User talk:Grundle2600/Archive 14

Snake versus worm
"I'm writing a script for a cartoon movie about a giant snake that lives on another planet."

Will the snake get along with the  worm? :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course they will get along - they are the best of friends! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If that's true we (homo sapiens) could learn from and should adopt... ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, in this movie, all members of the human race have banded together to try to avoid being eaten by the giant snake. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. So it's just fiction, doh... The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I bet the bear will be gentle and the wolf will be tame, too. PhGustaf (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, wolfs can be tamed [they don't scare me at all] but bears are less predictable I'd say. So who is the bear and who is the wolf?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wild, non-rabid wolves are generally not a threat to humans. The wolf in this picture is being voiced by Roland De Wolfe, and the bear is being voiced by Bear Grylls. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I could mention DeWolf Hopper, but that would just be a cheap try at getting Bugs back into the thread. PhGustaf (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have some "wolf" in my real name. Hopefully I'm in the non-rabid category but hey, who knows? lol The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know how to tell rabid from non-rabid, and you're definitely in the safe, non-rabid category. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take your word for it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Giant wind farms planned in the UK
I just came along | this German news page and thought you might be interested to research this further as you have showed some interest in energy issues in the past. | Here is the version translated by Google:.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Same thing, but from the WSJ . Ravensfire ( talk ) 21:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, both of you. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * After ec, that's what I was about to post:
 * Thanks for the WSJ link although it's a subscribers only. I admit I'm lazy and was hoping Grundle might dig into this further for my convenience.
 * Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh - that's odd. I actually got to the WSJ article via google ("Dogger bank" as the search term, I think), and I'm not a WSJ subscriber.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 23:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Guess I'm not a internet geek since "Dogger bank" is not in my vocabulary and your link is as I described above: "subscribers only". Maybe I should get an upgrade and re-boot?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah - Dogger Bank is just the name of where the wind farm is going to go. I grabbed a new link from the google search page, see if this one works better.    I think WSJ checks if you came from Google, and gives you the article if you have, and the subscriber stuff otherwise.  That new link is from the BBC, so should work!  Ravensfire ( talk ) 00:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Nah - Dogger Bank is just the name of where the wind farm is going to go." Doh! Stupid me; And yes, that new link works just fine for me. Thanks. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Grundle! Here is an article about it from an English language German newspaper! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems you have a polite twin brother *giggle* ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Canadian Calgery Herald has this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh oh. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Shocking - a lack of wind means less wind power? Is there a "bloody obvious" tag we can put on that article?  Highlights that you can't rely on any one power source, and that we need a better way to store energy.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I know there's no wind power when there's no wind. I was just surprised at how little wind there was. Regarding your comment about storing energy, battery technology is getting cheaper and cheaper, and I agree that wind power should not be our only source of energy. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't highlight that you can't rely on one power source, it highlights that you can't rely on wind power during winter cold snaps. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no power source that is 100% reliable, absolutely none, especially in extreme weather conditions where even power lines brake due to ice build up. You always need a combination of different power sources combined with a smart supply grid no matter what the source is. BTW, batteries are highly unlikely to solve energy storage needs in large scale. "Pumped-storage" and hydrogen (just to name some) are more reality proofed examples. If you're interested read Grid energy storage. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite agree about that - lost power a few years ago for almost a week because of a massive ice storm. Having a variety of power sources available, especially sources that can quickly start and stop to manage peak demands is needed.  Battery technology now is totally inadequate for any large-scale power storage - maybe in 10-20 years, but probably longer - need cheap, reliable and high-temperature super-conductors for that idea.
 * I found the grid article fairly interesting. I've heard of the molten salt and pumped water, but the others were new to me.  The idea seems basic that for sources that don't consume something you always take the energy it produces, but if you don't need it you store it some place.
 * The Telegraph article really disappointed me. It mentions the cold snap many, many times, but only mentions the wind dropping once.  Worse, it doesn't draw any relation between the two.  Does the wind normally drop during cold snaps?  Was this something normal, or just a fluke?  I found the article very lacking as it was written, mostly serving as an alarmist piece rather than informative.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 21:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nuclear power is very reliable. France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, it has the cheapest electricity in western Europe, and has the cleanest air of any industrialized country, and is Europe's biggest exporter of electricity. Although the new Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor was designed in the United States, the first ones being built are being built in China. It only takes a few years to build them, but in the U.S., the paperwork takes much, much longer than the construction time. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Downed power lines would stop power getting to homes no matter what the power source is. That argument is a non sequitur. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Does someone's word count?
Although I hate to re-open this again (and please feel free to purge it after reading):

