User talk:Sailsbystars/Archive 2

Thank you for your excellent work

 * You're welcome, thanks for helping me learn the way, way back when. It took a lot of practice for me to appreciate how google is a much more useful tool than a portscan in most cases. Sailsbystars (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI
When linking to policies regarding editors removing comments from their talk pages, this is what you want to link to, not this. --68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

ipv6 open proxies
Hi. Where do we report ipv6 open proxies? One user who has been using ipv4 open proxies and webhosts has switched to ipv6. How are edits like this handled? Thanks in advance. Mathsci (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Mathsci!  It seems to me the best option is still to report at WP:OP for checking. None of us have much experience with IPv6 proxies since, well, IPv6 is all shiny and new and not really adopted yet.  I had a gander at this one and it took quote a bit of effort to even get the appropriate whois info.  The only other info I can find is the IP pushing pharma products.... so there's a more likely than not chance for it to be a proxy, but I haven't played around with IPv6 enough to do any serious investigating.  Feel free to report it at WP:OP to see if anyone else over there can do better (or perhaps I will after I've futzed about with IPv6 some more... right now I'm at the "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" stage of IPv6 experience). Sailsbystars (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Your Reply to my Section in the Talk Page for Global Warming
First of all Creationism can be considered as science. Just because YOU don't believe in it doesn't make it wrong. If a scientist doesn't believe in String Theory it doesn't make String Theory wrong does it? Also there are more sources against Global Warming, I was just mentioning one that I had read recently. One more thing, I don't know if you were the one that got what i typed classed as advertisement for a book but it isn't, it was my source. An one more thing, calling my source "unreliable" is the same thing as if you mentioned an activist Global Warmist textbook as one of your sources except you would probably be praised for coming up with that specific book for your source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.107.77 (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (NB: I wasn't the one who hid the conversation. I'm usually not in favor of hatting or deleting talk page comments except in the most extreme of circumstances.)  Anyway, regarding your main contention, what I believe is completely irrelevant.  Science is not about belief.  Which is precisely why a creationist "science" textbook is not appropriate for wiki.  Science is predicated on natural (rather than supernatural) explanations of observational phenomena.  A book that attempts to explain the world with supernatural explanations and the views therein are completely inappropriate for use in a science article. More broadly, we also have a policy in weighing the balance of sources.  On the one hand we have all of the academies of science of every country in the world along with tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers.  On the other hand we have polemics in guise of textbooks and opinion articles from a relative handful of authors, most of whom have no climate expertise. Hence our articles are rather strongly weighted towards the former group rather than the latter. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Creationism is not based all on supernatural explanations. Often Creationist textbooks explain the scientific basis behind Creationism. You refuse to read Creationist textbooks though so you wouldn't know that. If you were to read a Creationist textbook you would find that their is sound scientific proof behind much of what is said. An example is the rapid decay theory. It better explains the electrical current (look it up) in the Earth's core believed to cause the Earth's magnetic field. But scientists are biased against the theory because it means the Earth is no older than ten thousand years old. And since we are straying from Global warming I will change the subject back again. While it is true that carbon dioxide levels have been steadily rising this has corresponded to a steady rise in temperatures. Even though carbon dioxide levels have gone up by as much as 100 ppm, temperature levels have only changed so slightly that you would barely feel it. And I will even admit that ground measurements show a slight warming trend but satellite measurements show that overall temperatures have not changed. If this is not proof enough for you, I will send you a document about Global warming that doesn't even mention Creationism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.107.77 (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget the inverse relationship of fettucini's stickiness to the square root of alkalinity of the southern antarctic population of gazelles, who's collective latent heat depends on the populations' mitochondrial concentration of a certain derivative from interstitial fluids of fly larva from Bouvet Island.  But of course, you weren't talking to me, so nevermind.... I just wanted to suggest you bugger my talk page instead, since I'm the guy who collapsed your forum soapbox thread.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Rhetorical question: does creationism require the existence of a supreme being or not?  The answer is clearly yes.  Ergo, no matter what you explain with it, it's still not science.  Or for another example, let's take the Big Bang... what came before the Big Bang?  If you answer "God" it's not science, even though everything after the Big Bang follows known scientific laws.  In other words, if you have to have to invoke supernatural at any point in a process, it's not science.  Hence why sources invoking the supernatural are not appropriate in a science article.
 * Regarding global warming and "satellite measurements show that overall temperatures have not changed". I direct you to the image to the right.  Satellite_Temperatures.png The satellite record now shows the same warming trend as in every other data set.  (It's labelled as RSS and UAH in the image, and the other records are ground-based).  It used to be different (i.e. it showed less and/or no warming), but that turned out to be mostly because the calibration is much more dicey for satellites than for ground stations and the original calibration was too simplistic.   Sailsbystars (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

