User talk:Slipgrid

yes
I agree with your comma commentary on 9/11. Templates are there to help WP, not the reverse. Presumptive (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Environment News Service
I've been trying to get some sense of the quality of the sources used in the Chemtrails article, and see that you have created an unsourced article for one of them - the ENS. The notability you asserted in response to the speedy tag was unsourced and it sounds very much to be a self-claim based on what little I've been able to find on this newswire. If you've been able to find any sources for that article please add them to the article. But I'm inclined to recommend again the speedy unless you have some. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Slipgrid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Verbal  chat  09:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Hi Verbal, if you look at the edits I made, and read the source that's being used in the article, you would see that my changes are factually accurate. The following sentence is factually incorrect:


 * Federal agencies have received thousands of complaints from people who have demanded an explanation.[1] In 2000, this led officials from four agencies in the United States to jointly publish a fact sheet refuting the rumors and explaining the science of contrail formation.


 * Read the source. Four agencies released fact sheets.  Only one agency 'tried to dispute the rumors.  The source uses the word tried, and it specifically says only one agency tried.


 * You also made no attempt to discuss on the talk pages.


 * The tone of this article is set by government releases, and that is POV. The fact that the government says something is not evidence that what they say is true.  The government is not a RS, nor should it be.  The USA Today article is based on government releases, and just because they are echoing the government, doesn't mean that the government is all of a sudden a RS.


 * Again, this is not accurate:


 * Federal agencies have received thousands of complaints from people who have demanded an explanation.[1] In 2000, this led officials from four agencies in the United States to jointly publish a fact sheet refuting the rumors and explaining the science of contrail formation.


 * If you are interested in removing POV, then start by removing statements that are factually inaccurate. -Slipgrid (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation
I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on the article Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Gentgeen (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You may notice that not all those are reverts. You are counting my initial edit as a revert. -Slipgrid (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to administrators: Oppose because Slipgrid's first edit is in fact a revert. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. The IP address would also count if it is found to be you. Verbal   chat  13:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive'. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory.  Matthew  Yeager  18:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I do not know why that edit was reverted, I did not mean to! Must have clicked revert when that page was still loaded. Sorry about sir! Thank you for your time,  Matthew  Yeager  18:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Thanks.  I did notice it looked like the page was blanked for a second, but I don't think I did that.  After I came here and got the message from you, I went and looked at the page, and it was blanked.  Something happened.  Anyway, cheers! slipgrid (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please be careful of 3RR. Verbal   chat  21:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine. If you reverted me with the same inaccuracies in the article then I'm requesting mediation. -slipgrid (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I was the IP
Slipgrid, you appear to have found yourself in the unenviable position of facing a number of Wiki's resident pseudoskeptics. You will by now have realized that they don't think they need to source their own analysis of things (see, e.g., the double removal of the fact tag in the intro - inserted firstly by me, the second time by you). (Personal attack removed) My advice is to stay calm, avoid 3RR and incivility at all costs (it doesn't matter if the article portrays their view of things for a while), and to try to resolve the issue on the talk page. This will not work, but it will allow you to ask for mediation. The pseudos hate mediation because it almost never goes their way.

In the meantime, place a request for more on eyes on a noticeboard such as the paranormal project. There are people there who may actually know something about the topic and may, I said may, be able to help. Good luck with your engagement with the self-styled experts in everything. I would help you myself but I don't officially exist. 209.20.66.205 (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not a pseudoskeptic, just a scientist. I have already requested help previously on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (tongue in cheek). I've removed the personal attacks. I agree that we should all stay calm and avoid 3RR and personal attacks. I would welcome an RFC on whether your interpretation of neutrality on this article is correct, but I feel mediation would be rejected at this stage. Verbal   chat  19:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, adding this to the paranormal project would probably be removed as it isn't a paranormal subject. Verbal   chat  19:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Verbal, you are an expert programmer? What language do you write?  Do you have any public projects? -slipgrid (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can program in Java, C and variants, the usual web and scripting stuff, Haskell and other functional languages, but I have also published on new programming languages and design, verification, etc, including my very own language I'm more an academic programmer. I'm interested in lambda calculi too, and category theory. I don't want to give the details as I prefer to stay anonymous on here due to editing do to some of the stalking that goes on in one of my areas of interest. Sorry if I've come across as confrontational, not my intention. Verbal   chat  19:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The academics is fun, and so is the web, but .Net thick client business applications and Objective C on the iPhone make the bank. Both interfaces suck to program for... .Net not as much as Cocoa just because it's easier and maybe a better development environment, but I never made a cent with websites unless they are to sell my other applications. —slipgrid (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, I'm surprised with a PHd, you would have to canvas for support. You are a man of reason right?  A thinker?  Why not read my points and work to improve the article.  If you don't want to take that time, then what are  you doing here?  Deep inside, I'm sure you know this isn't true.  You ask about my definition of skeptic?  I'm skeptical that you are who you say you are.  Now that's different from the sources in that article.  They are not skeptics.  They are activist debunkers.  I'd move from the realm of skeptic to activist debunker if I registered a domain like i_do_not_believe_verbal_is_who_he_says_he_is.com, and sold books about you on it.  Really, that's the difference since you seem curious.
 * You do realize that you going and posting that puts you into the realm of activist, and not just a mere skeptic. But why?  Why do you care?  Why are you an activist for such a lame cause?  Why would a Doctor of Philosophy care?
 * I know Wikipedia has a policy, or some statement, on editing topics you are passionate about. Perhaps you should find a different topic, and let disinterested pov shape the current topic. Cheers slipgrid (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny. I'm not an activist. Ben Goldacre is an barely an activist, and I'm way less "active" than him. My comment on FTN was, as I said, tongue in cheek, but your arguments are fallacious. I haven't said I'm anyone, so I don't know why you're sceptical about it. The only lobby/activist group I am a member of is Liberty. I also didn't ask about your definition of a sceptic. Just because I disagree strongly with you doesn't mean I'm an activist or a debunker. Nor do I have a Conflict of Interest on any of the fringe topics I edit, and I haven't violated WP:CANVASS. Let's start again and try to work together, without anon IP vandals (re his Obama edits) getting in the way. Verbal   chat  20:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have refactored my comment on FTN. I hope you think it is better - you can join in on FTN too, but it's usually for meta-discussion. Verbal   chat  20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * KK, I don't want to be mean. My only point is you can be skeptical, and then you can be paid to promote skeptical views.
 * So, I was looking at those changes to the Obama Family by that IP. I'm skeptical of them.  What's he doing there?  Why is or isn't that vandalism?  What was he trying to do, and why did those edits turnout the way they did? —slipgrid (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what those edits were about but they seemed to break things, however since his person is on a dynamic IP it might not have been the same person. I think they're lacking affection as they're asking me (I presume) for kisses... (see Chemtrails page) :) Verbal   chat  21:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, well it's very clearly a urlencoding problem. The page has this:


 * And, %26 is hex for ampers, or '&.' %3b is hex for semicolon, or ';.'  But, somehow that stuff was urlencoded.  Decode it and it looks like this:


 * Now we can see html entities for quote (&quote;) and greater than (&gt;) and less than (&lt;). But, it really should look like this:

 

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lower Price Hill Community School


The article Lower Price Hill Community School has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable. No assertion of why it should be included. Seems like another run of the mill school with no reliable sources to assert notability and with non-supported claims.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alexf(talk) 14:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll
You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CrystalReports2008.png
Thanks for uploading File:CrystalReports2008.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Notubl.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Notubl.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 23:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)