User talk:Sm8900: Difference between revisions

You've already left a note at WT:WWII, which is the best place for that sort of thing; please don't randomly add it to every other page you can find. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes are always subject to consensus (whether before or after the fact); but the WWII article has been a severely problematic one for a long time now. In any case, I've left some thoughts on Talk:World War II; maybe they'll be of some use. Kirill Lokshin 04:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

howdy . you're getting this message because you have made a meaningful contribution to Consensus decision-making in the last couple of months. This note is to inform you that i have done a complete rewrite of the article, basically from the ground up, and will be installing the rewrite sometime after 22:00 mst (gmt -7)

i decided to undertake this rewrite because the current article had some notable shortcomings in my opinion, most notably:

• lack of references: whole sections of the current article are unreferenced
• section balance: the amount of detail on some sections was out of step with the detail level on other sections. for instance 'timing' is as large as 'key principles'
• run-on writing: some sections succumb to rambling, while other sections are quite concise to the point of being terse.

all of these problems are inevitable in a project written by a group of people with different areas of expertise and writing styles.

my rewrite is designed to address these issues. most notably i have aimed to make the article more concise -- put more content in less words as it were -- and to make sure that everything is effectively sourced. i have also pretty much completely re-sectioned the article in an attempt to flow from general down to specific.

i have given this notice to you as a 'heads up' that this change is coming. i realize that you have invested a lot of effort into the existing article and i want to make sure that you are ready to make the edits you feel are necessary once my rewrite goes 'live'.

i also intend to submit the new article for peer review shortly after posting it. i think that the feedback will help us all drive this piece forward, hopefully to at least ga status! -- frymaster 23:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The WWII article should actually be longer. I work on Wikipedia Aircraft, just to let you know. ChockStock 23:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sfc_1.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Trek-type starship simulators

Category:Star Trek-style starship simulators

Sono arsenic filter

Begin (computer game)

Game Entry 

Star Trek: Starship Tactical Combat Simulator

Wikipedia tools

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Sono arsenic filter, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/professor-wins-1-million-for-arsenic/20070202224709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001. As a copyright violation, Sono arsenic filter appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Sono arsenic filter has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Sono arsenic filter. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Sono arsenic filter, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Mr.Z-mantalk 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you're an established user and have made a heartfelt plea, and this is a worthy article, I have rewritten it rather than delete it, but you should know better than to just copy and paste copyright material. Please DON'T DO IT AGAIN. It's easy enough to just paraphrase like I've done. Thank you. Tyrenius 03:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no trouble with copy and paste, were it not for the fact it's just verboten! It runs up against all sorts of potential legal issues and we have to play safe. Happy editing! Tyrenius 02:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel/Statement Itayb 19:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{helpme}

Whenever I login onto Wikipedia, and then log out, it always remembers my login name on that computer. When i come back later, the sign-in screen still comes up with my log-in name on that computer. This has happened at web cafes, and has happened even when I was away for several days! (it happened at a web cafe which i come back to periodically). Is there any way to stop this from happening? Or is there a way to clear that field? By the way, I do not believe this is being caued by the "Autocomplete" function in Internet Explorer. Thanks. --Sm8900 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Try unchecking the remember me field on the login page.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And don't forget to click log out when you are done. --Selket ^Talk 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but actually I already do both of those things. (You are both right to make those points.) It still happens, though! Anyone have any ideas? Thanks. --Sm8900 01:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most probably a browser issue.--Commander Keane 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been asked many times before. See the "Design flaw in the login page?" section here. I think {helpme} cannot help you further white this question (since you have the solution). Try Help desk or WP:VP/T if you are not satisfied.--Commander Keane 02:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that the [edit] buttons were not working for my talk page, it seems someone placed a __NOEDITSECTION__ there by mistake. I ended up adding a FAQ (Nubio 149) for you question.--Commander Keane 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nubio is the only external Wikipedia FAQ site. At Wikipedia:FAQ there is a link to it at the top ("searchable FAQ"). It is also linked in the {{helpme}} template and on the Help desk. Nubio is hosted on the Toolserver, some servers donated to Wikimedia Germany. You can view its List of projects for other tools.--Commander Keane 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