One thing. Look closely at your image and you will notice that it almost looks like the temperature is starting to go down again. But it only goes to three years ago. Mabee, just mabee, the tempature is going down again and those who control the weather imaging devices (or whoever) just want us to think that the Earth is warming and now that it is cooling they can't show us the latest temperature measurements. Hmmmmmm. Other than that I have nothing else to say. You clearly won't be convinced that Creationism is science. Just because one thing has to be "supernatural" doesn't mean everything else you believe in is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.157.112.122 (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Open proxy ports
Hey Sailsbystars, I was wondering, how do you know what's the right port to try when testing an open proxy? I know most of them are 1080 or 8080, but what about the weird ones? Surely you don't try thousands of possibilities? Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are indeed thousands of possibilities, but the "standard" proxy ports are 1080, 3128, and 8080. I.e. if you have a proxy and are not hiding it, it's supposed to go on those ports.  And you can try a thousand possibilities in 15 seconds with a little program called nmap.  However, I only use that program in extreme cases (strong evidence of proxy, but no help from google, which is by far the best proxy-checking tool), since I don't want to piss of my ISP and/or the owners of the servers.  So yeah, you're right, they can use security through obscurity, but the obscurity can be pretty quickly circumvented.  Sailsbystars (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Global Warming Controversy
You reverted a change with the comment "- And the other cause is....? (actually, land-use changes might be worth mentioning))". I didn't make the change, but I suspect it was made in response to comments I had made in the talk page so I can answer your question. The modified sentence was:

In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases

and somebody had changed "primarily" (implying >50% contribution) to "at least in part".

The key bit of that sentence is "strong consensus". There is a strong consensus that human CO2 is causing some warming, but at best now a "moderate" consensus that the human CO2 contribution to total warming accounts for >50%. of the warming trend over, say, the last 50 years This is WP:OR but if you look at the category breakdown in John Cook's recent study, of the few papers whose abstracts gave a specific numeric estimate of the CO2 contribution, only 82% gave an estimate >50%. (To get his headline number of "97% support" he had to include papers that implied "humans are causing warming" but didn't claim "humans are causing MOST of the warming". Ditto for the earlier surveys finding "97% support" among climatologists - they were also based on a claim of some warming, not most of the warming.)

So now to answer your question: other human warming factors do include land use changes such as clearing forests for agriculture. And other pollutants such as sulfur dioxide. But there are also 'non-human' warming factors which include solar changes (lots of Russian papers on that), various orbital/cyclical factors, and a huge helping of "we don't really know yet". --Blogjack (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't really a question, and personally I find all of this discussion about consensus horribly trivial. There are no plausible alternatives to CO2 driven anthropogenic warming.  I was concerned that that the edit to the lede implied that possibly even a majority of the climate change was natural.  However, I added the bit about land-use as the sentence would be even more true if it were changed to something like "In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused by greenhouse gas emissions,  changes in land use, and other artificial sources ".  The solar changes just doesn't  work.  One could have made a not-entirely-implausible solar claim up through about 1993 or so (and such claims were made!).  However, since then the solar output has dropped markedly without a corresponding drop in temperature (in fact, temps have continued to increase) which pretty much rubbishes the sun as the cause of recent warming.  The orbital cycles have been known for nearly a century, and in terms of the cycling of the ice ages, again implies that we should be cooling (yet the warming continues).  Any statement that implies that the warming is due to natural causes is utterly rubbish at this point, and a disservice to our readers.  Sailsbystars (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Temps haven't continued to increase at the same rate, they've either been increasing at a slower rate than before or even decreasing, depending on what time interval you look at. For example, the trend for the last decade is slightly negative. Anyway, in an article called "Global Warming Controversy" the job is not to tell people what they should think but to accurately describe what there is scientific controversy over. There ARE recent articles in the scientific literature claiming more than half the warming is due to natural causes, so that's still a matter of scientific controversy. Even if you aren't personally convinced that those articles are correct. Again, consider Cook's study - here's his list of studies that you can tell from the abstract alone claim less than 50% contribution. And here's a specific study from his list (published in Environmental Geology, 2006); to quote from the abstract: "The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate. [...] The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible." A WP:NPOV article about Global Warming Controversy needs to acknowledge the existence of that sort of view in the literature. it's a disservice to our readers to put on a false front of certainty and claim more consensus or more strongly-held views than are actually present. If scientists generally tend to agree on some point, it's okay to just say that; we don't need to pretend any other view is disreputable. --Blogjack (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong at the article talk page? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (RE:NAEG)Yes and no. Article talk pages are certainly useful for improving articles, but there's nothing saying you have to use them vs. a user talk page.  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  Now, if there's ten million discussions on the same topic spread out over five different noticeboards, then you can make a pretty strong argument for some consolidation.  But if it's tangential to the main article discussions it's especially encouraged for splitting onto user talk pages.  Sailsbystars (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (RE:blogjack) I'll have a look at your sources, but I'm a bit concerned about the reliability of the "Human-induced changes are negligible" paper in that apparently my workplace doesn't have a subscription to the journal, but they do to most other Earth science pubs. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but if you think Khilyuk and Chilingar is a source serious scientific controversy, and you paid money for your science education, you need to ask for a refund. Reading through that was physically painful.  It makes the garbage  Soon and Baliunas paper look like a heartbreaking work of staggering genius.  Hell, S&B actually have a method.  Both the K&C paper and a William Faulkner novel follow a stream of consciousness format, but only one tells even a semi-coherent story, and that's the  one where a boy has a fish for a mother.  Sailsbystars (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Morgellons". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 03:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Fringe Organization
Hi there! I have posted a question regarding your recent removal of information and would appreciate your insight!

