User talk:Raymond arritt/Archive 1

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 (~&#126;); 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! Dragons flight 15:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

you reverted
Hi, why are you reverting every one of my edits? please reply --KFA UK 12:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You didn't reply.. I had to ask for admin assistance.. sorry KFA UK 12:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

just because yu dont beleve something dosent make ite untrue

USA
Proud?! YOU ARE MURDERERS THE LOT OF YOU --Frogsprog 15:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

you
You are anti-marxist and a proud american, so I'm guessing any of your future edits to anti-americanism or any other topic with which the USA is involved, will be POV? and just out of interest, how do you justify supporting a government like yours?--Frogsprog 17:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Beatles microphones
Don´t remove it; add to it. If you remove it, someone will come along and repeat the process after it has gone. What about the bass drum/snare/guitar mics? Welcome to the club, by the way. andreasegde 18:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice one on the live recording. andreasegde 16:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What were the Gold/yellow drums on Let It Be? Did Ringo always play Ludwig? The Lowrey organ link is still red, but I´ll have a quick look for it on the Web. andreasegde 10:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I´ve found them. (Sorry for bothering you...)

Hi
Hello Raymond, welcome to the blue world. But (if I may risk a word of advice) you've got a bit carried away with the userboxes... they overflow my laptop screen! William M. Connolley 07:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well obviously then, you need a bigger laptop. Raymond Arritt 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Beware the edit war
Hey Ray, Thanks a ton for you help with that French Sentiment train wreck.... I mean, article.

Be advised, those editors over there are sensitive about deleted content. I previously tried to delete the "it was an isolated incident blah blah blah...." and was jumped on cause apparently it's important for the balance. I didn't care enough to argue. Maybe they won't notice this time. I just wish those guys would take an extra minute to read over their edits before frantically pushing the save button. You feel like a third grade teacher critiquing a book report. Oh well, life.

Thanks again for helping out. It's really starting to look better.--Roccyraccoon 15:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Democrat rwbdonkey.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Democrat rwbdonkey.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 05:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

POV??
I am merely stating fact that only the american government and media maintainst such hostility towards DPRK. your talk page says you are "proud to be american" it is understandable that you would support your government's discrimination in korea --Frogsprog 18:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversion
Raymond, No offense intended. Per No personal attacks, I reverted an uncivil/personal attack on your talk page. Though it is not a policy, it is a guideline that many adhere to. I am now aware of your preference. Thanks for your note. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandal
Hello, I have the impression that you are an admin. The following user: Wikiknower vandalized the Nicaragua page. Thanks. PS I think he has been doing it from different ips. Brusegadi 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of image
If there are two similar images on a page and one is (by your own admission) "arguably better" why would you delete the better one? Duke53 | Talk 17:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:GeorgeWithGuitar righthanded.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:GeorgeWithGuitar righthanded.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu Badali 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

references at Get Back
Hi Raymond. Your recent edits at Get Back have broken two of the references. When removing material that includes a reference, please make sure that the references you are removing are not used later in the article. If they are, you need to copy the reference information down to the ref that remains. I'd appreciate it if you could look into this and fix the references. Thanks, and feel free to ask if you have any questions.  Pagra shtak  04:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Talk:Anti-Americanism
RE: Talk:Anti-Americanism

RESPONSE:

Please cut and paste any deleted comments back into the article, if you feel that these comments further the building of this wikipage. I was inspired by another User:Gdo01, who deleted an anons irrelevant argument.

In the second place, your reverts were arbitrary: you reverted some comments, but let other stand that were just the sorts of comments you deprecate in your discussion here.

Yes, I am biased, I readily admit this, and am trying to be less biased. Thank you for helping me to try to become less biased. I welcome you to cut and paste any deleted comments, and I apologize if I offend anyone.

RE: Talk:Anti-Americanism and In my defense, I deleted all of the comments since my last edit, including "anti-American" comments and "pro-American" comments. the one comment I restored Talk:Anti-Americanism ''(See:) was the one sentence about how the "memory hole" should be restored. I will resore the users entire comment, if this helps out, as an admission of my mistake and as an apology to this user.

I would like to let you know that I fight for all content to remain in wikiarticles, and I despise wide spread deletions of any and all content, especially if it is well reserched. That said, the information that was deleted was poorly researched (no footnotes) poorly organized, and probably should have been deleted. This information which was deleted, although it was poorly organized and written, it had some interesting ideas, which future wikieditors may want to expand on. That is why I cut and pasted it here.

I hope this explains my radical and controversial move on this wikipage. Although I feared I maybe would offend a few wikipedians by my radical deletions, that was not my intention. I explained my intentions clearly above.