test. --Steve, User:Sm8900 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone else having trouble with doing searches? I just did a search for the word "Charles," and it told me it couldn't do it. Anyone else? (BTW, please do not delete the 'helpme' tag right away.) Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, although you can always try Googling Wikipedia when it's not working for you. Xiner (talk, email) 17:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sm8900! Sorry for reverting you (again). I'm certain you are trying to be helpful. But I have trouble understanding what exactly you are trying to do. You seem to want to build a collection of recent topics. But the climate change articles are organized not chronologically, but by topic. I just don't see where such a collection of remarks would fit, and how it would contribute to an encyclopedic article, i.e. something that should have some persistence and stability. Also see WP:NOT (a directory). --Stephan Schulz 00:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally reverted your recent edits on Ten Lost Tribes just now, I have since undone the edit. Sorry about that, I thought it was vandalism. Terence 15:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got your advice on mediation. Thank you. I shall figure out what to do. But I have a neutral thinking mind which sometimes gets me into trouble. --Blue Tie 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sm8900, i'm quite willing to defend your hill, if you can convince me that its more than a handfull. I've been following this debate for some time - and am actively discussing GW in other fora. From my experience in reading sceptical literature (of which i've read quite a bit more than non-sceptical ones) i cannot honestly say that i think they are more than a few. Suggestion: how about actively trying to find more sceptics for the Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming article first - to establish dissent(ers)? And please do not be shocked about the discussions that such inclusions at times lead to - there really is honest debate there, which is primarily to establish that we do not unintentionally include the wrong people. --Kim D. Petersen 15:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kim. that's fine. My real intention is to try to give more voice to the Wikipedia editors who are striving for diversity. The specific point I was editing in the article just now is not the main issue. Let me know, if you want, if you feel like there are many other editors who would support an effort to bring more diversity to the main GW article. If you don't feel that is the case, then I guess you don't see the same problem which I do. Anyway, no problem, either way. Thanks. --Sm8900 15:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sm8900, I am really trying to assume good faith and assume you are for real not just trying to wind people up. WHAT is the notable alternative view on Global warming missing from the article? You have said many 8 or nine times that it only gives one view etc but I can see a wide range of theories and effects. So what is the article missing as a perspective? --BozMo talk 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bozmo. I appreciate you good-faith towards resolution. I really wish I could respond with a brief direct answer which would be as effective as your constructive helpfulness. However, the problem is not any one viewpoint, but the entire editing style which has steadily taken hold. there really is no foundation for a small group of editors repeatedly deleting new edits because they feel it gives undue weight against what they feel to be the consensus. Wikipedia articles are just not supposed to work this way. When editors make coherent, relevant contributions, they are supposed to be given some leeway, not deleted within 90 seconds.For instance, when I changed "a few scientists" to "some scientists," it is really amazing for someone to change it within 30 seconds. Even if that phrasing were totally wrong, (which it is not), there really is no call for any Wikipedia article to be so contentious.

The answer of the pro-warming side is that their side has the weight of consensus. Sorry, but no article here is designed to reflect of one side or another. They are simply supposed to reflect both sides adequately and accurately. If Uber wants to add references from the other side, and they have proper sources, then there really seems to me to be no justification for preventing those edits. That's just the way i feel. So i really appreciate you putting so much time and energy into open communication. That's very helpful. So thanks very much. Hope what i have written is helpful. Sorry, but I have to sign off within the next few minutes. I may not be online again for a few days. Please feel free to leave any comments, and I will try to respond at a later point. Thanks. (sorry for any typos, BTW). --Sm8900 21:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious to know how quickly it would have been reverted if you'd changed "a few" to "hardly any" or some other increment in that direction. If inching one way is more aggressively removed than the other way then we certainly have an issue. At the risk of speculating I reckon I have noticed that reverts one way are quicker when Europe is awake but not the US and the other way after the EU has gone to bed. --BozMo talk 18:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bozmo. i replied to you at your talk page. For anyone else watching this, i am now signed on. thanks. --Sm8900 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.."Are you saying you completely agree with me, re that specific edit?" >> (1) The "IF" was a real if. I am not sure whether edits pro GW are reverted faster than edits anti GW, I would need the time to look through examples of this, but it does seem very plausible. (2) FWIW I marginally prefer "some" to "a few", but it really is marginal. I personally have changed "a number" to "some" in this sentence, so I must think "some" is ok.