Thanks! - Zack Rosen (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup
You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) &mdash; Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 04:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup
Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) &mdash; Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
You're a very helpful editor. Much appreciated on my first day. Cheers! Matthias7490 (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked proxy that wasn't a Tor exit node but still in the middle of hosting range
FYI: I have done exactly what you suggested. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

guess who's back
Happy New Year! Brett Salisbury has a new IP address and has discovered self-published books. --Esprqii (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy new year to you as well! I saw those edits... I must admit I'm morbidly curious about "Quantum Mechanics for Dummies."  Good job on the revert, would have done it myself but I was waaaay too busy with New Years activities....  Sailsbystars (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, judging from the five-star glowing reviews on Amazon from people who read all of Brett's book on their first day of self-publication, it's a classic already. --Esprqii (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Busted, and I don't know how to fix
Hi, thanks for putting the AFD in the milestones at List of Scientists etc; However, the link doesn't go to the 6th AFD but to an earlier event. I'd fix, but I don't know what the event # means or how to look it up. Cheers NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm? That's weird... It works for both the versions before and after you tinkered with it for me, so I can't figure out what's broken.  I wonder if oldid is supposed to be the final version of the AfD, but I saw that the previous milestone copied the same thing... very very strange... Sailsbystars (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well the milestone bits works, but I see the oldafdfull template malfunctioned, so I just removed it since it was redundant.... Sailsbystars (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

See also of MH370
Why should AF447 be included? It has literally no similarities to it hence it can't be included in the "see also" section of the article Qantasplanes (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Flight that disappeared over water in the cruise phase in the same era.... Seriously, I even linked an article directly making that comparison. Why included BA38 or Asiana 214 which while they had the same airplane will show no causal relation to this accident because they both occurred during the landing phase rather than the cruise phase.  Sailsbystars (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's the point of it, no offense but load of BS Qantasplanes (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ?? Sailsbystars (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind I'm gonna move this over to the talk page where a similar discussion is afoot.... Sailsbystars (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Pandemonium A Cappella
I appreciated your comments on the PandemoniUM (A Cappella) page and added three additional independent resources. Would you agree it is reliable after these additions?

