User talk:Polargeo/Archive 4

BSA Police
Good call on this redirect; not sure why I didn't consider that, but the copyvio was what caught my eye first. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Looking back I don't even know why I spotted it, but when I did I thought it to be the best solution. Polargeo (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

RFA indent
Per Soxred's tools, everything is formatted correctly now. Additional Neutrals under your struck neutral will start over at 1. And a trout to me for dicking around with it. Apologies, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A question about AfD's
I've seen a lot of RfA votes where someone comes up with an exact number for how many times a person has voted or participated in AfD. Since there is no tool that I'm aware of that keeps track of a person's AfD votes, I have to wonder if they are actually going through the person's entire edit history and adding them up. Although you didnt give an exact number, you did say "less than 30" which suggests that you must have had an exact number available even so. I would like to know how you did this, so I can evaluate candidates' AfD experience myself and look over my own record of AfD voting. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 20:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did it manually by going throught their edit history. I counted around 25 or 26 AfDs they had edited. Sorry I don't have a quicker way. Polargeo (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I thought of a way that might be more efficient, namely searching Wikipedia space for all pages that link to the user's userpage (presuming they signed all their !votes).  I was able to get a list of all my own AfD votes that way in about an hour (including time spent formatting them as links).  -- Soap Talk/Contributions 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that is a clever solution. If they haven't signed then their contribution to an AfD is not really worth worrying about. With a user such as Calm Waters I was using my edit find "Articles for deletion" option on my internet browser which was actually pretty quick to search through the contributions, 500 at a time. Now whilst I wouldn't want to search through 100,000 edits using this method I can do it in less than 5 minutes with a user like Calm Waters who has less than 20,000 edits and very few on AfD. Polargeo (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Pine Island Bay
Hi. Uh...that link is from NASA. Is that not a reliable source? I added it yesterday so that something constructive could later be added to the main article. I know it refers to PIB as an island, but there is an island off the coast of the Pine Island Glacier, within the embayment. I don't think the link should be removed just because it seems confusing.

Recent measurements have shown that any significant melting would cause seawater encroachment underneath Pine Island Bay, but for the past few years scientists have speculated that the entire WAIS could destabilise if that happened. Having a potentially still active volcano there complicates things. I have done a bit of research through other means, so it is not formal. However, looking at raw data, it looks like something dire is indeed taking place. For one thing, the Gulf Stream is meandering and the Humboldt Current may be starting to collapse. This is after tracking global sea surface temperatures for the past two months. For more information, please see the discussions I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology and at Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 January 6. However, this was almost a month ago, and it does contain speculation. But if the situation warrants it, can we use raw data and satellite imagery, etc. as Primary sources?

There is overwhelmingly a lot of recent news about climate change, even if the reporting of the so-called Climategate incident seems to have drowned out some of the more urgent news about possible short-term effects of global warming. The faliure of Copenhagen shows that, while everybody was too busy debating, we forgot to look out the window. There was a massive policy faliure in dealing with the threat of climate change because politics were injected into the science while older news got stale. The public's attention span is only so long. But with the recent probation of Wikipedia's climate change topics, it is now more difficult to get recent developments included in the encyclopedia. Recent developments in this topic are nessecary, because climate science is an evolving science. For example, methane clathrate releases were not expected until the end of the century, but they occured in 2008 and again in 2009. However, there are plenty of other recent developments, such as the discovery this year of a negative feedback loop after 2000 in the water vapor feedback cycle, due to cooler temperatures in the lower stratosphere caused by the greenhouse effect allowing less heat to escape into the stratosphere, reducing the overall potency of the water vapor feedback and making tropical SSTs in the Pacific and the temperatures at the tropopause anti-correlated. We need to present information on recent changes to the science in the articles, and put new discoveries on the main page regularly through ITN just like with any other scientific field. Too much skepticism can prevent science from progressing, and I have seen that many researchers become more and more convinced over time.