"I will no longer make these kinds of suggestions on my talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)"

After similar pledges from your side on several occasions I must wonder and ask, when (if at all) do you intend to live up to it and respect your own words? The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. That's a good point. But the article had false info about a BLP, and I just wanted it to be corrected. In fact, even though the subject was a Democrat, my suggested correction would have made the subject look better, not worse. That being said, I do want to keep my word, which is why I erased it from my talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Grundle, Grundle, Grundle. While your intent was good, and you certainly acted in good faith, please think before you consider doing such a thing again. And then don't do it. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your "twin brother" is right. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you've changed your mind in regards of one or all of your pledges than just state so here on your talk page that you will obey the restrictions you were given by the community but not the ones you gave yourself. Don't be that kind of hypocrite that you reject and condemn yourself.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And please see edit summary for more context. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is important to me to keep my word. I wasn't suggesting that any new info be added - just that the wrong info be corrected with the right info. I don't think that violates my promise, but you do raise a good point, so just to be safe, I will go by what you say, and not make any more such suggestions. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And could you please stop being funny while I'm trying to be more serious?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not know how to be funny. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In this case I do not take your word for it"! The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You mad my day so please don't ruin it by crashing my (Wiki)-dreams :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! Someone just created a brand new account to fix the article, and they cited the exact same source that I had suggested. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably some meat-puppet... The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not. Could just be a coincidence. It's interesting, though. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyways. Keep enjoying editing WP where you can. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for your good wishes, as well as for your understanding. I hope you keep having fun editing too. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome and for the record, I enjoy killing time on WP. At least it's not a total waste compared to forums and blogs. Just sayin' ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern is that my time spent at wikipedia reduces my time spent at doing really important things, such as watching TV. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, what a bummer. I miss the commercials and "fake news" when I waste my time here, too. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you get really bored, you could always try masturbation. The parts are always handy, and nobody gets hurt, pregnant, or blocked. PhGustaf (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you sure I can't get pregnant following your advise? Because if you're wrong I might have to file a lawsuit against you. How much money are you worth, if I may ask? The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Masturbation is normally considered a solo sport. Done in full public view it becomes wanking.  Done in company with a partner, it's not exactly masturbation any more and if things get sloppy you take your chances. PhGustaf (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So now you're lecturing me, me who is the master of my domain, and trying to talk yourself out of a potential lawsuit? Seems like you're worth quite some $$$$$ so I'll talk to my attorney who will get back on you about it. Sincerely (*giggle*), The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, the word "masturbation" has it's origin in "must obey"(tion). I'm sure O'Reilly and "his" Russian chick covered this at some point, or maybe not? Well, they should IMO. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you just mention a political commentator? I thought you promised not to do that! Oh wait - that was me who made that promise! Grundle2600 (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Global cooling
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation.


