User talk:Oren0/Archive 1

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 name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- JHunterJ 21:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Edit summaries
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -- JHunterJ 21:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WUSTL Project
--Lmbstl 12:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mars Article
Hi, I was reading your interesting Mars warming article, when I noticed it was getting changed. I went back to it and found that some people with clearly strong motives to promote Global Warming have effectively censored the article and removed any links or language which would show that the sun may be causing global warming throughout the solar system. -- Rameses 19:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to add examples of bias you have encountered by the pro-Global Warming crowd at SPAM LINK REMOVED...I am accumulating all of the evidence for various actions throughout Wikipedia for the pages, users, etc and your help with the footwork is appreciated. -- Tony of Race to the Right 14:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Climate of Mars
I was thinking that the article is looking good enough to remove the cleanup tag - what do you think, regards, sbandrews 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

UBeR is being reviewed
Oren0, I just got this message from Uber, he needs our help: ''Hello, friend. I'd like to inform you of the attacks and claims made by Raul654 to the administrator noticeboard regarding my actions. I whole heartedly believe my actions are just and warranted. Please review the current situation. Thank you. ~ UBeR 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)'' We should write our views of the situation with the proof to show the degree of frustration which Uber and we all are suffering. If we cannot save Uber from this injustice, WMC and company will simply extend this witch hunt to all who do not support their POV. Thanks, -- Brittainia 00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Final Proof of conspiracy - Raul654 filed complaint just to "get this monkey off WMC's back"
''The following is from my recent post, please go to the Admin noticeboard and post your views on this now exposed conspiracy by a group of Administrators. It is at:'' -- Brittainia 05:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, this post that you made just after UBeR filed a checkuser against William M. Connolley, clearly shows that this entire complaint against UBeR was orchestrated just to "get this monkey off WMC's back". The next step should be to stop this intentional diversionary complaint against UBeR and investigate your activities instead. Your entire group, , orchestrating these illicit activities should be thoroughly investigated by all those who have wasted a lot of their valuable time on your "getting this monkey off WMC's back". It is now clear that you yourself are guilty of most of the accusations which you have levelled at UBeR above, I believe that you and your co-conspirators should be permanently banned from editing global warming articles in order to stop the kind of bias, frustration and witch hunts which you are causing by your devious tactics. Everyone should know that this group are currently being investigated and exposed by a radio show for their hijacking of global warming articles as this group already knows - thus they are bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. -- Brittainia 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Removed picture from Vincent D'Onofrio
Hi Oren. As you're probably aware Wikipedia wants images that are freely available to anybody, whereas most publicity photos are still owned by somebody who wants to retain control. Wikipedia makes exceptions where there is no free alternative available (somebody's dead, for example, or to depict a character rather than an actor), but in the case of a living celebrity that's not a realistic argument - theoretically, you could attend a film festival or award ceremony and take a pic. See Brad Pitt for an example. Therefore the photo can remain on the character's page but not on the actors. (Quentin X 13:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Comments for 2007 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament
Just wondering if you plan to leave some comments on the strengths/weaknesses of the article you rated. I'd like to make some cuts to improve to an "A" rating and would appreciate a second opinion. Hoof Hearted 15:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Proper!
Ty, never heard of a proper adjective before - but I have now - also learnt how to spell proper :) regards sbandrews (t) 00:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on Scientific data archiving
Please take a look at this Talk page, especially the part on "pseudoscience" and William's reverts. The POV of certain editors is preventing them from objectively dealing with the facts. The concepts involved are not difficult but they do take a little investment of time to understand. You may need to spend some time in the Pseudoscience article to be fully comfortable. I hope you are able to find the time to help out. Thanks! RonCram 15:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the best version now and comment on the Talk page. The best version is here.RonCram 13:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Wikipedians who support Israel
Re. your comment on my talk page - from my deletion message; " (WP:CSD content was: 'Wikipedians who support Israelcfd-userIsrael')", you can see that it was marked with a header for speedy deletion and that it was listed at WP:UCFD. You can see the closed UCFD entry here, where it states that the almost unanimous decision was to delete the category. The UCfD was not closed by me, nor did I vote in it. I've no interest in the category other than being the janitor who got the job of deleting it. - Alison ☺ 23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Userbox suggestion
In view of the proposal to delete Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, I'd like to suggest that adding a (list) link like this: (list) to the end of the text in the box would make it much easier to find users who transclude that box. If the category is deleted, this would be virtually equivalent. --Athol Mullen 10:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Inhofe's blog
Would you please stop using Sen. Inhofe's blog as a reference to other than Mark Morano or Sen. Inhofe's views. It is not allowed under WP:RS - specifically WP:SPS. --Kim D. Petersen 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --GreenJoe 01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I warned her too. Thanks for pointing it out. I really want the two of you to work it out on the talk page first. I'm really not taking sides, I'm maintaining the "status quo." :) GreenJoe 02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

deleting 'broken' links on The Great Global Warming Swindle
Deleting every single link to a well known national newspaper because they are temporarily unavailable seems rather drastic! I would suggest that mentioning that they seem to be broken on the talk page would be more appropriate. As it was I suspect the Independent server was down at 3am on a UK bank holiday.