If there is anything else I can help you with, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks for sharing your feelings on this important topic. Best wishes, RWV 12:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

GWC
Thanks for the work on GWC. I'm not feeling very inspired so haven't joined in but i am watching... William M. Connolley 15:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Temperature record of the past 1000 years
I wonder if you feel like looking at Temperature record of the past 1000 years? William M. Connolley 21:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, no teaching this week so I may have time to give it a thorough reading. A quick look shows it's terribly disorganized. Raymond Arritt 22:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That too, though I really meant the most recent edits... but a more thorough look would be welcome William M. Connolley 22:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn
I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 20:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Macca
"I bet that between the two of us we can strike a good balance". Absolutely right, and a wonderful thing to say. Now have a look at the talk page :) --andreasegde 04:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your "Who am us, anyway? Draw your own conclusions," is brilliant. (I laughed a lot....) --andreasegde 05:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lennon
good tweaks on the intro Tvoz 04:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement. The McCartney article is really starting to shine, thanks mostly to all the work of andreasegde. Raymond Arritt 05:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree- both McC and Lennon. Lennon has had so much garbage thrown at it (look at history before the semi-protect) that it has been difficult to clearly see how to improve the writing, while focused on removing the swill - very glad to have your input and andreasegde's. I think house husband can use some beefing up -  the immigration part is ok, but there is not much said about what went on for those 5 years. I know I've read things about it - if you have anything, please add.  Tvoz 05:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just made a pass through the Lennon article. It could use some reorganization as well as the usual cleanup. Right now I'm working on Let It Be (album), which is mostly unsourced and contains a number of factual errors. Raymond Arritt 05:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A question has been raised on the John Lennon talk page about how much information should go in. It would be nice of you to add a comment, if you wish to... --andreasegde 14:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

9/11: The Big Lie
I have now totally revamped/stubified this article in order to deal with the POV issues. Please take a look at the new version if you like. Thanks, Bwithh 08:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Have a good one! Best wishes, Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 12:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

kent state photo
hi Ray - thanks for jumping in with your much more reasonable and reasoned comment than mine on the help page about "massacre". It does seem self-evident to me - like my analogy to JFK - but probably my note there was a bit over the top. I should save it for if and when the article itself gets that edit. happy holidays Tvoz 09:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comment on the tech page was reasoned, though I still disagree. (ie: Kent State and Kent State shootings in Google do not pull up the term massacre, check yourself.) C'mon over to the image talk page and join the discussion. You can follow my reasoning on the name change and weigh in.
 * I'll admit, I'm a little annoyed, because Chris Griswold pulled a revert without discussion. Grrr.... --Knulclunk 03:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I put in my $0.02 worth (adjusted for inflation) on the image talk page. Raymond Arritt 04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Global warming bias - not
So why, exactly, is the non-biased, factual information regarding the available funding for those who support global warming theories being repeatedly removed?

"The supporters of global warming theory have access to more than $120,000,000 in U.S. federal grants regarding climate change (ea. Grant Program 11.432 OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH (OAR) JOINT AND COOPERATIVE INSTITUTES)[]. The budget obligation for Grant 11.432 indicates "FY 05 actual: $112,681,000; FY 06 est $120,000,000. Total obligations include funding from all NOAA line offices). FY 07 estimates are not yet complete." [] " 71.211.241.40 04:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The most obvious answer is that it isn't "factual", as you state. The bulk of funding under that RFP is for cooperative institutes that don't have anything at all to do with global warming, much less "suppporters of global warming theory." Raymond Arritt 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ice age mythogy stuff
Hi - Thanks for removing the mythology stuff from Ice age. Happy New Year! --Geologyguy 17:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Germany
Hi Raymond, I just wanted to congratulate you on the great job you did editing the Germany article. The text is now much more clear and logical because of your help. TSO1D 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This was my first big attempt after joining the "League of Copyeditors." Thanks also for all the work you've been doing on cleaning up references and the like. This one is up for Featured Article so you might want to have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. Raymond Arritt 02:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm sorry for the edit. I was taking out some information to make a new WikiProject. Please don't hold the edit against me, it wasn't deliberate.



I'm currently working on a Wikiproject for Tenacious D, and the best wikiproject is the Beatles one. I opened it for editing in order to take some source out, and I must have saved the wrong thing.

Please respond dude.

Tenacious D Fans 13:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please understand I wasn't intending on vandalising. Check my contribs, I have never vandalised before. please don't report me.

Tenacious D Fans 13:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. I wasn't actually intending on experimenting on the Beatles page, I must have been editing it by mistake, thinking it was the Tenacious D one.

