User talk:Rickcrane

January 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

May 2009
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Frozen4322 Talk Stalk 01:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I merely deleted an obscure and confusing interchange between Cheney and a Turkish journalist. That interchange has since been expanded by others. Although still obscure, and having little to do with Cheney, it now roughly makes sense. Referring to others judgments as "vandalism" is outside the spirt of wiki. If you want to suggest a change, do so, but don't question others' motives. The way you use it, "vandalism" becomes a kind of epithet, like somebody saying "darn" when they drop something on their foot.

Proposed deletion of Crisis of the Roman Republic


The article Crisis of the Roman Republic has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This article lacks any sources whatsoever; this makes its quality and factual accuracy highly suspect. It must be pointed out that one of the unofficial mottoes of Wikipedia is Verifiability not Truth. IMHO articles which lack any sources whatsoever have to be deleted.

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. Flamarande (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Your edits to Global Warming have twice been reverted. This is a featured article and while I'm sure your edits were in good faith they did not improve the article. If you wish to propose significant changes can I suggest you discuss them fist on the talk page.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

WARNING - try to comply with basic editing and talk page guidelines to avoid unintentional disruption and contribute effectively
Your edit history suggests you've popped in and out without really boning up on how to contribute effectively. Please see the following wiki guidelines before making additional edits:

Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia - among other things, how to include citations

Talk_page_guidelines - among other things, always sign your posts with 4 tildes (these things ) and put your comment in the proper place (indenting, interlining, and section headings)

WP:DISRUPT - Try to avoid the most common unintended pitfalls so your contributions are most effective

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

WARNING - Edit wars & Vandalism ...... versus...... Consensus and Dispute Resolution
Please add these wiki policies to your reading list before making additional edits

Edit warring

article vandalism in general

vandalizing articles to make a point

This comment inspired by [this section blanking without any rationale] shortly after [this sour grape talk comment] was disruptively stuck in the middle of an unrelated but otherwise productive thread.

If you have a problem with anyone's reversions of your comments, then you can start discussion on the talk page, and try to get consensus. If you still feel aggrieved you may try any of the established methods for dispute resolution. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

climate change consensus & block
Hi, I'm not sure if you are aware but most of the climate change articles are under general sanctions of only one revert. I've just reverted your edits and I'm sure you are aware the re-addition of your material up to now can certainly considered be considered to have passed this. you have been warned above so I am going to block to stop you continuing to try and add this material. A word to the wise, continuing to try and batter your edits onto the article space will not work, there are a number of editors with entrenched positions who will revert and there are a number of people watching these pages trying where they can to mediate. If you wish your edits to be taken seriously you will have to go through the talk pages first, please after the block has expired consider your arguments how you may approach this to persuade people to your position. Regards Khu  kri  21:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have already given my arguments. The global warming article as written is unbalanced. It studiously avoids mentioning that the world was generally warmer in the past than now, and often had co2 levels as high. The issue is whether Wiki wants to take positions in its articles, or accurately report positions taken by others, on both sides of an issue. In answer to your question, no I am not aware of any recondite Wiki policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickcrane (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Rick, I don't think anyone is debating that the world has been warmer or had higher concentrations of CO2 previously, just that the current rate of change is unprecedented. Whether that is right or wrong to me is irrelevant to be honest. As I said above trying to force your edits into article space just will not work, too many people have entrenched positions, so you need to play by the rules or you are going to just hit a brick wall. Find peer reviewed articles that support a/your position that may warrant inclusion, then you may include it or try reading up on editing policies such as WP:BRD, but railing against the system/and opposing editors will end up going nowhere. Unfortunately the subject might have a neutral middle ground, most editors are polerised on the issue, so discussion is the only way forward. Regards Khu  kri  16:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur. And I take an especially dim view of anyone who has time to rant but does not have time to read the basic guidelines and how-tos that all wiki editors are expected to follow. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling my opinions "rants" doesn't add much to the discussion, or to the writer's credibility. As far as spending a lot of time on the discussion pages, I did enter the citation of the Paleoclimatology book there. It was deleted. I don't see much purpose in adding other references. Most Wiki contributors are biased in favor for global warming orthodoxy, so there will always be someone who will find a reason not to include allusions to the fact the the Earth has usually been warm, with no polar ice caps, often high co2 etc. The recent rate of change may or may not be high than in the distant past; that's very hard to determine. The extent of bias in existing Wiki articles is apparent in the fact that even the article about Global Warming Controversy basically says there is only one legitimate point of view. If that's true, why have an article on controversy? I note there are no articles on the F=ma controversy. The reason is that it's settled. The more people cite the number of scientist who think one thing or another, rather than facts, with citations, the more we can be sure that we're reporting on politics, not science.

If I get a chance, I can try to read up on Wiki mechanics more, although I doubt that it would be wise to conflate those who are most adept at those with those who have the most to contribute. The mechanics experts are likely unemployed/ underemployed people in their 20s, while those with the most to contribute may not be. Regardless of how good I get at using discussion pages or learning revert rules, I'm convinced that the Wiki community does not want a balanced article on Global Warming. Perhaps I should stick to the Crisis of the Roman Republic, and other similar topics.