Sbandrews

Thanks for your very helpful comments! I have to confess that I did feel crummy about leaving all those unsightly "fact" tags everywhere, but I did it, in part, because I was getting ever more frustrated about having anything and everything I added swiftly removed by Freedom skies (and before him another editor). The funny thing is that I can actually provide better citations for many of the Vedic Mathematics' less ludicrous claims than the ones currently there. Maybe that could be an area for cooperation (in light of your suggestions). I'll try to address it on the talk page. Thanks again for taking the time to be so helpful! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

you are most welcome, kind regards sbandrews 22:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've reverted your edits at Martian global warming because they went against the Articles for Deletion discussion, which had no clear consensus and thus resulted in a keep by default. If you would like a second hearing, please appeal the AFD at Deletion Review. Thanks and happy editing! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

from WP:AfD - "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected...." - the consensus was clearly for merge, however, if you prefer keep, I bow to your judgment, happy editing sbandrews 09:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have carfted a version for Indian mathematics. The version can be accessed here.

Kindly compare the version with the present Indian mathematics article, the version which to which I edited earlier and the version prior to my involvement:-

I have:-

• Removed every single peice of quotation. The quotations ranged from glowing praises by Lapalce and Einstein to critisisms by Professor Dani. The material may belong under "Indian mathematics" on Wikiquote but it clearly will not find it's place in Encyclopedia Britannica.

• Provided citations for extraordinary cases. I will in time provide citations for the whole of the article.

• Removed the very odd "Charges of Eurocentrism", which is based on personal opinions and in it's best form may find place in a newspaper or a magazing article but certainly does not belong in this logbook of knowledge.

It would be helpful if you voiced your opinion on which version to keep. Please forgive the minor mistakes, if any, in grammer and puncuation. Since some editors have been aggressive and meanacing, I have had the uncharecteristic inclination to work on Wikipedia through my exams and I will make a check for these mistakes. Regards, _{Freedom skies| talk}  04:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some of the quotations are rather long - however, rather than remove them it would be better to first request the OP of the quote, or other editors, to rewrite it in a more Wikipedia like style, thus improving the article rather than just taking it back a step - such a request could be made on the articles talk page, possible giving a suggested reworking for them to consider. sbandrews 10:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Charges of Eurocentrism section has substantial referencing, suggesting that there is a body of literature adressing the issue - do you think that the references are incorrect? Editors of Wikipedia tend to add to the parts of articles that interest them - few editors are impartial. Perhaps you could add a critique of the section with a few counter references to balance it out? kind regards sbandrews 10:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, I was involved in the RfC in Indian mathematics. My efforts were directed towards creating a version such as this one, as compared to the this, this and this version. My efforts initially began with removing misrepresentation of quotaions and then I tried providing some of the "citations needed" tags with actual citations. The situation resulted into an RfC, timed during my examinations, to which I could admittedly, not work on adequately. Fowler&fowler has asked me to work with him but since I am sitting my examinations and the article has been edited extensively since the RfC by other editors I no longer can keep up the pace. My exams will continue and after that I will be leaving, taking a few days off WP. I have reviewed my future with the Indian mathematics article, and have come to the conclusion that since I am under time constraints and am under such pressure in real life that adequate responses or editing actions on "Indian mathematics" are just not possible for me right now. I can't contribute to it in the manner that I usually would; it would be unethical to the extreme to ask the other editors, who have wished me well during my examination, to wait. The article is under the watch of many good editors and I see and hope that it's quality benefits from the present situation. Many regards, _{Freedom skies| talk}  02:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the consult. I agree that the cleanup tag can be removed. Oren0 01:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for your helpful comments on the Mars FAC, they have proven an invaluable guide and I am very pleased with the improvement they have generated in the article, kind regards sbandrews 18:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you; you're entirely too kind. Good luck with your FAC nomination. — RJH (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mars, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject Mars|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You made an entry on my sandbox stating that temperature data was readily available [1] and on the Talk page you promised a citation.[2] You have not provided one. Indeed it would be difficult to provide a relevant citation since the information being requested has not been made available. You can read comment #43 on this thread to learn more about the issue of unarchived data. [3] If work is to be called science, the researcher must archive his data and his methods. Information must include not just the raw data, but also what stations were used and what information was relied on regarding the history of the stations. Auditors will want to know if the data was homogeneous or not and whether the data was treated as homogeneous or not and what adjustments were made. Phil Jones has not provided this information and is still not cooperating with requests for it. The auditors involved are fully expecting to have to file a lawsuit to get the required information. These are the facts as I know them. I am going to remove your entry for the time being.RonCram 03:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Roncram, forgive me if I was rather slow to continue the debate, but I don't have easy access to a library. You state that that Mann et al. 'do not .... make available their data and methods' - this I decided to investigate. I looked up a typical hockey stick paper - Mann and Jones, Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia - Geophysical Research Letters, 30 No 15 CLM 5 . I have to say I was dissapointed with your position - the paper devotes nearly half its length detailing its data sources and methods. Most of the data seems to be taken from the published work of others, e.g yang el al 2002, D'Arrigo et al 2001 etc etc. My question for you, how is it you can accuse Mann of withholding his data when the data he uses is not even his own and appears in other publicly available scientific papers? sbandrews 09:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sbandrews, of course I forgive you. I also am not always able to respond quickly. However, this is an important issue and I am eager to get the matter resolved. Were you able to visit any of the links I provided that discussed the withholding of data and methods? I am afraid that at this moment you do not understand the full extent of the issue, including withholding computer code. In the latest post, you mention Mann who has withheld code and has tried to stonewall on a number of data sharing issues. The source code was one of the most difficult, but eventually Mann turned over the code. The actions of Phil Jones are also very much an issue and may result in a lawsuit (although recently Pat Frank of Stanford has been arguing to just reconstruct the temperature record in a full and open manner in order to shame Jones into releasing his data and methods). I have put together a few links for you to peruse to get a better handle on the issues and the amount of discussion and controversy that has been generated so far. Please take a look. The first three involve Mann. Then one on Jones and several others on the issue at large.