Tenacious D Fans 13:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. See your Talk page. Raymond Arritt 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephen McIntyre
Regarding statistical time series, what I put in was factual and relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.51.238 (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Hell and High Water
Thanks for the edits. Looks better. As soon as more reviews come out (his 2004 book was extensively reviewed), they should contain more analysis of the book and its claims that we'll be able to quote. -- Ssilvers 04:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I look forward to seeing it. Any idea how the book is selling? Raymond Arritt 05:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Amazon.com, it's currently about #4,000 in sales ranking, but I don't think Morrow has begun their promotional push. I have a copy, but it's what Morrow calls an "advance" copy.  Romm's last book did pretty well for a science book (it got reviewed by the NY Review of Books and won a tech award), but this one has more "popular" appeal, I think, and it's a fairly easy read.  With lots of global warming books coming out, the question is whether it will get buried in the heap.  Someone (not me!) should do an article on Tim Flannery's important climate book, The Weather Makers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ssilvers (talk • contribs) 05:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

The Beatles and forking articles
I have a problem that I would like to impart to all you good 'Beatles project' editors, and it is this:
 * Should anything directly Beatles-related be in the main Beatles' article, and only 'personal' stuff put into the Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr articles? I have the disturbing feeling that I'm repeating stuff in both Lennon and McCartney articles that should only be in the main article.
 * But... if only personal stuff is included in the individual Beatles' articles, would it make them too confusing/random, to read?

Please answer (on a stamped and self-addressed postcard please) on our talk page. (This might be more interesting than talking about MBEs... :) andreasegde, Mr Hornby, and Sir Sean de Garde 15:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Global warming
Hi. You rollbacked several edits in the article. However, you did remove some information, although I did not fix that because a lot of it was unverified, even though it was mostly legimate. However, when I removed POV, that was not an error, so I fixed it again. Thank you. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 15:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the POV comment. Various factual errors (along with some misspellings and grammatical problems) had slipped into the article so I did a rollback over several edits. I'll go back and re-add anything that should be there. Your point about equilibrium was a good one. Raymond Arritt 16:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Germany
Hi Raymond, this is about Germany again. Since you have had the opportunity to closely examine the article during your editing there, could you please share your overall impressions on the article's FAC page. Any commentaries or concerns will be appreciated. TSO1D 03:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Effect of incident angle of light on reflectivity
In the Global Warming article, I added this to the discussion (changed a bit here):

The contribution '(at low angles of incident light, such as early morning, late afternoon and near the poles, water is more reflective than ice),' was replaced by modifying the previous work by adding the word 'average' to the sentence. Average is also true but hides the insight of the steep rise in reflectivity at shallow incident angles of light. The relation refers only to the angle between the direction of the photons and the surface of the water so 'direct beam (cloudless skies)' is not relevant. The issue of waves has been addressed and is accounted for. At the scale of the wavelength of light, the reflectivity of water is always specular. The local angle of the (wavy) water surface is what must be used in the Fresnel calculation. Real (wavy) water reflectivity beyond about 60 degrees latitude (I did the math) exceeds the average reflectivity of land (about .15). Accounting for the extreme effect of the incident angle of light on reflectivity of water is mandatory for rational assessment of the effect of added water surface on global warming. Dan Pangburn 22:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
From a fellow political moderate, I urge you to read the latest source from the Associated Press: http://news.usti.net/home/news/cn/?/world.mideast.misc/1/wed/bq/Alebanon-war-deaths.RYBR_GDS.html. Please, there is no reason citizen should be vandalised in order to write civilian, when even the source it uses (Lebanese government) does not say they are. They are not only misrepresenting the number of others or "martyrs" (non-soldiers and non-policemen) as civilians, but they are using all of them as civilians. The source specifically states: ''Lebanon's top police office, in coordination with the Ministry of Health, says 1,123 Lebanese died in the war -- 37 soldiers and police officers and 1,086 other people, including 894 named victims and 192 unidentified ones.

The report lists the 1,086 dead as "martyrs." It does not differentiate between civilians and Hezbollah combatants, because the government considers them all Lebanese citizens. It also can be difficult to tell a Hezbollah fighter because many do not wear military uniforms. The other source (that has been deleted) was published in The New York Times'' and contains similar information. In either case this what the government says, that they do not differentiate because they "consider them all Lebanese citizens".

The source as well as the NY Times source further states the difficulty of identifying a Hezbollah militant. Thank you for your cooperation, I request that you keep in mind there is no dispute anywhere that those "Other Israelis" are all civilians. Please maintain accuracy.

