right here? I for one have serious troubles believing Peisers view after having seen the 34 abstracts that he claimed were in the explicitly reject category. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Grazen, I think you should read this page: Verifiability, it explains why many don't want to include Peiser's critizism. Note that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". That sounds odd to most people I think, but if you think about it for a while it makes sense. Wikipedia isn't trying to determine the truth, that is up to scientists and other institutions. Wikipedia is trying to reflect the current knowledge in the world right now. Some of it might be dead wrong, but thats irrelevant to Wikipedia. If Wikipedia existed in a time when everyone believed the earth was flat, then the wikipedia article about the earth should reflect that. And if you wanted to prove that it was in fact more round than flat, then you shouldn't edit Wikipedia, you should go do some research and try and get it published in a peer reviewed journal, like Nature or Science. Or try and convince the world some other way: create your own web page, etc. There are plenty of such pages out there. If you keep that in mind, I think it will be much easier to understand other editors around here, especially on controversial topics like this one. =) I hope you don't feel I'm trying to throw 'more vile venom' in your direction, I'm just trying to explain how I'm reasoning about this. Regards -- Apis (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Verifiability of what? His letters are available and his work is widely distributed (in fact Science mentions as much) and they have been referred to extensively.  Keep in mind that this is not a debate on Oreskes work, but on Oreskes life.  Peiser's work on her essay, has had a profound impact - somebody looking to understand Oreskes' work and contributions would not have the benefit of a complete picture if we were to just ignore Peiser.  I agree - it's not an issue of fact, it's an issue of relevance.Grazen (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to look at that link. I wrote the above in response to what you wrote on Naomi Oreskes talkpage: "the closer we get to the truth, the more useful this and other pages become".


 * And, it's the same with relevance, thats also not up to us editors to decide! It's about reliable sources, notability and undue weight, all mentioned on that talk page. I think you might find this page: Undue weight, helpful as well. I've also added some info about the five pillars of wikipedia above, I hope that helps. =) Apis  ( talk ) 03:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Civilty
And, a last bit of advice, you might want to stop calling people vandals, evil, venomous etc. If you continue like that I'm pretty sure you will be blocked. -- Apis ( talk ) 13:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Apis ( talk ) 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And that also applies to the Benny Peiser page. -- Apis ( talk ) 17:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Joseph J. Romm
I believe you're familiar with this subject. You might want to pitch in here. The subject appears to be questionable as to WP notability standing at all, but the entry is being rabidly guarded by a POV-pushing editor continually loading up the text with minor comments, trivia, and unsourced claims. I've tried a few times to scale the article back a bit and clean up the language, but he continually reverts any and all changes. Just today, he's enlisted another editor who (by her talk page at least) is a personal friend of his, and who is now making claims of "bad faith edits". FellGleaming (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WMC AfD
You failed to follow the guidelines in Articles for deletion. If you are serious about this - i suggest that you first check the 5 older AfD nominations that the WMC article has received. So that you do not repeat the same arguments again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. .

Account Blocked
Wow, now there's a surprise. The wikipedian zealots are watching over each other and protecting their gratuitous self-grandizing "profiles" from deletion. Oh, sorry, Connolly's lack of notability is *my* fault, so *I'm* blocked. The five previous deletion requests were denied because Mr. Connolly is as notable as Mr. Einstein in your opinion.

What a fucking joke.

Your concerns about the William Connolley article -- a challenge
Hi. Regardless of whether you like the subject of the article, he is clearly notable so a AfD would therefore be a waste of time. If you think the article is biased, please make your case (civilly) at Talk:William Connolley. (Note that our Biographies of Living People policy extends to discussions of article subjects anywhere on Wikipedia.)

I doubt anybody, including William Connelly, thinks "Mr. Connolly is as notable as Mr. Einstein"; yes, we all know Wikipedia gives much less coverage to more prominent scientists than Mr. Connelly. The appropriate response, however, is not to trash Connelly nor delete a well-referenced article but instead to build up the coverage of all those thousands of other scientists. After all, Wikiepdia is not paper. For starters, you could ask for a list to work on at WikiProject Antarctica. You could even ask Connolley himself and I'm sure he'd be delighted to give you some names. Seriously -- try it. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)