 * Looks like User:Tony Sidaway forgot to sign his post. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like: So much for your own word and pledge and your topic ban. It's time to re-instate your indef ban by now for good. What a pity, isn't it? The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You told me to write about wind power, which is far more political than global cooling. My entry to global cooling was 100% science, and 0% politics. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you nice to me sometimes, and mean to me other times? That's never a good sign. I'm always nice to everyone. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And why do you take pleasure in erasing other people's entries, and getting people blocked and banned? Do you ever even add content to articles? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I recently made this edit to the snowball article - perhaps you could use it as an argument to get me blocked forever. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I recently made this edit to Winter storms of 2009–2010. This is the worst edit that I have ever made, and a clear violation of at least 600 wikipedia rules. Be sure to mention it when you report me. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Crap, crap, crap and crap. I've never told you to write about wind power (and you didn't so why point it out here???????); And you didn't address my posting. So there is one more crap. As for now I see that you never took your restrictions applied by the community serious, not even your own word as I pointed out above. Any excuse for that from your side? No, there can't be any and there is no AGF from my side anymore. Play your "stupid games" somewhere else than on WP.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "I've never told you to write about wind power" So you didn't make this edit? How does talking about cold weather violate any of my promises? Global cooling is not the same thing as global warming - no one has suggested that any laws or treaties be passed to address global cooling. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep playing dumb as long as you want, it won't make a difference.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not "playing" dumb - I am always like this. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just keep your eyes fixed on the headlights. . PhGustaf (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The people whom I cited were scientists, not politicians. The information that I cited was scientific, not political. There is no proposed government treaty to address global cooling. The information that I added was true and well sourced. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to GC wasn't even close to acceptable. If you confine yourself to just occaisional mischief-making edits like that, you'll probably not suffer much for it. But given you ban, and that your edit was in effect politiking, though sufficiently disguised to not trigger any obvious filters, you'd be better off staying clear William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a science edit, not a political one. There is no proposed government treaty to address global cooling. I only made the edit once. I didn't edit war. The information that I added was well sourced and accurate. I won't add it again, as the consensus is against it. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting article. According the Wiki article on one of the scientists he's more of a global warming believer than he's made out to be in the Daily Mail article. But the issues he raises about background cycles and how much of a role variables other than greenhouse gases play is certainly interesting. I hope you're enjoying your new year. It's weird that the new Strawberry crab doesn't seem to have a name yet. Betsy? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a new species doesn't get officially named until it's scientifically described in a peer reviewed publication, which can be months or even years after its discovery. Global warming is caused by our burning of fossil fuels, and by changes in the sun. But global warming is so 20th century! There hasn't been any global warming so far this century, despite what was predicted by the computer models of the 1990s. I guess the Kyoto Treaty has worked better than anticipated. Carbon dioxide is a global warming gas, but it's also the bottom of the food chain, and without it, we wouldn't be here. For hundreds of millions of years, plants absorbed carbon from the air, and put it into the ground. During the past few centuries, humans have put that carbon back into the air. I think there's a case to be made that evolution created the human species specifically for the purpose of putting this carbon back into the air, so the plants and algae would have enough food. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Officially named, maybe, but I think they often name them right away and then it gets sorted out. That's how I recall seeing it in the past anyway. That they would name things even while expeditions were going on pending confirmation and due rigor. I don't see how evolution, strictly understood, could have anything to do with putting carbon back in the atmosphere. It doesn't seem related to natural selection. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Peripheral Hint
CoM is not your friend. PhGustaf (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not your decision to make. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but it's damn good advice. Why not check out this new article?  Grsz 11  23:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like everyone here. Nice stub! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as an"online friend". What some see like such are just a connection of superficial agreements. When did "we" (?) loose connection to the real world? Everyone who believes "to have an online friend" either forgot what a real friend means or maybe never had a real live experience and therefore, unfortunately, just doesn't know anything about it. Not pointing finger at anyone, just responding to a comment made. BTW, an "online friend" sure can become a real friend 'but you have to meet him/her in person' to make the real friendship step. But enough of this social stuff. Blablabla... The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (BTW, I'm still trying to rework the Helioculture file and despite some software problems I'm sure I'll have it done on or before this coming weekend. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC) )
 * I agree with you. I've had this account at Rate Your Music for quite a few years. Lots of people have invited me to be "friends" but I have never accepted any of their offers. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's mighty kind of you to do that regarding that image. I really appreciate it. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In real life, almost all of my friends are liberals. And I think that every woman that I've ever been attracted to was a liberal. But we never let our political differences upset us. Of course I live in Pittsburgh, where almost everyone is a liberal. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (several ecs)Many people I've first met on line have turned into pretty interesting meatspace people. My suggestion to Grundle that he distance himself from CoM stands. PhGustaf (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I talk to everyone who wants to talk to me. CoM is a smart guy who's written a lot of interesting articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Many people I've first met on line have turned into pretty interesting meatspace people. My suggestion to Grundle that he distance himself from CoM's graveyard spiral stands. PhGustaf (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)