--Shamir1 23:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Be careful...
A friendly reminder not to inadvertently run afoul of WP:3RR when confronted with a difficult situation. Raymond Arritt 07:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. Fortunately, reverting violations of 3RR is not in itself a violation. I will try and exercise restraint. Michaelbusch 07:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for your comments. I answered on my talk page. MastCell 17:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User warnings have been updated
Heya, take a look over at WP:UTM. Things like blatantvandal are being deprecated in favour of uw-vandalism3 or uw-vandalism4. Cheers! --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I tend to do these things from memory, so it would have taken a while to catch up to the new templates. Raymond Arritt 01:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming POV Dispute
You noted on a recent revert of my POV tag that it was unhelpful for me to simply tag the entire article with a POV tag. I am not familiar with how one would tag less than a full article with a POV tag, so perhaps you could explain how to do that. Additionally, I have discussed the areas I believe are improperly POV on the talk page and attempted to edit them to remove POV language, only to have my edits repeatedly reverted by members of the Global Warming clique. Any constructive suggestions would be, and always are, appreciated. CleanHarry29201 05:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Need your help
Hello Raymond arritt,

Re: thanks for your comments.

Any suggestions you may have in this checkuser case?

After looking over the evidence, your opinion on Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01 is welcome. Travb (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing global warming consensus
I took the time to explain clearly the reason why 'is' is not grammatically correct in that sentence on the talk page. Please read that before you revert it again. Arker 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul McCartney
I have nominated it for FA. andreasegde 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

admin?
Revert to revision 103371467 dated 2007-01-26 13:40:22 by Raymond arritt using popups) - hmm, why not apply to be an admin and get a rollback button William M. Connolley 15:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC) d


 * Having watched RfA for a while, I doubt I'd qualify. Not enough edits. Raymond Arritt 15:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wot is your count? It used to be 1000 needed William M. Connolley 15:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * mmm, let's see...

Edit Count for Raymond_arritt Total edits	2226 Main:	1459 Talk:	295 Image:	5 Image talk:	4 Wikipedia:	73 Wikipedia talk:	16 User:	102 User talk:	272
 * There may well be a formal criterion of 1000 but in practice it seems at least 4000 are best in order to avoid "not enough edits" objections. Also there are those who apply silly criteria like the proportion of edits across different namespaces (e.g., there are a couple of folks whom I know will say "not enough image experience"). I don't want to go through the whole RfA thing only to be told "come back later when you have more edits."

I haven't been around RFA for a while. I won't force you, but its sad if edit-count-needed has bloated so much William M. Connolley 16:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was once nominated (a bit of a joke in my case) and I had fun going through the process. It's like this - Q: "Think of a number from 1 to 10." A: "Errr... 7?" - "Wrong!" :) andreasegde 07:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look
Mimi Smith and Julia Lennon are up for GA review. Cal me a glutton for punishment, but they need a scan by eagle-eyes. andreasegde 07:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do. Watch for queries on their Talk pages. Raymond Arritt 16:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Next Candidate:


 * I thought about Freddie Lennon, because there's a lot there already, and it just needs cleaning and references.


 * I also thought about "Jim and Mary McCartney" because they don't have anything at all at the moment. andreasegde 06:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just started Freddie Lennon, and it's going to be finished in two days or so. I think The Beatles is almost up to GA now - it just needs a bit more work. I will start on it as soon as Freddie goes for GA. George and Ringo? I haven't looked at them at all. Are they in a serious mess? andreasegde 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Freddie Lennon
Little Freddie Lennon has been put for a GAR. Would someone look at it for stupid mistakes, and give it a wipe with a damp cloth? andreasegde 09:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks on the Global Warming Controversy
I didn't want to come across as an ass on the additions I made to the "Printed Media" section of this article. I think your clarifications were great. --The Outhouse Mouse 17:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I can live with THIS edit. Good clarification without POV. --The Outhouse Mouse 18:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Best to cite the original source when possible. Especially when it's Rush Limbaugh. ;-) Raymond Arritt 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Global warming is....
Raymond, I'm personally not too concerned that you reverted. However, the article does use the term "global warming" specifically to refer to period outwith the modern period of warming.

Perhaps it doesn't matter, since it is probably fairly obvious - except it does rule out things like "global warming has happened several times in the past", if the definition only refers to the present time.

I also thought it useful to put in something about "average", to indicate that it does not refer to the temperature at any one place.