To be clear, I know that this is an extremely controversial subject, and that any attempt at including this information must follow rigid NPOV standards, and extensive discussion where nessecary. I also know that since some scientists studying places in the world that could be so profoundly affected by global warming have an emotional attatchment to it, there is a higher level of skepticism when unusual or "catastrophic" claims are made; this is also true with the general public, but the smaller group of more skeptical scientists immediately dismiss this as alarmism. But again, we are seeing events predicted long into the future happening very quickly, and scientists who witness this can't believe their own eyes. But apparently scientists are not very good communicators to the public, which makes it easier for political lobbyists to mislead the public, as we saw right before the Copenhagen Conference that partially led to its faliure. Emotions run high when catastrophic claims are made, and so the media ends up not reporting some of the more serious events: the Gulf Stream stopped for 10 days in 2004, the methane clathrates released recently, etc. And the winter of 2009-10, which is seeing strange weather patterns everywhere but few people are putting it together...until now. I find that sometimes this is reported in mainstream news, but only 0.1% of the public (an example, not an actual estimate) find out about it. So I try to get the word out through the Internet, but we have to follow NPOV standards on Wikipedia. I've read about 20 (mostly recent) books in total about climate change (that's one way I learn about it without being an expert), and I have about another 10 to go through in the next month or two. That's how concerned I am about the subject (of course, it's not the only thing I read about), and often the information contained in it is shocking, but many of the books do offer solutions despite some people saying there are none at this point. I try to include some of the information in Wikipedia articles, and although it is difficult to get new information on the main article about global warming, I have gotten it done before, but after extensive review by other editors. However, given the current probation, I'm still not aware of the extent of the implications of this, so I'll need to look for more discussions.

What I'm asking for is a review of articles with this information, so that it could be collaborated and discussed upon with the reliable sources required. The issue is, however, that often scientific papers are wanted for citing sources, and I don't have access to full papers other than abstracts I could search for. At one point I was considering sending my research by writing to a science journal, but I don't have the credentials needed. If there are no reliable sources at the moment, it may be possible to obtain one. Since you are an expert in this area, do you know of more data sources, or how this could be done? Or could you perhaps help with verifying my conclusions in discussions? If my conclusions are correct, then a major disruption of ocean currents is occuring, and it would lead to extreme short-term effects. It wouldn't produce a reliable source, but I could also for example create an animation of SST maps I've collected, or maybe there are online resources for more raw data, but I don't have the technical skills required to read technical data; only maps, graphs, animations, charts, etc. There are likely plenty of agencies that could publish information like this, but I'm not sure where to start, although I could ask the reference desk again. I am also working to get more of these conclusions on other websites (linked from my userpage), where I could ask for more discussion (and yes, debate) among science/weather enthusiasts, experts in different fields, etc. Up to 90% of the users on one website are climate skeptics, but there are some ways to convince them, and friendly discussion is still possible. Please contact me if you have any suggestions, and please do so if you could use your expertise to contribute to articles. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay just some briefing about the NASA article first. Polargeo (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Although the article is from NASA it is by a NASA historian.
 * 2) You placed it as an external link to the Amundsen Sea but it does not mention the Amundsen Sea specifically so this is not the best article to place it in.
 * 3) The bit of the article of relevence to the Amundsen Sea Sector is about Pine Island Glacier. However, the article states "Pine Island is the largest of these islands" but there is no island of relevence to the ice sheet in the PI Bay and as I am sure you are aware Pine Island Glacier is simply named after the ship the USS Pine Island.
 * 4) The article states that the "largest ice stream in West Antarctica is called Pine Island Glacier". This is also incorrect. For example Thwaites Glacier is larger.
 * 5) The article states that if the WAIS was to melt completely it would raise sea level by 5 to 7 m. This is also an old figure and incorrect because the entire WAIS contains ice equivalent to 4.8 m of eustatic sea level. Although the about 10 % for PIG is roughly correct.
 * 6) I am not going to reveal them one by one but it is peppered with more errors all the way through.