File:Mah370 origin destination atc radar.svg
A very good image, Sailsbystars, thanks. But, as my secondary school Geography teacher used to remind us (with tedious regularity): "a map isn't a map without a compass and a scale." I'm not sure you would necessarily agree with that statement. Do you think it's worth adding a scale? (I think we can guess China is in the North). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ask and... well, you know the rest. :) Sailsbystars (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. 25 mins! That's rather swift.Personally, am missing a flight path. But there seems to be some discussion ongoing about that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Run-of-the-mill nationalism
Hi there. I really do not consider myself a nationalist. Maybe others do so, I may not know. Having said that, if you have a quick look at the activities of the user who complained of me (I do not know what "proxy" means but coming from that user, any word related to this contributor could be negative) you may perhaps find a perfect nationalist in the negative sense of the word. The reason I am visiting you is not taking your time with my opinions. I would like to ask you the same question I asked a couple of other administrators. I believe, by commonsense, revealing personal information could not be accepted in any civilised gathering, such as Wikipedia. Could you take an initiative on this if possible? Thank you very much and sorry for disturbing you. --212.174.190.23 (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So what I did was just a technical check that your IP addresses are not useable by anyone in the world. they are only usable by someone local to your country.  That's it.  The nationalism comment was perhaps a bit hyperbolic -- all I was saying is that the edits from your IP are in harmony with the geographic location.  If you want more anonymity on Wikipedia, you can always create an account so that almost no one can see your IP address and geographic location.  Sailsbystars (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not doing anything wrong, so I do not need to hide anything. I was only trying to remind you that we have this reality Turkish Diplomats Assassinated by Armenian Terrorists and we cannot allow finger-pointing. That is all. --212.174.190.23 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you were doing anything wrong, and I didn't mean to imply that. I have no opinion one way or the other on the content dispute.  If you want a 3rd opinion on the content dispute, there's the dispute resolution noticeboard and various other dispute resolution processes.  Sailsbystars (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am only asking for an edit summary to be erased; cannot I express myself good enough? --212.174.190.23 (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a confirmed proxy server: . Your assumptions of nationalism may not be so baseless. The IP originates from the Turkish Foreign Ministry. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that my assumptions are not baseless. Your nationalism is of the dangerous kind because it not only consists of the feelings toward one's own nation but also envolves hatred against other nation(s). Sorry Sailor for keeping your page so busy. --212.174.190.23 (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for second opinion on proxy block
I have been asked to look at an unblock request at User talk:Jamdor, where the editor has been affected by a proxy block. (The actual unblock request has been removed from the talk page by Jamdor, but he had been told "Someone who knows about proxies will have a look at this", so it is likely that he is still expecting the issue to be considered.) I have made a comment on the talk page, but I get the impression that you may know more than I do about proxy-related issues than I do, so I wonder if you would be willing to have a look, and give me a second opinion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is in my opinion no question of completely lifting the block, for the reason explained at User talk:69.63.114.3. At the it may be made into an anon-only block, allowing editing by accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a tough one if the IP and user are telling the truth. I'm somewhat skeptical though because of how utterly boneheaded it would be from an IT perspective to use an open proxy for a web filter.  It results in a fast and blatantly open open proxy that can (and is!) used for spamming all over the internet.  I checked it myself (see the IP talk page) and it's one of the better proxies I've seen.  I feel bad about blocking schoolkids for the stupidity of their IT department (or perhaps IT contractor).... but I don't think an unblock is justified even to anon-only is justified.   Sailsbystars (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In view of your confirmation that it is an open proxy, I agree that there is no question of unblocking, nor even reducing it to anon-only. Both when I first saw the unblock request and again after reading what you have written, I tried to use the proxy without success, and both times nmap reckoned the host was down. You were evidently more lucky with your timing. I am also unconvinced that the IP really is assigned to a school, as I can find no evidence for that anywhere, except the say-so of Wikipedia editors. (The editor who placed the school ip template on the talk page is on wikibreak until next year, and so can't be consulted.) It's not impossible though: I have myself worked in a school that used IT contractors perfectly incompetent enough to do something like that. Anyway, even if it is a school, the editor requesting the unblock has edited since making the request, so very likely the worst that the block will do is force one or more kids to edit only outside school time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Climate change
Hi Sailsbystars, me and NewsAndEventsGuy currently discuss something you maybe could contribute to, see here, in regards to section structure and titles (forcings and mechanism). Your input is appreciated, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree input from others is needed. Thanks for the ping, P.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)
 * I'll try to have look-see. I saw y'all arguing on the article and talk page but haven't had a chance to look into it in any depth.  Pretty busy at the moment outside of wiki, but I'll try to have a look Soon(tm). Sailsbystars (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and please keep them coming
Thanks very much for investing energy and time contributing thoughts on efforts to draft a new first lead paragraph for Global warming. Please note I just posted ver 5 of my idea, and would welcome further pro/con criticism. I'm attempting to ping everyone who has taken time to speak up after past versions. If I overlooked anyone, please let me know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please Help Me
On the AIDS denialism Talk page...Users with power are abusing it: Here is what is taking place Mr. Sailsbystars. I have seen your edits. You are fair. Please help me. Thank you

USER DBRODBECK continues to blank the page on AIDS Denialism TALK PAGE[edit] Why are you removing sources? THE TALK PAGE IS AIDS DENIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'M REPORTING YOU DBRODBECK (USER)[edit] http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/controversy.htm

This USER: User:Dbrodbeck Continues to remove every quote from great sources!!!! WHY? He told me to "Take my AIDS denialism some where else????? This is the TALK PAGE FOR SOURCES!!!!