LordsReform 15:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The "average" qualifier is indeed a good idea. Raymond Arritt 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Julia Lennon
"Leila and John Lennon later became regular correspondents" - that means they became journalists... They corresponded with each other, perhaps...? andreasegde 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't like that when I wrote it. It's correct according to my OED ("a person who writes letters on a regular basis") but it sounds a bit stiff.  Maybe "Leila and John often wrote to one another" or something like that. Raymond Arritt 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

British Invasion
It's really more of what the "British Invasion" involved, and my purpose was to make it clear that it was specifically music related, for those that were unaware of it. However, since the text in the article is wikified, I suppose users could simply click on it it. ErleGrey 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Shaggs Beatles newsletter
I'll learn yer! I'm putting yer name as an editor!! LessHeard vanU 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you caught that. Some things can't be helped. Raymond Arritt 21:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors participation drive!
Dear League member,

We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you can, please help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:
 * Select an article to copy-edit from the backlog. After your copy-edit, list the article in the articles ready for final proofread section.
 * Select a different article to proofread from the articles ready for final proofread section.

Thanks for your help! Rintrah 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Raymond Arritt the article Hurricane Isaac (2006) that you you proposed to finish copyediting, go head and finish it so there won't be any confusion. Showmanship is the key 00:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 10, February 2007

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

delivered by ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 03:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
The Beatles trivia is now "The Beatles' miscellanea". Let the trivia zealots boil their heads in oil... andreasegde 21:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Cynthia Lennon
It's becoming clear that the Cynthia Lennon book contains lots of errors. I suggest it be used as a reference only when confirmed by more reliable sources such as the Lewisohn books. Raymond Arritt 16:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but how many? I found two, but they were about what Lennon said about Epstein after his death, and the leather/suede coat Lennon bought her. Are there other really glaring ones? andreasegde 18:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

President
Hi Ray! What my Brother's pal told me, and now The Lion King is saying it, is that this is a photo of a President - do you think some poor sap bought the wrong bass? All the best, Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the pic is of a 500/5 (with the second pickup removed). Stu definitely never played a President -- the model wasn't even released until after he died. Raymond Arritt 22:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers Ray! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 23:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

i come to you directly...
I come to you directly because you seem reasonable. The other few are not.

I had Jimmy Wales on my show a few months ago to talk about Wikipedia. At that time I was convinced that Wikipedia would eat itself. He did not know it, but he made me understand why Wikipedia works. It is entirely dependent on the Wiki community and their allegiance to keeping their POV out of the articles and to treat the 'other sides' the same as they treat their own.

I was chased out of the GOP because I don't care who benefits from fairness, I strive for fairness. I do not tolerate half-truths on my show, I do not tolerate intentionally misrepresenting facts...even if it would otherwise help my side. What is right is right regardless of who benefits. My philosophy on the air is that I believe what I believe because of what I know. I want you to have the whole story, both sides, and I believe you will then be on my side, but if not we should be able to trust each other and each other's data, etc. Democrats I had as guests were blown away by how hard that rule is on my show. Many of them left the studio with a mutual trust (which further angered the GOP). In the end everyone benefits if all sides are given fair access to the forum. And trusting each other is crucial. Because of Al Gore's movie I will never trust him again on this topic. Because of Ann Coulter's 'facts' I will never trust her on any issue. That is not healthy for anyone.

All that to say that you & I both have our POV on global warming. Frankly, I don't care who has more scientists or which studies say what. I appreciate both sides. My fire on those pages is how one-sided everything is...reverts, deletions, standards for sources, timeframes to get sources...every aspect of those pages are carried out with the very biases that Jimmy Wales personally told me cannot exist if Wikipedia's credibility is to survive.

It may seem I'm fervently trying to advance the con-GW POV, but it is only because that is the side that is being mistreated. You and I ought to work together on completing the information, not fight each other on it. The scientist certs are a perfect example. That is something that both sides SHOULD want in there. And the amount of POV bickering that can be elimated would be a good thing all while making Wikipedia an even better go-to source. Help me with that. My intention (if I do this alone) is to hit all of the names being treated as some type of expert or authority, go to their own homepage or webpage and find their degrees (and only their BA, BSc, MD or PhD). Parenthetically after their name (and also on their Wiki article) putting their degree and what field it is in. If they have no degree then I intend to list that as well. Hopefully that will not have to be a fight with each single addition...and then I can do the same for all of the names.