 * I placed the external link in the article because it mentions the Pine Island Bay and the effects that melting in the area would have on the WAIS. It doesn't mention Amundsen Sea directly, but it does mention Pine Island Bay, and I had to place the link in that article because Pine Island Bay is now a section of the main article and not a separate article. However, that NASA link could probably be cited within the section on Pine Island Bay or in the glacier articles as it is very recent information. The link mentions that Pine Island is an island, but that probably refers to the island in the embayment, near the outflow of the glacier. There may be plenty of innacuracies in the NASA link, but it is more trustworthy than a lot of other sources used in Wikipedia. If we are to include it, then the article should note the updated figures for sea level rise. As for the other parts, I plan to add more information to articles and start more discussions. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 19:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The most up to date numbers on total sea level rise from entire melting of the west Antarctic ice sheet that are on wikipedia are in West Antarctic Ice Sheet in the paragraph starting "In January 2006" if you wish to repeat this in some other articles then that would be good. This is the 4.8 m number that I put in which references the suplementary material of a 2009 Science journal paper (much much better than the out of date NASA historian numbers). However, this number is almost irrelevent for the next few centuries because no models predict the entire collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet in this time. I am sorry that this is such an extremely complex issue but when you get into it the current complexity cannot easily be explained on wikipedia unless someone like myself starts a separate article on it, but the work that would involve goes beyond the free time which I have. Polargeo (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Rothschild hoax
You'll be interested to know that the real Rothschilds have acted swiftly: all Stefan's fake sites have been taken down, and he has been taken off the Huffington Post both as de Rothschild and as Roberts, and off Twitter. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks for that information. When the hoax was noticed I did email one of the Rothschild companies to inform them as well as Quinlan Private. I noticed the claim about owning 52% of Quinlan Private was removed very quickly from the hoax site. Good to see the site now down. Stefan really should learn to stay away from grand hoaxes against people with that much power and money. Polargeo (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed you took action too. I think you were right it was important to shut this one down and evidently informing them about the scale of the hoax has worked :) Polargeo (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He is now getting more internet publicity than perhaps even he wants. JohnCD (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Split2
Hello, I just want to thank you for helping me on this, which the consensus was to keep the career stuff as part of the main page. I put it back, and deleted the other pages. I was just wondering how long does AFD's last for generally because I got an article, which I would love to see kept as is, but someone is trying to get it deleted. No one has commented on this, so does that mean the consensus is to keep or not? The article is List of Australian Open Singles Finals appearances, which it is necessary just go look at Roger Federer in the second box to see how significant this is to records tables. What do you thank? BLUE DOG TN 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * AfD usually runs for 1 week. I just had a look at it and it currently looks like it will be kept as there are three keep !votes and no votes for delete. Polargeo (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also it is best that I don't vote or comment in the AfD because that could look bad because you asked me for advice. Polargeo (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was just wondering, thank you! I will not expect to see you comment on it. BLUE DOG TN 19:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alina Puscau


The article Alina Puscau has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no indications of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dismas |(talk) 18:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just an article I came across whilst new page patrolling. It had been incorrectly tagged as speedy so I thought I would tidy it up a bit to give it a chance. Now another editor has prod tagged it. I'm not really that fussed but I suspect this could pass an AfD. I think it much better not to send it to AfD for now and to tidy it up and expand. See what happens :) Polargeo (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Al-queda was involved in Bosnian war.
There are many sources about Al-quaeda involvement in Bosnian war, even in wikipedia. Here is one of them:

"The United Nation's International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has sentenced Bosnian Army Commander Rasim Delic to three years in prison for crimes committed by foreign Islamic fighters against captive Bosnian Serb soldiers during the 1992-1995 war. General Delic's defense argues that he did not have control over the El Mujahid Detachment and that they received their orders directly from al-Qaida commanders, bypassing the Bosnian Army.  "

Al-quaida should be mentioned as participant in Bosnian war by adding one sentence after the following sentence:

According to numerous International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia judgments the conflict involved Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro) as well as Croatia.

to look like this:

