User talk:Greg W. Moore/FirstDeletedOldArticle1

Welcome
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! ttonyb1 (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Greg W. Moore
I took a look at the references you added to the site. Unfortunately, the references do not appear to support the assertions in the article. For example, the article states, "...is at present a consultant to the U.S. Government." the reference for this statement does not support the statement, but only points to the U.S. Federal Government website. The type of reference Wikipedia requires is one that would show that Greg W. Moore is indeed a consultant to the Government.

If I can be of any help please let me know. Thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please double check - the reference # 3 clearly says that (see page # 2 of the PDF document issued by the U.S. Department of Energy) and the references # 2, 4, and 5 illustrate that clearly as well. The reference # 1 you are talking about only shows the official website of the US Government - to simply illustrate the type of organization discussed. Also - I have updated some of the comments at the top of the article as they do not seem valid anymore. Could we also remove the comment on the possible COI - since most of the information (short bio) is actually quoted from a statement by the U.S. Senate - so that's an objective source and it does not involve a COI ? Greg W. Moore (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ref #2 is not a .pdf doc, only a portal to the Energy Citations Database, so there is no second page. I looked at #3 and do not see any reference to Moore. (If I am missing something, let me know - I have been know to miss things right in front of me.)  Ref #4 does not support, "...scientist at U.S. Government national laboratory [4]", Ref #5 does not mention Moore, #6 does not mention Moore.


 * Since I cannot find any support for the claims in the article, I am getting the feeling this is a hoax article. If you are unable to provide support in independent,  verifiable, references, I will mark it as such.  By the way, if I am wrong please accept my apologies. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry (sincerely) - you are incorrect in everything you said:

See my previous note - it says #3 and not #2. #3 is a U.S. DOE document which shows G.W. Gmurczyk (Greg W. Moore) on page #2. See the very beginning of the article which says that Greg W. Moore (aka G.W. Gmurczyk - note that Gmurczyk legally changed his name to Moore which was actually the original name of his ancestors).

Ref #2 shows a U.S. DOE nationwide citation database of peer-reviewed U.S. scientsits' articles - if you type in the name Gmurczyk - you will get his several papers.

Re #4 and #5 show Gmurczyk's (Moore's) other peer-reviewed papers quoted by the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (all the papers quote Gmurczyk's (Moore's) work for the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Army, and FAA).

Ref #6, 7, 8, and 9 - all are quoted (Moore's membership) in the statement by the U.S. Senate - see the last Ref #23.

Besides - all those info pieces, including Gmurczyk's (Moore's) short bio are included in the original statement by the U.S. Senate (Ref #23).

Here is an excerpt from the U.S. Senate statement issued by the Director of Communications Marc Morano:

From: U.S. Senate, EPW Committee, 2009 "Award-winning Aerospace and Mechanical Engineer Dr. Gregory W. Moore, who has authored or co-authored more than 75 publications, book chapters, and reports, and authored the 2001 Version of the NASA Space Science Technology Plan which included a comprehensive approach to studying the Sun-Earth connection aspect of space-based research, and was honored by the U.S. Department of Commerce for its International Scientist Recognition as well as received a special recommendation of the U.S. Senate for his work related to protection of the environment.

Moore, formerly university professor; scientist of the U.S. Government lab; managing editor of an international scientific journal; member of the New York Academy of Sciences; and senior member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, rejected the notion that there is a consensus on man-made climate claims in 2009. “There is definitely no sufficient data which would create a basis for making any kind of conclusions either way,” Moore wrote to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on January 10, 2009. “There is no sufficient data in existence anywhere which would allow for making any kind of definite statements on the effect of natural mechanisms on the global warming phenomenon,” Moore explained. “The data which is used to date for making the conclusions and predictions on global warming are so rough and primitive, compared to what’s needed, and so unreliable that they are not even worth mentioning by respectful scientists,” Moore added".

Full Report: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

Marc Morano Communications Director

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) www.epw.senate.gov

Greg W. Moore (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I see the aka mention in the article. BTW - no apology necessary, it was no fault for not rereading the article.


 * Here is my suggestion, I would remove the references that do not specifically mention the individual. For those items that are not directly related, you can use a link instead of a ref.  I would also follow the guidelines for WP:V.  If appropriate, I would add a short  discussion about the change in name.


 * I see the issue with #2 and the search result URL not point to the actual results. I am not sure if this really works as a real reference


 * I would leave the COI tag until the final copy is complete. If you do not, someone is likely to come by and added it back in.


