User talk:Oscar Bravo

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123   (talk)  14:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Avoid personal remarks
In light of your insulting remarks on a discussion page, I'd like to remind you about a Wikipedia policy which is different from blogging and newsgroups:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Remarks like the following should not be made unless you are quite sure they will contribute to making a better article:


 * As for Anon (65.12.134.148)... He obviously learned everything he knows about climate change from Sid and Manny.

--Uncle Ed 14:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed, Thanks for your comments and your gentle admonition to be more polite. I will strive in this endeavour...


 * However, in mitigation, I would make a couple of points:
 * It was a Talk page, not an article. My observation of wikipedia so far is that Talk pages are indeed like newsgroups etc. and certainly contain a great many "personal attacks".
 * Did you find it offensive? I meant it as a jokey jibe (Do you know who Sid and Manny are? - they're characters from Ice Age :-)
 * The OP was anonymous so how can it be a personal attack? Put it another way, if someone chooses not to identify themself, they tend to abrogate the right to respect that the rest of us enjoy.
 * I also wondered somewhat about your motivation in policing obscure pages so assiduously. From your watchlist, I see you are very interested in Global warming. Are you skeptical about anthropogenic climate change? Are you leaping in to defend those on "your side"?
 * --Oscar Bravo 10:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for considering my observation a "gentle admonition". On re-reading it today, actually it strikes me as more severe than that. I appreciate you taking it so well. :-)

I also had in mind Anyone who beleives in Global warming has NO common sense. Taken literally, this is calling GW theory supporters "stupid". But perhaps you didn't mean it literally, so I think I've overstated my case. (As in: "He'd have to be an idiot to think you were literally calling him a moron." ;-)

Thanks for the implicit comment on my neutrality. If you can't tell what 'side' I'm on, in the global warming controversy I must be doing Something right. My position is that Wikipedia should not take a position for or against the theory that most post-1880 global warming is caused by human actions. --Uncle Ed 14:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good of you to reply. Of course, I rather gathered you were a GW-skeptic... I must admit to being a teeny bit skeptical myself - so I'm trying to educate myself a little on the subject. From what I can gather so far, the GW-skeptic wing has a layered defence strategy:


 * GW isn't happening. We've just has a few hot summers, that's all.
 * Oh all right, so the Earth's heating up - but it's not anybody's fault; the climate has always been fluctuating.
 * OK ok... so we're heating up the Earth... So what? Don'tcha like the nice weather?


 * I don't think many people would subscribe to the first POV; ice core, dendrochronological and weather records are too convincing. As regards the question of responsibility; the fact that modern warming co-incides with the end of the LIA (about 1850) muddies the waters. Did the LIA end because of the industrial revolution? Was it ending anyway and we just speeded it up? Was it ending and we had and are having nothing to do with it? Harder to judge.


 * The thing that makes me a bit skeptical about the skeptics is that their motivation seems to be more political than scientific - rather than worrying that science is embarrassing itself by coming to the wrong conclusion they seem to be more concerned that Big Oil doesn't get saddled with profit-reducing environmental restrictions. They sound a lot like Dr. Nick O'Tean trying to convince us that the epidemiological studies that link smoking to cancer are fatally flawed.

--Oscar Bravo 15:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Alien
I removed the It!... section because it was pretty POV, and as one user noted, it basically says, "It!... is similar to Alien in many ways; no it's not." I know It should definitely be in the article, but it should go under production or some kind of influence section. My edit summary meant that sometime I or others would put It!... in the article, but its mention in the article now just doesn't do any good. -Dark Kubrick 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. I'm afraid I'm still not clear what the problem is... I hope you don't think it's a criticism of Alien to mention that the bare bones of the plot come from an earlier movie. That's not the case; it is simply that tracing of sources is an interesting subject in art. For example, Hamlet is believed to be based on an earlier work, now forgotten, known as the ur-Hamlet. Nobody considers this a criticism of Hamlet.
 * You mention that sometime I or others would put It!... in the article - OK, I am others, so I'll put it back in just now :-) --Oscar Bravo 07:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a criticism of Alien. But look at the older version. Basically, the section says: "It was a major influence on Alien." Then in the next paragraph: "It differs from Alien in..." and then goes on to list how Alien is different. It's pretty contradictory, and very POV. Someone on the talk page mentioned this as well. The Alien article would not be complete without a mention of It, but it's use in the article in that version was poor. That's why I deleted it. -Dark Kubrick 07:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well. I've shortened and simplified the comment and removed anything that is at all my own opinion. Also, I've added references to reviews where people actually note the similarities. Hope this meets with your approval :-) --Oscar Bravo 11:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake about Geller
Dear Oscar,

Thank you for your message. I am SO sorry about this dreadful mistake. I only reverted the page to restore the booklist which 86.129.26.168 had removed. I split it into books by and books about. This is all I intended to do. I had added "Gellerism Revealed" by Ben Harris to the booklist and I thought this should not be removed. The British Library received their copy from me since it is a Canadian book and they didn't have a copy. I might give it to a few other libraries. By all means re-edit my revert as you wish. And when Mr. Geller next does some notable charity work, or speaks Greek, please let me know. Yours sincerely, Robert2957 P.S. I have now complied with your request. You don't need to consult me before doing anything with Geller's page unless you want to remove my reference to Ben Harris's book. Robert2957 14:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Antikythera Mechanism
You queried as to my sources for Archimedies possibly being the source of the device. The main source beyond the general knowledge (and I cringe at that phrase, belive me) is an episode of the history channel series "Ancient Discoveries" in which this theory was described in great detail. I am searching for a more easily referenced source, but feel free to revert it if you feel that it is unsound. I clearly noted the historical references I was able to, but as for citations I am unable to provide any at this point beyond the TV program. I just felt that a mention of another possible source for the device could not hurt, and hoped my uncited addition would spur a cited revision. I don't do that lightly, but the information I based it on was sound. Thank you for asking!--Scorpion451 22:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Murder of Jodi Jones
The title was changed to comply with the Manual of Style and Notability guidelines. Other similar articles which deal with similar isure are titled Murder of Danielle Jones and Murder of Sarah Payne. The article also nees to be re-written so that if complies with the layout of the other similar murder articles. The Murderer Luke Mitchell is not notable on his own and nor is Jodi Jones. The murder, the subsequent investigation, appeals and any inquiries. That is why the title was changed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Account confimation
Can you please confirm that you are the same user as IP editor 84.9.253.132 --Lucy-marie (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)