According to numerous International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia judgments the conflict involved Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro) as well as Croatia. . There are many sources indicating that Al-Qaeda was involved in Bosnian war too  trough participation of its members with the Bosnian mujahideen.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No you cannot put that "Al Qaeda" was involved based on that source. It is simply a headline grabber from years after the event. Yes there were islamist fighters but to specifically state Al Qaeda was a force in the war is wrong. Polargeo (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A bi-product of the modern media. Every single islamist fighter in the world is "believed to be linked to Al Quaeda" it seems. The two are in danger of becoming synonymous... --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Besides above mentioned source, I put two links from en.wikipedia that also indicate involvement of Al Qaeda in Bosnian war. I did not propose to specifically state that Al Qaeda was force in the war, but that was involved. Like wikipedia links are showing. Can you double check it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Mutual Fund Research Center
The information in the posting is factual and not promotional in any way. The organization is registered with the United States. It is a noteworthy organization and most certainly fits the criteria of Wiki's guidelines on notability. I hope you will reconsider and undo your redirect. The Mutual Fund Store is a financial advisory service; it is a business. The Mutual Fund Research Center is a research and analysis center. It is not a business and therefore the redirect is inappropriate. Thank you. Sunshine1021 (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is clear to me that this article failled WP:ORG as it was. It was also dominantly promotional and full of links to the center. Polargeo (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you reinstate the article I will consider removing the overly promotional content and then take it to WP:AfD. Polargeo (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me what is overly promotional so I can edit the article appropriately or are you asking me to reinstate it so you can edit it? The links are to references in The Mutual Fund Store site. Are you asking for citations that are independent? Would you suggest that the Research Center be included in the information on The Mutual Fund Store page? Sunshine1021 (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the best thing to do would be to include a small amount of information on the Mutual Fund Store article. There shouldn't be a separate article unless it can be referenced with significant details from independant sources, preferably multiple independent sources. I also suggest reading External links. It is also not good to have an article sourced dominantly on primary information. Yes primary information is important but it is usually going to be one sided and may not be considered reliable. More to the point it is not good for you to be creating these pages as you appear to have a Conflict of interest. Polargeo (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestions and will work on the suggested edits. As for conflict of interest, I am a fan and believe in the company and the work it performs. Thank you again.Sunshine1021 (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Cook distance
Per your edit on Antarctica I did some searching of books and it appears the 75 miles is genuinely statute miles and not nautical miles. Polargeo (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I wish I had access to such books. Anyhow, those distances (both in the books and in the article) are wrongly specified: that's what nautical miles are for, don't you agree? --SciCorrector (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I do agree. Polargeo (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support
User: - Thank for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rapido Realismo Kali and Isagani Abon
Hi! Please post your thoughts regarding these two non-notable articles related to Henry Espera. Cheers! User234 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi Polargeo,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;


 * Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?


 * As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Bosnian War
According to this article, the Vukovar massacre was part of the Bosnian War. "Meanwhile, control over central Croatia was seized by Croatian Serb forces in conjunction with the JNA Corpus from Bosnia & Herzegovina, under the leadership of Ratko Mladic. These attacks were marked by the killings of captured soldiers and heavy civilian casualties (Ovcara; Škabrnja), and were the subject of war crimes indictments by the ICTY for elements of the Serb political & military leadership."

I will be posting the relevant information to an Admin and on the talk page. Simply because someone places (VJ) into a sentence does not make the entire sentence incorrect. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Kansas Bear. You do not need to go looking for an admin. I am naturally suspiscious of Serb nationalist editors(or any nationalist editors for that matter) best to appease them whilst they find mistakes and then if it is not a mistake find the sources that they cannot argue with and re-post the information with the concrete sources. Of course this only works with the cooperative ones but many of them are cooperative if given the chance to be. Polargeo (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also according to our current state of the article the Bosnian War begins in March 1992 whilst the Vukovar massacre was in November 1991. Also the Vukovar massacre was in Croatia and not Bosnia. So yes whilst I agree the events are strongly related I have to say "wrong time and wrong place" we have to be exact here. Polargeo (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Rochass vandalism
On February 13th 2010. within some changes of original article User: Rochass again deleted referenced informations, changed text without discussion and added some informations despite lack of sources. I really do not understand how did administrators missed this? Is it accident? Rochass is doing something that is called vandalism, and what is worse, he is misusing wikipedia because he deliberaltely put above mentioned changes together with some minor changes in references. Doing this he wanted to hide his real intentions. Should I simply give up trying to make this article more balanced with text with verifiable sources? Without administrators help with this simple matter it is not possible. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Roger Federer
I got this article done, so go look at it, which tell me what you think? BLUE DOG TN 12:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just individual war crime?
In the following sentence in the article about Bosnian war it is written:

Both Serbs and Croats were indicted and convicted of systematic war crimes (joint criminal enterprise), while Bosniaks just of individual ones.