Regards, merlin --Merlinme 09:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete every link to that newspaper. Some were working, and the site itself was up.  This led me to believe that perhaps the links themselves didn't work at all, rather than it being a server problem. Oren0 16:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Understanding warm bias in the temperature record
I know you have an interest in global warming. As you may know, there are serious problems with the temperature record being biased by UHI or similar warming biases related to land use changes, etc. ClimateAudit.org is organizing an effort to photograph sites. Understanding the issue will help you be a better editor and improve the quality of Wikipedia articles on AGW. If you are interested, you could be a part of the effort. Please take a look here. RonCram 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will give you a few links that will speed you along when you find the time (if you can). The effort is led by Anthony Watts, a regular contributor to ClimateAudit.org.  Some of the pictures indicate that increasing temperatures are probably a result of changes at temperature stations. The website is here.  Steve McIntyre fully supports the effort.  And so does Roger Pielke Sr. RonCram 07:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

QL
List of episodes for xyz is a subject, "effects" (in my opinion) is also a subject.. so that should also be bolded, but I won't do it -- hurricanes aren't my thing. Matthew 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted adjustments to the temperature record
The Global warming controversy article needs to address the controversy around unwarranted government adjustments to the temperature record. I am hoping you may be able to help with this. Compare the historical temperatures ranges in the two images and relative changes to years 1935 and 1998. The image from 1999 can be found here. The image from 2007 is here. In 1999, temps for 1935 and 1998 were the same. However, by 2007 the temp for 1998 was considerable higher than 1935. I have done enough reading now to be convinced that the 1990s were NOT warmer than the dust bowl years of the 1930s. I believe alarmists like Jim Hansen are playing with the temperature record. In effect, these "adjustments" to the temperature record are done in order to create evidence of global warming. I need some help locating additional reliable sources on temperature adjustments. If you would like to participate in this effort, you can go to my User Page and click the "Email this user" button and we can discuss where this information may be found.RonCram 11:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

On the Scientists... page
Oren0, would you mind editing your poll answer to make the key word "Weasel Words" bold? It may sound ridiculous but Steve and Willy don't like it when I edit poll answers to be bold. Thanks. --Br it com 04:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Futurama Roll Call
Hello, you are currently listed as a member of Wikiproject Futurama though you may be inactive. This seems to be the case for many members so I am sending this message to help renew interest in working on these articles. If you are still interested in working on Futurama related tasks please visit the wikiproject page to see how you can help. If you have time please also join in the recent discussions on the talk page, in particular I would personally appreciate comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama. Thank you for your time, hopefully I didn't annoy you too much. If you would not like to receive messages such as this in the future then consider removing yourself from WikiProject Futurama/List of participants. Happy editing. Stardust8212 01:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Exposed: the climate of fear
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Exposed: the climate of fear, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Exposed: the climate of fear is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Exposed: the climate of fear, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 07:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

recent edit on the AIT article lead
I agree with you that we should only mention the academy award thing once in the lead of the article, but it looks like we disagree where in the lead it should be mentioned. I know you and I were on the same page about not putting the word controversial in the first sentence of the lead but that it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead. I have the same opinion about the academy award thing. I think for the sake of neutrality in the article we shouldn't mention anything praising or that is critical of the film in the first sentence of the lead. I liked the second reference as well since it mentions the fact it won 2 academy awards. Let me know what you think :-) Elhector (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
My my you've been busy over at that article :-). Good work!  I thought you might find this interesting. Elhector (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll go through that if I have time. I've been going through the recent UN open letter and adding any signatory who has a page and who I can find a suitable quote for.  That's why you'll notice my contributions are alphabetical.  The next step is to find skeptics who are notable and create new pages for them.  Oren0 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the actual senate report. There's probably a lot of the same names on the open letter and the senate report but there may be some new ones too. Elhector (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting global warming studies and such
I have compiled a list from some info I found on the internet. You may find it interesting. The list I created is here. Elhector (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject St. Louis
Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with old Gateway computer after downloading new programs?
I have a 1997 Gateway computer, which I believe may have a problem editing wikis after downloading unrelated programs. What happens is that I make an edit, and and try to register it, and then wait... and wait... and wait... while Wikipedia seemingly doesn't "respond" on Mozilla Firefox (my preferred browser). So I give up waiting and go to the history section. The problem? Several words wind up blanked that I never intended to blank! what gives? This has happened on more than one occassion with more than one Wikimedia-based wiki program (Wikia, editthis.info, etc.) (Rebooting solves the problem, by the way.) 68.36.214.143 (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just be aware...
Although I actually agree with the edit you made on IPCC, do be aware of Wikipedia's policies on editing on behalf of banned users. It's probably not a good idea to make a habit of restoring Obedium's edits. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really know the background here; I don't know who Obedium is nor did I know that the given IP was his. None of that changes the fact that your reversion of his edit brought my attention to some language that didn't belong in the article, and that's why I changed it. Oren0 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. User:Obedium/User:Scibaby is a banned user who has continually been editing Global warming and related articles using an army of sockpuppets. At last count he had used 23 sockpuppets over the past couple of weeks or so. He's been hopping IP addresses to evade blocks and letting his socks "age" to get around semiprotection (which prevents an article from being edited by anonymous IPs or by accounts less than four days old). Again, I agree with that specific edit, but if you consistently restore Obedium's edits it could raise eyebrows. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bellamy
Re this, it was indeed an accident. Your edit went in at 20:58 and mine was at 20:59. I've noticed that the system occasionally doesn't catch edit conflicts. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. No harm, no foul. Oren0 (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"test edits"
i've received 3-4 reprimands already for an act of vandalism that was not even committed by me, but rather someone logged onto my account. since it's been reverted, i was wondering just how many more people would be wagging their finger at me? thanks. Wikifried (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)