The source shows over 2000 Virologists!!! I'm not showing my opinion...REPORTING THE FACTS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.210.242 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC

I see you have been involved with this discussion Mr. Esprqii. Can you please watch this page? No opinions are given and Dbrodbeck removes the sources over and over. He is abusing his power. Here is the talk page for your help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HIV/AIDS_denialism

Can you please look at the history of Drodbeck. His blanking of every page is abuse. Here is the history and notice his edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HIV/AIDS_denialism&action=history

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.210.242 (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

3. He (Drodbeck) now changed the page again under a new user name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yobol Please do not let him get away with it. He is so abusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.210.242 (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

4. This user has now removed RELIABLE SOURCES...They are all hiding anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zad68&action=history

Why are they doing this!!!! H E L P PLEASE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.210.242 (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

5. 5. This user says I have been "abusive"??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BullRangifer How is this possible? You can see every quote is from the best sources there are. Why are they all hiding this? Is this a witch hunt? To stop truth? Please help me. I have not been abusive. You can see the history. I have simply put the sources down to better the page showing over 2000 virologists. NO POWERFUL EDITOR allows anything to be posted to make it fair???!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.210.242 (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

6. My History...I have been fair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.71.210.242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.210.242 (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Café Apropo bombing
Hi. What's the problem? I'm not violating copyright, I'm using a known Israeli newspaper as a source. It's the only way to edit in Wikipedia: paraphrasing what reliable sources say. How do you suggest we use this source without coping verbatim or violating copyright? Although in a different manner, I hope you restore the material as soon as possible. Thanks.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Paraphrasing is bad, and the text you added wasn't even a paraphrase... it was almost verbatim copying! There was nothing wrong with the source or adding the information to the article in general... but copyright violations are taken quite seriously on-wiki.  You might want to read the essay at Close_paraphrasing which explains in more detail why paraphrasing is bad.  Essentially the best way of adding a new bit of information to an article is to read the source and then, without looking at the source, write your own summary of the source's contents.  I've gone ahead and re-added the source, but with my own summary that avoids any similarity to the wording of the original source  (also incidentally, it fits better in the location where I put it). Feel free to tweak what I wrote if you have a better idea for the wording... I'm not entirely satisfied with my own summary, but I think it's a useable start... Sailsbystars (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

GHE
I see your point but this is not quite right either. The GHE doesn't cause the downward radiation; it's the downward radiation that produces the GHE. Thoughts on how to reconcile this? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, From AR5 WG1 Glossary, "Greenhouse effect - The infrared radiative effect of all infrared-absorbing constituents in the atmosphere." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello fellas! So I'm not going to contest the edits to the CO2 in Earth's atmosphere article.  The text as it was before my edit (and still is) is not factually correct either, but let me explain where I'm coming from.  The problem is that the greenhouse effect is not just a gas-state phenomenon.  In the study of airless icy moons in the outer solar system and even some icy areas here on Earth, for certain plausible models of ices, you can wind up with ice which is transparent in the optical and opaque in the infrared, thus making the warmest part of the ice at some depth rather on the tippy top of the surface.  Here's one example of a paper I found that describes the effect .  This phenomenon is known as the solid state greenhouse effect.  Which apparently has zero mention on wikipedia anywhere, including in the Greenhouse effect article. I'm not surprised that the people writing the AR5 define the greenhouse effect as an atmospheric phenomenon -- in their contexts it's the only relevant definition, and that's also true for most scientists.  With my edit, I was trying to break the greenhouse effect=atmospheric statement, which isn't strictly true.  I'd be happy with any edit that fixes that problem, but I could also see leaving it as is because, again, in Earth's climatalogical context, it's the atmospheric bit that matters.  I should try to dig up the original solid state greenhouse paper and see if I can add something to Greenhouse effect before worrying about nuances in the CO2 in earth's atmosphere article...  Sailsbystars (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A reference to "Solid state greenhouse effect" appears in the last sentence of the lead at Geyser, and in Triton (moon). There are 1000+ google hits.  However, it deserves its own article.  Note that "greenhouse" and "solid state greenhouse" are not adjectives.  Rather,  "greenhouse effect" and "Solid state greenhouse effect" are each compound words, and refer to different subjectsa.... so give 'em separate articles.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This Thursday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center in LA on October 15! (drop-in any time, 10am-4pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:CHOfromTarmac.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CHOfromTarmac.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 13:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)