I believe that any war crime is very serious matter and that it should not be considered as JUST. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the wording could be better. But it is best in wikipedia to put these comments on the talkpage of the article only and just alert me that you have posted the comments there. We should not have detailled conversations about improving the article on our own talkpages. Polargeo (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Yes the Rebecca Adlington thing was just a joke (because she irritates the living F*ck out of me) but you're right, I would not post it on the article. If it's wrong to do that then I'll leave it out. The Croats thing is more serious. You can't call a nation Slavs any more than you can call the English Romans just because England was part of Ancient Roman Empire and some like me have our roots in the Romans. Either a man is Slav, or Croat (or Serb whatever). It was just Serb propaganda to call everyone Slavic so they could lure non-Serbs into a Greater Serbia with less resistence. Wikipeacekeeper (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Sockpuppet of User:Human Rights Believer. Blocked indef. --Tadija (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please discontinue using wikipedia as your own personal propaganda tool. Polargeo (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment at RfA
I'm puzzled by your comment at the RfA talk page. First, I'll emphasize that I am not surprised at your !vote, it sounds like you've been paying attention to this editor. You said, That situation of all those questions with no votes is ridiculous and should not happen, but it rarely does happen. I note that not a single one (beyond the three standard questions) has been answered. Why is it so surprising that editors wait to see answers first. (As a possibly minor aside, I know candidates are asked to submit a candidacy at a time when they can devote some time to answering questions, so I'm mulling over what it means that there are zero answers 15 three hours into this.)--  SPhilbrick  T  13:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up - I've noticed when something doesn't match what I expected to hear, sometimes it is a red flag that I may have misunderstood the issue, so this isn't really a big deal, I'm just exploring whether I'm missing something.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose I took a look and saw that 15 was a very high number of questions for any candidate. I personally would not have been throwing any questions at a candidate if there were already 3 or 4 remaining to be answered, seems like completely unecessary intimidation to me. As to the fact that questions remained unanswered I know we seem to live in a 24/7 world now where we expect people to respond instantly but requiring an RfA candidate to answer questions in a period less than 24 hours is very very harsh and does not allow for a candidate who is only able to edit for an hour in a particular day, should every candidate for admin be required to take leave from work to run? If so we would be left with a wikipedia run by students and the unemployed. Polargeo (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response; I now have a better appreciation of your point.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My RFA
Thanks for weighing in at my RFA. Far and away from the old standbys, and the people I already knew, your comments were an experience. Someone I'd had limited dealings with, months ago. After reading Coldplay Expert's Oppose, I feel like I understand what you mean about my participation in your WQA thread, and if your reaction was anything like mine (confusion, anger, buffalo sauce-and-pepperoni-level heartburn) I apologize.

Your questions in the later stages were genuinely helpful (though I still don't understand opposing per little to no content creation), and your last-minute moral support change really showed me that despite the past, you're willing to ignore the old dealings and start fresh.

I hope our interactions in the future can be more pleasant than the first. -- King Öomie 19:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that some of the opposes were a little too harsh. I do personally believe that content contribution is important. I wouldn't be looking for FAs or even GAs but the odd added section here and there and maybe create an article or two. Just enough to show some experience of building the encyclopedia which can give more understanding. I know my comments would not have helped your RfA and maybe I should have been a little less harsh on you myself. I was stunned to be taken to WQA and it is unfortunate you ended up in the midst of my annoyance at the WQA. I did not behave well at all but that was my reaction to being taken to WQA rather than the actions that got me there. I hope to see you back in a few months and that you fly though RfA then. If you don't do anything silly (I don't think you would) and show a little content contribution I would definitely support then. Polargeo (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Maps
What you talk about? Kosovo proclaimed independence in 2008, but there is no any doubt that it was part of the Republic of Serbia from 1945 to 2008. I do not think that such basic facts would need an further elaboration. Anyway, see pages of my maps, they have list of references, including external links with similar maps, so I really do not understand what you see as a problem here? PANONIAN 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Quaternary climate request
Hi Polargeo,

I'm trying to put together a navbox to connect all of the articles on major events in Quaternary climate. I then realized that I'm far from an expert on the topic, so I thought I'd ask you! I'd really appreciate if you took the time to look it over and add/delete/change things as you see fit. And if you don't have the time, no worries.