Please, help us with this. At the minimum help fight the deletions of this information as it gets entered so that I won't have to. How one treats the opponents will be how they are treated later (a motto I try to keep in mind). -- Tony of Race to the Right 08:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * On second thought, nevermind. Why do anything to that article when it will just get deleted again anyway by Connelley or Kim or whomever.  Really, that page should not even exist.  A page about controversy that only shows the good of one side and the bad of the other is not showing controversy.  It is a justification for the start of eugenics to prevent the spread of the 'paltry few'.  Feel free to delete the creds I put up...and if you feel the need you can say it was per me.  I'm not editing that page any further unless certain people are bannished from the page...and since one is an Admin I know it will never happen.  BTW, If YOU delete the academic references I will not include that in the reports I'm filing.  You were decent enough to respect this request and I will make certain that is pointed out.  The good news...those people on that page have given me great material for my show this week.  And if they have never heard their IDs on radio they will have the chance now.  Heck, for several weeks I have material about the active and successful efforts to eliminate opposition rather than refuting it. --  Tony of Race to the Right 08:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony, I suspected all along that this was a little game you were playing to get fodder for your radio show, which is why I have tried to avoid responding to your provocations to the extent possible. Have fun. Raymond Arritt 15:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You suspected wrong. It just happens to fit with what we've been talking about.  Of course, as Wikipedia says, assume the best...and you obviously did that. --  Tony of Race to the Right 17:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Compliment
Raymond, for your sentence, "my rating on the issue of "The Beatles" versus "the Beatles" would be about 0.75." I thank you from the bottom of my (empty) wallet. Best wishes. andreasegde 22:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Yeah, I think it added a bit of needed perspective.

You see, I don't only bite strangers; I can also snap at folk who called me brother just the other day. Ah, well... ;~) LessHeard vanU 22:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As in "take this brother, may it serve you well"...? Raymond Arritt 22:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to you on the quote (I'm googling it). You will be pleased to know that things are sorted over at The Beatles. Nobody has apologised. Nobody has grovelled to anyone. Nobody has said "told you so". Everybody is getting on with stuff.
 * Your timing was superb. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * D'oh! A Beatles quote!! Mack Jigger 00:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Salutations
Thanks for stopping by my page and leaving kind words. Thanks also for your efforts and committment to intellectual integrity. Mishlai 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Pastafarians
why do you insist on defying the Pastafarians hypotheses? I understand you might not agree with this idea but when i posted my idea on the dicussion page you blindly deleted it. why not explane your reasoning? I also question your lable of disruptive nonsense, I presented a revision and evplaned my reasoning, how is this disruptive?Boatman666 00:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Granted it was funny, but there's already enough trouble trying to keep that page on topic. Raymond Arritt 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

why not say that on the page, and let others express there opinion?, the discussion page is specificaly for that after all. so just because some things funny its not relevent? Boatman666 00:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Message for Raymond
You say above that you have an email address through wiki, but I have no idea what it would be. Thus this note here, which I trust you will see.

You sent me a message through the system: "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. . ." in reference to my adding links to ChangingThePresent on a number of pages. A link to a site that allows action seemed reasonable and consistent with the many links to nonprofits that I found on the site, but perhaps not. You're the old hand here, and I'm a newbie, trying to provide helpful info. So I defer to your judgement on what the wikipedia policy is, and I agree not to submit more links of that sort.

I do feel compelled to note that your message "This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Disability, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia" seems a bit heavy-handed, don't you think? After all, the links you objected to were all created in a single sitting, just now. You make it sound like I'm an unreformed long-time spammer. I appreciate your vigor in protecting wikipedia, but since you're representing a collaborative community, an explanation might be a more appropriate tone than a threat, don't you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.9.94.34 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Not at all. I gave you the first warning (which you utterly ignored), then looked at your edit history. It was clear that you weren't naively inserting a link or two but were in the midst of an extended spam run. Thus I felt it necessary to jump straight to the spam4 template. I hope that you now understand Wikipedia's policy on such links and that this is the end of the matter. If you believe I have acted inappropriately you can refer the situation to Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Raymond Arritt 02:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