.."do you agree with me re my feelings on the direction of the article itself?" I think "no". Personally I have found the "anti GW" editors much more aggressive, much less civil and more inclined to personal attacks than the "pro GW" editors. That's probably a function of which way my first edit went and what reaction I got, but also I have tended to find the arguments presented more coherent. But perhaps thats about the editors being better rather than the references. I am certainly open to be convinced but don't yet see systematic bias. I am thinking about Blue Tie's proposed new agenda, but haven't made up my mind yet.--BozMo talk 21:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bozmo. I appreciate your helpful and constructive reply to me. part of the reason you do not see any systemic bias by the pro GW side is that they've alrready done such a good job of enforcing their views and locking down the article, that they're little need for them to fight or contend any more. in my view, the entire article is mis-written and mishandled. My reason for this is very simple. I do not think this should be just an overview of the global warming theory in the first place.

i think this article should, rather, be an overview of the evolution and history of the global warming issue/debate itself. This means the article would present societal views, history of the debate, overview of political movements and ideas, dissenting views, as well as the theory itself. this would be much more comprehensive, and much more in keeping with other "overview" articles of a similar type. So that's my basic idea. Hope that sounds good. Feel free to comment. thanks. --Sm8900 21:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think to justify the shift you need a precedent from other articles or the manual of style. I haven't really looked around. What's your favourite on a comparable subject? Acid rain? --BozMo talk 06:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. How about this as a useful precedent: Nuclear power. Covers many subtopics and concerns at once. --Sm8900 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it! Silas Snider (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't know the first thing about ST online -- I was using Lupin's anti-vandal tool to check for spelling errors as they were saved, and I came across your edit. Silas Snider (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tool is at the above link (User:Lupin/Anti-vandal_tool), and the part I was using was the 'live spellcheck' tool. I actually live in Eugene, Oregon, not the UK though. Have fun with the tool! Silas Snider (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on KBs talk page, I'm out of the mediation until a mediator steps in to restrain the PA.

Part of that is your apparent belief that I've abused my admin powers to intervene. As far as I know I haven't. If I have, do please list examples here. If you can't, then withdraw your remarks William M. Connolley 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As i tried to make clear, I was not trying to cast any aspersions on you as an individual, or perhaps even as an editor. However, what I do feel is that your admin status gives undue weight to the pro-GW side. one example I would offer is the fact that you were able to lock the article recently; i realized it is now unlocked. However, the locking itself was not the main issue, as you have been also able to do numerous reverts in order to counteract what you consider to be unwarranted edits. That's pretty much it, in a nutshell. --Sm8900 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins have no priv as editors. If people tend to respect them (clearly not amongst the skeptics, of course) then you might want to ponder if there is a reason for that and it may not be "undue". When exactly did I lock the page, anyway? And you do realise that Raul, DF and BozMo are all admins, don't you? William M. Connolley 19:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi William. No, i didn;t realize they were. I'm not saying you did, but it seems like you did. Let me ask a question which is sincerely for information. Who locked the page around the time of the starw poll? I thought you had locked it, and were unlocking it? And you are the one who stated that you were protecting the page. that's why I was aware you were an admin.

Ok, just checked, and it was Bozmo, so maybe all my comments are valid, but in regards to him, not you. hmmm. have to think about this. So I guess you are saying you have never locked the page? I do appreciate your reply. BTW, I'm not claiming to be any kind of arbiter; as I said, I was not trying to cast aspersions on you personally. thanks. --Sm8900 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-d the page: as far as I'm aware thats as it should be. I would only lock it under extreme circumstances, because I *am* involved. Did you mean 2007-03-25T23:43:08 Michaelas10 (Talk | contribs | block) protected Global warming (Edit warring. [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (Change)? Re arbiter: well of course not. And I don't understand as you have been also able to do numerous reverts - I've done no more than anyone else could William M. Connolley 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but when you do them, and also say (elsewhere) that you are protecting the page, people understand that you are an admin, and become reluctant to press the matter further. I know you'll disagree with that, but since I am an ordinary editor, I do know it does happen to be a fact from that vantage point. --Sm8900 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my Q re rv. I don't lean on my admin status: please don't flash it around in mediation. My request to you to withdraw your remarks remains. Meanwhile, you were defneding the finance stuff on GW Users do sometimes have the right to try out some new ideas, without having a few people veto them for no solid reason. You're unaware of N's history over this, clearly. But anway, I've listed some stuff against Stern and the current state of the finance section and invite you to defned it, if you still wish to William M. Connolley 20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's my answer. You have made several reverts. You have also identified yourself as an admin, and protected the entry. As far as I'm concerned, these two actions are related. i understand that you sincerely feel they are not. i don't question your sincerity, or your good faith. However, i do feel that these factors are giving undue weight to the pro-GW side, and are very relevant to the mediation and are therefore worth mentioning. --Sm8900 20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand. Do you understand the difference between semi-prot and prot? If you do, what is this "relation" you're talking about? William M. Connolley 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you misused your admin powers to prot the entry. I said the fact you have used your admin powers in this article at all makes people reluctant to challenge your reverts.