Thanks! Awickert (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me. looks useful. I am fairly busy right now and also have a few wikipedia priorities away from the science at the moment but I will try to take a look at this. I would have to dig my nose into lecture notes and textbooks as this isn't really my field either. I study the current dynamics of large ice streams and ice sheets using geophysics. Polargeo (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice the lack of an Anthropocene though (only kidding) Polargeo (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmmm.... ok. So how's that glacial sliding term coming :-) ? Awickert (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

historian's work
The most important thing, a historian has to learn at university (!), is source criticism. Unfortunately your not a historian, but a glaciologist. Why don't you write on your subject instead of collecting google hits to a subjects not pertaining yours? -- Linksnational (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, google hits? When have I ever mentioned google hits. The new references I added were from Der Spiegel and the actual Nuremberg trials. I think your imagination is turing me into some idiot oponent who is inferior to you. My view of your edits to date does not suggest that you are a historian but a nationalist editor who's prime goal on wikipedia is to present Nazis in the best possible light. Polargeo (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting personal attacks reveals argumental weakness. I won't put up with your open or hidden nazi accusations. My family suffered from the nazis, my grand-grandfahter was part of the resistance. Shame on you! -- Linksnational (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I give up with you. You remove well sourced information whenever I try to add it. You revert, redirect and move articles without reaching consensus and then get annoyed when another editor states the obvious, I have been trying to work with you but you have attacked me, my motives and my intelligence right from the start. Whilst you have many good points every single one of your edits appears to be to move articles to a Nazi sympathetic view. I think you will find that it is not a personal attack to state the obvious. Polargeo (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To a layperson everything is obvious. In our discussion on the relationship to French women you showed, that you are unacquainted with the basic facts. Spreading uncontrolled smattering is disingenuous. -- Linksnational (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not dispute the fact. I just said that it was in the wrong place in the paragraph. I even looked at the German wikipedia page and it was not in that place. Also I stated that the information should not be in an article on forced prostitution. You are seriously twisting my words to make me appear stupid in your own imagination. Polargeo (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway I am getting a little sick of being told I have no idea by someone who has added some of the most mangled sentences to articles which are often not backed up by the sources anyway.
 * A partial list of insults you have made to me


 * “It doesn't seem, that you have any idea on the subject.” – Linksnational (talkpage comment) – 8 March 1610
 * “You've read one article or the headline. Congratulations. In Germany Der Spiegel is called the rainbow-press for intellectuals.” - Linksnational  (talkpage comment)- 9 March 1231
 * "Unfortunately your not a historian, but a glaciologist. Why don't you write on your subject instead of collecting google hits to a subjects not pertaining yours?" - Linsnational (talkpage comment) - 10 March 1511
 * and the abuse of my knowledge and intelligence just continues. Your comments have been one long sustained attack on me rather than my edits. You have been rude and supercilious from the outset. You have no reason to be particularly proud of your additions, they are largely of a poor quality or copied from German wikipedia anyway. Polargeo (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you outed yourself being unacquainted with the basic facts. I critisized your approach, the accusation of euphemizing nazi crimes is another category. In Germany it's a chargeable crime.