 * I hope this works for you and if I can be of any help, let me know. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much for all the suggestions! BTW - it was my own professional community actually (some thousands of people around the world total - mostly scientists from universities and national labs - I used to organize and co-chair large international symposia) and not myself who suggested I should create such an article since I have become more and more a public person after being included into the U.S. Senate's "Best Scientists" list. This is my first attempt only and so I am hoping to contribute much more with many more articles at Wikipedia - and I do have a lot of material on various subjects for doing so. Also BTW - that U.S. DOE database I quoted is one of the best resources for you - I think - in your own future work at Wikipedia if you want to verify someone's claims of being a scientist with peer-reviewed journal work. Thanks again! Greg W. Moore (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Your User page
Hi, I've edited your User page to remove the categories. Categories are only for article space. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony - I think I have addressed all your suggestions - please take a look at the new version of the article. Also - somebody keeps adding an incorrect/untrue comment about the article as an autobiography. Almost all the data pieces in the article, except some personal notes, are a quote from the U.S. Senate statement and its recent published report as well with which Greg W. Moore, including the author of the article has no association with. Let me know. Thanks. Greg W. Moore (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. --Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing large portions of the discussion from the discussion page. There was quite a lenghty discussion yesterday where several people participated, including yourself, and all that discussion disappeared today. Who removed it ?? Greg W. Moore (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The only one I see removing text is you. See .  ttonyb1 (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned - there was a long discussion by several Wikipedia people posted here which has disappeared by now. Who removed it ?? Greg W. Moore (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I indicated, the only one removing text appears to have been you. Here is the history, I may have missed something, what you are referring to. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No - there was a long discussion posted here yesterday June 21, 2009. It all has disappeared by now. It could have been deleted yesterday late in the night or early in the morning today. Who ?? Greg W. Moore (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the history I provided no one, except you has removed any text from this talk page. Unless you can show me where in the history it shows something different either the history is wrong or you must be mistaken.  ttonyb1 (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No - the history is clearly missing many inputs which happened yesterday in the afternoon. Somebody at Wikipedia who has access to the right tools has removed a large portion of the discussion. I am an old professor and do not have time for this Middle School-level game in "cat and mouse". Sorry. Greg W. Moore (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are clearly mistaken. Wikipedia history is not edited except in extreme cases where there are user issues.  In those cases the entry is not removed only the actual text the entry refers to.  No one has an incentive nor the time to request this type of change to your talk page history.   ttonyb1 (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You still have not explained why a large portion of the yesterday's discussion is missing and also who has removed it ? Greg W. Moore (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence any text is missing. With all due respect, I believe you are mistaken.  Sorry ttonyb1 (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I can find no evidence in any of the audit trails that anything has been removed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes - and that's the main problem - you can't even find the record of the removal as well as who and when he/she did it - which means that your system is out of control. Greg W. Moore (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems more likely you are confused. What you are suggesting would require very high access and why bother for a run of the mill soon to be be deleted article? thousands of such articles are deleted every week. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like you do not understand your own system which is out of your control. Greg W. Moore (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ''I do not want to get into a editing war with you, particularly since it appears the article may not survive the AfD, but the version you insist in using is a inferior version of the article. A few days back I left you a Welcome message at the top of your talk page, I suggest you read the five sections concerning Wikipedia and Wikipedia articles, it will help explain the article issues. I would also suggest you read the guidelines concerning article ownership. My best to you.'' ttonyb1 (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Wikipedia Issues

 * Greg, there is nothing that points to a problem with the Wikipedia systems. I have taken the time to review my Google desktop history of your user page and there is no, I repeat no, indication of any "unauthorized" removal of text from your user page.  This data I reviewed is completely independent of Wikipedia applications and cannot be manipulated by anyone at Wikipedia.  As I have indicated before, the only person that removed any text from the page was you.  Simply put, you are mistaken.  ttonyb1 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

REQUEST FROM THE AUTHOR: GREG W. MOORE
PLEASE DELETE THE ARTICLE "GREG W. MOORE" FROM THE WIKIPEDIA RESOURCES. THANKS! Greg W. Moore (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. ''This is not the right venue for the comments. Your comments have been noted in the AdF and the Talk page of the article'' ttonyb1 (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop editing the CONTENT of the article as you did several times already against the intent of the author which is considered by the author as VANDALISM. Thanks. Greg W. Moore (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

REQUEST FROM THE AUTHOR: GREG W. MOORE
PLEASE DELETE THE ARTICLE "GREG W. MOORE" FROM THE WIKIPEDIA RESOURCES. REASON: EXTREMELY UNPROFESSIONAL, LOW QUALITY REVIEW PROCESS. THANKS. Greg W. Moore (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To quote Wikipedia, "Wikipedia content (including articles, categories, templates, and others) is collaboratively edited. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled they think they are (and may actually be) has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article." Please see WP:OWNER for more information.  My best to you and good luck.  ttonyb1 (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately your own Wikipedia contributors have badly violated your own rules - namely: one of them keeps promoting his own political agenda (see records of his modifications he did to the article by adding the name Inhofe) by suggesting that the very article and the subject of the article are completely biased politically which completely contradicts the truth as the subject of the article was highly evaluated throughout his career by both parties equally. Even more - that same Minority report just issued, quoated Greg W. Moore as a person who claims there is no evidence on Global Warming to support either side - neither Warming alarmists nor deniers. This way your contributors completely distort the truth and paint the subject of the article in a way he has absolutely no connection with. In other words - your contributors are highly unprofessional, biased, and clearly vandalize Wikipedia by violating its own rules. That is why please remove the article from such a unprofessional environment. Thanks. Greg W. Moore (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are rather hefty accusations. I suggest you refer to WP:ANI if there is indeed any basis to your accusations. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)