Given the history of skeptics reverting my edits, I thinks thats obviously wrong. I'm giving up at this point William M. Connolley 20:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an issue because it appears I justified any personal attacks on you, i will gladly withdrw any comments which appear to justify such attacks. However, my feelings re the admin issue still stand, and are only reinforced by the fact you are not the only pro-GW editor using admin power. I appreciate your input and feedback, BTW. thanks. --Sm8900 20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi. I appreciate your replies, and I will continue to give them some thought, as they obviously and clearly deserve. by the way, let me just add that you have my highest respect, for the fact that you do identify yourself openly, in your entry, and make no secret of who you are or your beliefs. that's different than many people here who generally remain anonymous, myself included. so my respect for you as a person is sincere. thanks. --Sm8900 20:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you probably have a viewpoint which casts your actions on this article in a favourable light but please bear in mind that a perception exists that the article as is is pretty fair, well maintained by about 20 editors and gives due weight to both positive and sceptic views. If you keep going around trying to recruit minority view editors from around the place you will make an acceptable situation much worse. I think this isn't an impressive thing to try to do, and its seriously undermining your personal credibility with me at any rate. What's next? You post on the Republican Party talk page asking for right wing political editors to go there; someone posts on the science pages asking for scientific editors to go there and it becomes 200 to 50 instead of 20 to 5? Gosh won't that make the world a better place. --BozMo talk 06:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bozmo. You raise some valid concerns. However, i guess the main difference we have is that I don't view Global Warming solely as a science article. That's one of the reasons for our editorial differences as well; I think the article should cover a wider variety of sub-topics. However, just to reassure you, that last canvass was the only one I planned to do. As you know, those were posted a week before they became an issue, and I have not done any since then. Your point re whether there is existing consensus is valid; I was responding mainly to the open mediation, and also to the existing arguments which obviously occur at the article's talk page.

I appreciate your feedback and input. I do not feel I did anything wrong, so I wouldn't stop doing any of this based on those grounds. However, your point about how together we can just pursue some constructive means to pursue this article's quality is always a valid subject, obviously, so I don't mind a continuing discussion about that, now or anytime. Thanks for all your points. See you. --Sm8900 13:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can put together a coherent article that way and move the science detail to a sub page I think I would support it. But the article is very long...--BozMo talk 17:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! harmony! I agree too.--Blue Tie 18:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I did not act on this, becuase I personally didn't have them to generate the article, even though i appreciated his suggestion. And anyway, any compromise of course doesn't come from just the 2 or 3 of us, but from the whole group. However, of course you are free to act on this. Thanks. --Sm8900 18:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but no one is going to admit to being a page warrior ... except I guess Iblis. --Blue Tie 03:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sm8900! I notice on the edit history of talk pages that often times there are multiple successive edits made by you. For people who review edit histories, such as myself, this is burdensome when the edits are minor spell checks or what not. I just came here to suggest using the "Show preview" button before submitting new entries. This is in no way any obligation, just a helpful suggestion! I, too, often find myself finding inconsistencies or errors in my messages, so I understand necessity in constantly improving my messages. But I think using the preview button or reviewing the material before submitting has helped me cut down on these problems. Hope this helps! ~ UBeR 20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. thanks for the suggestion. However, sometimes I notice there's nothing like seeing your words on the page, for inspring those last few intricate but vital edits! :-) However, i appreciate your point. thanks. See you. --Sm8900 20:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what you mean. ~ UBeR 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recently, I was looking up my own contributions, and somehow stumbled onto a page with a search box, where I could enter different users' names, click "search", and instantly view a list of their contrib. Now I am unable to find this again. Can anyone please help? I am only able to access this now the obvious way, ie typing the users name diurectly into the browser address bar. Appreciate any help. Thanks. --Sm8900 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a function which is available to all users. Real96 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All i can think off is Special:Log if that doesn't work please try me help desk then tell me on my talk page using the links in my name. Have a good day Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I would love to help you with the article in question, just let me know when, on my talk page and I will be glad to. I am still keeping a look out for that search box for you (i sworn i have used that before aswell), and by the way I live in Manchester United Kingdom. Its nice to meet you. Regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the search box, i have just found it Special:Contributions. Have fun Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a genius! Thanks so much! :-) Appreciate your help. See you. --Sm8900 14:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to express my appreciation for your support. But even more, for your kind but logical approach to problems. Evidently we have equivalent ways of dealing with things. I used to live in NYC... Governors Island to be exact. Loved it. --Blue Tie 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blue Tie! Appreciate you saying that. By the way, my name is Steve, and I currently live in Brooklyn. i appreciate all your help, too. By the way, you lived on Governor's Island? Were you in the US Coast Guard? Anyway, good to hear from you. (I'm logging off soon, but will reply again later.) See you! --Sm8900 18:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you support VSmith. Not really sure what he is proposing or what you are agreeing to. Are you agreeing to: limiting the article to science or expanding it to all GW items? Are you saying it should not include the general sense of global warming but it should only address the current version? I see no reason to exclude historical global warming unless one wants to push some pov. Not really sure what you are advocating in any case.--Blue Tie 05:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI Blue Tie. Thanks for your questions. If it's not clear to you, of all people, then it certainly needs some clarification. I am agreeing to expanding the article to include all GW items. I am saying it should include historical global warming. It should NOT only address the current version, but should include the general sense of global warming. Thanks. --Sm8900 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is nothing but a snarky personal attack, forbidden by WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:AGF. Don't do it again.