But you resorted to the "This is your last warning" message when I tried to edit the global warming article as well. I can see how it is important to protect wikipedia but when making any contribution becomes impossible due to overzealous people the main appeal of the site is lost. Boatman666 03:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Read the actual warning on your talk page. I gave you the standard, neutral warning for a first incident which assumes neither good nor bad faith. This is two levels away from the "last warning" template. (For the benefit of any third parties, Boatman666's "contribution" was a joke about Pastafarians and global warming -- see our discussion in the section preceding this one. I thought it was funny, but not appropriate.) Raymond Arritt 03:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy
Please explain why you restored TONS of fancruft to this page by reverting my edit. -- Elaich 05:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If I reverted your edit, it was unintentional. I was doing recent-changes patrolling and there was vandalism going on that article. (Usually I focus on IP vandals, in order to avoid mistakes like this.) My sincere apologies. Raymond Arritt 13:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. There was a huge outbreak of vandalism yesterday. It happens from time to time and seems to be a planned attack on the article. Thank you. -- Elaich 14:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Geneticist Page
Hi, I was wondering if I could get you to look at the geneticist page. I have been working on it for a class and was hoping to get some feedback. I am looking for any help at all, so any comments are greatly appreciated. Thanks-Nikki Nichschn 17:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I made of it William M. Connolley 21:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For you
Glory be! My first and only. If I collect enough can I turn them in for plush toys or something? Raymond Arritt 22:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Weather and Precipitation
Water vapor is the most important IR absorber in the atmosphere. Liquid water also has the highest specific heat and is the only substance that changes states in the atmosphere and then falls to the ground as a liquid or as solid significantly adjusting atmospheric heat content in the process (evaporation, condensation, and sublimation). Yes, you are right that weather systems and precipitation redistribute heat, but that is not all that happens, and that is not even the most important effect of weather systems and precipitation. Clouds comprised of liquid water droplets and ice crystals are responsible for blocking about 30 percent of the solar influx globally on average. With more clouds, less solar energy reaches the ground and more is reflected back into space. Fewer clouds result in more solar energy reaching the surface and warming it. This is not a redistribution effect. Conditions on the Earth that add more water into the atmosphere or that remove more water from it can affect tropospheric and stratosperic temperatures through heat exchanges involving atmospheric water in all of its states. Furthermore, some have argued this provides an important feedback mechanism to cool the Earth or at least to be a stabilizing influence counter to the greenhouse effect. Without this mechanism, and with the IR absorbtion effect alone, it has been calculated that low tropospheric temperatures could average as much as 60 Celsius (140 Fahrenheit) and the Earth would be a very different place, indeed. You may want to check out the NASA website for confirmation of this--a mechanism that has been fairly well understood since the 1960's.

Norm 04:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts?
Have a look here--MONGO 11:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments added. Thanks. It's like that big weed by the side of our house; we chop it down but it keeps growing back. Raymond Arritt 17:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

in global warming
Hi Ray! Several people have overhauled the citation system for global warming (suprisingly, without interference from William ;-). The following still sticks out in Global warming:
 * It is thought by some geologists that a rapid buildup of greenhouse gases caused the Earth to experience global warming in the early Jurassic period, with average temperatures rising by 5 °C (9.0 °F). Research by the Open University indicates that this caused the rate of rock weathering to increase by 400%.  As such weathering locks away carbon in calcite and dolomite, carbon dioxide levels dropped back to normal over roughly the next 150,000 years.

First it's weasely, second, there is the fact tag attached to the first sentence. I suspect the references we already have cover this, but have no access to the full paper to check. I also expect that the first sentence is fairly standard, and it should be easy to get independent support for it. Given your competence, and the fact that you have easy access to a good library, can you take a look? At least the Cohen et al paper should be online, no walking involved ;-). --Stephan Schulz 08:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked it up and although Cohen et al doesn't quite say what the article implies it's basically on target. I'm busy with some other stuff for the next few days but will try to clean it up a bit. It's an interesting topic but this material is better suited to climate change than to the global warming article, in my opinion. Raymond Arritt 20:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism to KyraVixen's userpage
Oop, heh. I actually blocked that one on sight and figured I'd be done with it -- it only made three edits prior to that attack (bluelinking their user and user talk, to attempt to blend into history better), and another one to some other (unrelated?) user talk. Pretty ovious disruptive account -- if they haven't been here, before, they'd have no reason to attack KyraVixen like that. Appreciate the note, though, and thanks for your assistance. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

:0
This has been a slap in the face for those that are truly passionate about the prevention of squirrel baldness. Bald squirrels cannot sing or talk. They cannot play polo. They cannot wear polo shirts. They must hide every day within the solace of their trees, hoping that they shall someday be granted freedom from squirrel baldness. Squirrel baldness is a serious problem, and it must be fixed.

Thank you for your utmost time and consideration. We hope that you shall someday become aware of squirrel baldness, and devote your life to its eradication. 65.43.196.144 18:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that I will give the matter all the attention it deserves. Raymond Arritt 18:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Squirrel baldness is, as Mr. 65.43.196.144 (this is his real name, as we are cohorts in real life) pontificated, an important issue. If you would like to donate to the Squirrel Baldness Prevention Foundation, please direct yourself to my talk page and we can make arrangements. Thank you! 65.43.199.211 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Who Am Us, Anyway
"How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all? Ask that cop in the woodpile!"

Brilliant reference. Thanks for a smile (and for your excellent, illustrated user page essay). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Policeman -- what makes America great? Raymond Arritt 01:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The song that immediately follows that question would get us both permanently booted from WP.