 * Well, I can be proud for having discovered big bullshit (like the rape camps), you adhered to. The nazis committed many crimes, probably incomparable. But that doesn't make me give up a fair and neutral point of view on history. -- Linksnational (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not adhere to "rape camps" you have an imagination that has run wild. I have repeatedly agreed that the original article was full of flaws but in addressing those flaws you imagined it was me who was behind them even though I repeatedly tell you I wasn't you insist that I am. You are still being extremely rude Polargeo (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My first ever edit of the article was after you rewrote it and moved it. That did not mean I agreed with the entire contents of the original article. I most certainly did not but I also disagreed with your changes. Polargeo (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So how did you know, I was wrong rewriting and moving the article? Maybe you could stop following me and reverting my edits and everybody is pleased. -- Linksnational (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not following you. I am mearly trying to make sure you don't whitewash the details about rape and forced prostitution. If you choose to edit some other subject area I will not follow you there. You will find it is better to work with other editors and take them with you rather than trying to make sweeping changes by force of edit count. Polargeo (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And how do you know what's whitewashing and what's not? -- Linksnational (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whitewashing is what you have done. You don't realise it but you have. Rather than correct statements that were incorrect and try to keep references in or fix references that are poor you had no interest in doing that you simply removed lots of stuff that could be easily fixed. Your additions tended to remove any hint of the forced or the down side of this prostitution and made everything both in camps and in soldiers brothels read like a good idea and a great thing both for prostitutes and customers alike. Of all of the literature showing the down sides you choose not to add any of it. Therefore although you are right in many cases (and I knew this from the start) you also wrote from a very non neutral POV and destroyed several things that could have been fixed that didn't fit in with your POV. You may have a degree in history but I suspect you haven't done any postgraduate research because you would then learn not to believe everything your professor tells you. I was simply trying to slow you down and get consensus but your reaction was to mock me as if I believed everything in the original article and to force your edits through with sheer force of moving, redirecting and reverting rather than by building consensus. I hope future editing can be more in line with consensus. Polargeo (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Will Buckley
I have asked for semi protection. best just leave it until it is protected. It is being edited because of live radio program just finished Polargeo (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, that explains a lot. I noticed the message warning while i was writing an ANI topic regarding this article, which i finished before looking at your message. Most of it seems to violate WP:BLP though, so i think it is better of deleted and salted for the time being. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that he meets WP:PERSON. -Regancy42 (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Do you mean WP:BIO? :) Polargeo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, yeah you know what I meant. -Regancy42 (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

?
I'm the anon editor at the discussion page. I'm going to remove your message, as it appears to be violating WP:AGF. IcarusVsSun (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the welcome! Cheers. Although, I'll probably still edit as an anon. I really only made the account to create that SPI. What are the benefits of having an account over editing anonymously? IcarusVsSun (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * People are less likely to accuse you of being an IP sock for one :), particularly because of the area you edit in. Also you will be able to edit semi-protected pages, vote in RfAs use automated editing tools such as twinkle, ask for rollback etc. Polargeo (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

RfA comment
When you say an editor has less than 1000 edits since their last block, is there a tool that figures this out, or just the regular edit counter? C T J F 8 3 chat 05:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just counted on the regular edit counter. I'm sure if I was cleverer (or had more time) I would have devised an ingenious way of doing it. Polargeo (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if you have time, you could count my edits since my last block :)  C T J F 8 3  chat 20:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice thought. I think my point in the RfA really hinged on the fact that the user had been blocked 4 times and had not done a large amount of editing since their last block. Obviously you are a different matter. I certainly wouldn't oppose on these grounds for a user like yourself who has only been blocked once. :) Polargeo (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Re my RfA Reform comments
Please don't make my comments about me, they aren't. My RfA is over, a done deal, it is irrelevant what anyone said specifically. I just wanted to share my general observations about the process and make some suggestions based on those observations. I am intrigued by your comment: opposers are held to higher scrutinty. That clearly must be a perception on your part, because there is nothing I am aware of in RfA guidelines that spells that out, nor do I know what you really mean by Higher Scrutinty. I'd be interested to learn more. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem prepared to make detailled observations on a process that you barely scraped though and have little knowledge of. I have a much greater participation of this process than you have and I am making observations based on my experience. Polargeo (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sound harsh, I supported your RfA but I think your RfA judgement is very wide of the mark Polargeo (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologise for my swift poorly considered reaction Polargeo (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The oppose section always gets much more cross examination than the support section. I think this is a good position to be in. Polargeo (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks and Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:A3
My apologies, I should've been more careful. However, the article still doesn't have any content, and I guess a redirect to Balsamic vinegar is the best option. Are you saying I should wait some time before tagging A3?

Thanks,

S Pat  talk 13:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)