Atlant 13:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That post probably wasn't a good idea. It will just provoke others, as has already occurred. Thegreatdr 14:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a meteorologist. I used to know climatologists who made a distinction between mets and themselves, but most meteorologists have some knowledge of climatology. It is helpful in regards to forecasting, particularly more than a few days ahead of time. I did not want to broach the fluidity concerning most wikipedia article edits. There are other articles where one person (usually the person who initially developed the page) will watch the article as it is edited by others, and make sure no serious degredation is made to it. I think if civility takes place, and people keep the topic within the realm of the broad consensus view, regardless of the article, the article may yet evolve in a process similar to other wikipedia articles. Thegreatdr 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the policy that Wikipedia is not censored for minors. -M^ask? 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but we still don't need to necessarily have those expressions, do we? truthfully, i don't normally care about language like that too much, but in this case it did seem a bit unneeded. Appreciate your reply. --Sm8900 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It adds a bit to the humor of the page, that some of these cruft issues are so absurd. Anyway, sorry to jump on you like that :) -M^ask? 19:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no prob! I enjoy a good exchange! this wrangling in cyberspace is quite bracing. perhaps sometime we could wrangle over an idiom here or there! :-) Thanks for that note. --Sm8900 20:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Sm8900. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Starships-logo.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Sm8900/game-info. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sm8900. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Starships-screen-1.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Sm8900/game-info. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your reply to Michael Safyan at the Palestin project. I liked what you said, and wrote a reply to him also. however, then I thought better about doing it. however, i wanted to share it with someone. what do you think of this reply? thanks.

I like your idea. As we all know, Palestinians generally disagree with any pro-Israel editors as to whether Israel has a right to exist, has a right to assert itself, to defend itself, or to express itself, or to get out of bed, go to the mirror and brush its teeth. So by giving every single article disputed status, we can point out that while we don't actually dislike Jews or Israel,we do dispute everything they say; however, this is only because Israel's misdeeds are so huge and enormous, and so uttterly eclipse thoise of any nation in the history of the world, that there is no reason to grant validity to anything they say. however, we would be happy to do so if Isrel wasn't so bad. In other words, we want to make clear that we dispute everything the Israelis say, their right to say them, and their right to defend their right to say them.

(By the way, i was kidding when i wrote this.

Thanks, nadav. --Sm8900 17:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably good that you didn't include this there; sarcasm can cause some misunderstandings on WIkipedia. (Somone even wrote a funny essay about it WP:SARCASM.)

I think you're right. good to hear from you. see you. --Sm8900 17:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. My biggest concern is that other editors will take him on his word, and not review his sources. My only hope is to try to put his sources into perspective, and hopefully convince other editors to review his claims for themselves. The move request ends in a couple of days, however, and I'm not sure if there's much left to be said anyways. — George ^[talk] 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good to me. thanks for writing back. see you. --Sm8900 21:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

How do i increase the number of changes shown in my watchlist? I know how to set the time period, and changed it to .3 days. I have 675 pages on my list, but only see 68 chantges/ I 've been wondering about this for a while. I know I canm tell it to show all changes to every page, but then I get too many. Is there a way to simply increase the number involved? If so, what's involved? If noit, what are some options? thanks. --Sm8900 13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Special:Preferences and go to the section marked "Watchlist" and change it there..--Cometstyles 13:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. thanks for your reply. I did do that. But I still get only a small quantity. I don't think I am seeing changes to all pages on the watchlist, even for those changed within the specified time period. Is there any way to get a larger quantity of changes to be displayed, without changing the time period? thanks. --Sm8900 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well select 2 for the "Number of days to show in watchlist" then in the second one "Number of edits to show in expanded watchlist:" add atleast 200 and then reload your Special:Watchlist ..--Cometstyles 14:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]