 * "Does this thing get UHF?" "No, I don't believe in flying saucers." :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 11, March 2007

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

delivered by ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

HagermanBot
I noticed you were caught by HagermanBot's speed. Did you know you can opt out by going to User:HagermanBot/OptOut? Lurker oi!  17:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That's a help. Raymond Arritt 18:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor's Award

 * Thanks! I will display it with officious humblenitude. (How's that for good English?) Raymond Arritt 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, but I don't reckon humblenitude as a word, even if it does sound good. :-) ~ UBeR 03:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Left-right politics
Hi, I noticed you did some work on this article. I've rewritten large chunks of it and added sources (most of it was previously unsourced, and lacking inline citations), so I wonder if you could take a look at it and tell me what you think of my changes. In particular, I've removed large chunks of the "definitions" section that were unsourced and looked like OR, while adding sources for the rest. Wal ton  Vivat Regina!  19:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Template:uw-copyright3

Regarding the tag you left
When you tagged a section of Scientific data archiving, you said you would remove the tag if the issue was resolved. I have made an effort to resolve it and asked for your input several days ago. You have not replied, even though you have visited the Talk page to discuss other issues. Do you plan to provide a citation for some more detailed statement? Or can the tag be removed now? RonCram 05:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not reasonable to expect someone else to find citations to support your unbalanced statement. Either provide appropriate balance, supported with reliable sources, or remove both sides of the statement -- including the side that supports your POV. Raymond Arritt 06:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I want the article to be balanced. I do not believe the statement, as it now stands, is unbalanced. It not reasonable to expect me to be omniscient.  If you know something I do not know, I invite you to make a contribution.  If you cannot find a reference to say what you think it should say, perhaps one does not exist.  I will remove the tag for now.  If you can find evidence the article is unbalanced, feel free to add the tag along with your evidence. RonCram 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle protection
Quite. – Steel 17:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please
Regarding this edit summary, please avoid personal attacks. It's really barbaric to insult someone on a simple typographical error. I know in situations in which there are heavy disputes, things can get a little heated. But I simply you ask you try to keep your cool and avoid such remarks that are unwarranted. ~ UBeR 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's hard to see how a request to spell my name properly can be construed as a personal attack. Prior events suggest you are not in the best position to lecture others regarding personal attacks. Nevertheless, I thought your Hamlet paraphrase on WP:RFPP was great! Raymond Arritt 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (P.S. No, the subpages were not attack pages. I have made this clear.) ~ UBeR 18:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Off-wiki stuff
Wow... I had no idea that things like [Blacklisted URL removed by EVula; see history] existed out there. I have to say I'm a little offended not to be included on the hitlist - I don't edit climate-related pages much (after I de-watchlisted James Inhofe to save my sanity), but I did AfD Shattered Consensus... MastCell Talk 22:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Charming, isn't it? BTW looks like mucoid plaque is stable for now, but if need be give me a ping. I passionately despise the misuse of science to engage in fraud. Raymond Arritt 00:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, me too, although in my weaker moments I start thinking I should just write a fad-diet book ("Eat Right For Your HLA Type"?) and retire on the proceeds. If you can't beat them... MastCell Talk 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack
This is an egregious slur on me. I request you refactor it. My modus operandi is to edit constructively. Please Assume Good Faith with respect to me in the future. --Blue Tie 16:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I can see how modus operandi could be taken the wrong way. Raymond Arritt 16:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Besides, I do not really "tag bomb".  I have seen that, and though I find it a bit annoying, I do not consider it a bad thing per se. I believe that requesting citations is appropriate and I respected your contributions. --Blue Tie 16:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your refacting and you still have it wrong. It is not my "practice".  I do not do that. It is a false accusation. Research it for yourself and see. --Blue Tie 16:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back
And good to see you being dangerously sensible over at sci opp. Not sure about the title change yet - I'm inclined to agree but still thinking William M. Connolley 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Danger is my middle name. Raymond W. D. Arritt 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Raymond Danger Arritt... Third Eye" -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When two aren't enough. Raymond Arritt 02:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you back. Guettarda 05:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"One of them is silly and not to be taken seriously; the other is worth reading. I won't say which is which." and with a quote like that, you are heartily welcomed! Skyemoor 09:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Wishes
When you left, I added some items to your talk page in response. They were reverted egregiously, but I wanted you to be aware of them so I am reposting them here. Of course, as your user page, you may do with them as you want. --Blue Tie 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (In response to your leaving) That is too bad. I just extensively replied to your request on some matters. Hope you return soon. --Blue Tie 18:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For some reason that is unclear, W Connolly seems to believe that somehow I have offended you. I was unaware of it if I did and it was unintentional.  I want you to know that.  I defended some of your edits and I responded to your requests.  I thought we had some opportunity for collaboration or something -- I thought your posts suggested it and I was encouraged.  I certainly did not mean to offend you and do not know of anything I did that would have been so bad, but if so, I apologize. --Blue Tie 21:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)