Mann on Source Code [4]

Title to MBH98 Source Code [5]

MBH98 Source Code Status Report [6]

East Anglia (Phil Jones) Refusal Letter [7]

Nature’s list [8]

An Open Letter to Science [9]

A Reply from Science [10]

Reply to Science regarding information request [11]

Mass General Hospital on Data Withholding [12]

Scientific Misconduct [13]

Replication Policy [14]

More on NSF Data Archiving Policies [15]

Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science [16]RonCram 18:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

roncram, your answer is unfortunately not persuasive, for two reasons, but I will concentrate on the most important, namely you do not answer my post at all. Why do I need to visit these links when I have the paper in question here in front of me. A simple question for you - do you have a copy of this paper? sbandrews^t 18:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sbandrews, I have one or two of Mann's papers on my other computer - not on this one. I am not sure if I have the GRL paper or not. However, I am familiar with MBH98 and I know there is no possible way his data, methods and code could be provided in the original MBH98 paper. Some of his data was referred to in his paper. Some of his methods were discussed in the paper. It is standard practice for journals to require authors to archive their data and methods so if other scientists want to replicate their work, it can be done. Mann has not done this and journals have allowed several authors (quite often climate scientists) exemptions from this requirement. This has led to several scandals. If you have followed the history of this controversy at all, you would know that getting Mann to disclose all of his data and methods has been a huge issue. If Mann has reformed his practices so that his data and methods are freely available, that would be welcome news. Also, the original entry you made related to Jones and not Mann. You have failed to discuss the Refusal Letter from East Anglia. It appears you wish to keep your present position by choosing to not be in possession of the facts. I do not know how you can be persuaded if you refuse to read the links provided.RonCram 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

roncram, we must put this discussion on hold for a few days while I get a copy of MBH98, I can't discuss what I haven't read, regards sbandrews (t) 19:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sbandrews, no matter which paper is being discussed, you are not going to know how inadequate the data and methods supplied are unless you actually try to replicate the reported results. RonCram 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

roncram, you cannot change the target like that, not with me anyway, either the data is available or it is not, that was your assertion, are you backing down now? sbandrews (t) 20:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Of course I am not backing down. And I am not changing the subject. I'm trying to explain the subject to you. I am not saying the authors do not provide ANY information. I AM saying they do not provide enough. I am trying to point out to you that the people who authored the links you have refused to read have actually tried to replicate the results of Mann and Jones. McIntyre finally got enough information to replicate Mann and found lots and lots of problems with MBH98. Go ahead and read MBH98. I'm not trying to stop you. But you cannot stop there. Once you read that, you also need to read the links I provided so you can understand the issues in trying to replicate their results. BTW, I just came across this bit by Nature published in 2002. [17] If Nature did not understand that additional information has to be archived somewhere OTHER than the article itself to be made available when a researcher wants to replicate results, then Nature would not have published this. Do you understand now? RonCram 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, but can't you be more specific, which part of the data is missing? The GRL paper cites about 10 or so sources of data, presumably MBH98 is the same, I would be wasting time chasing them all up if you accept that some/most parts are available... sbandrews (t) 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What I have said all along is that Jones and Mann do not archive their data and methods and make the information available when requested by scientists who wish to replicate their results. Yes, I do think you would be wasting your time in a sense because you would find some info but not enough. If you want to know about the controversy, read the links I have been providing you. In the case of Mann, one of the big issues was the code - although a number or other questions went unanswered for a long time as well. In the case of Jones, the issue goes to his 1990 UHI paper (and his claim the data from Russian stations was homogeneous without providing any station history data) all the way up to his present data and methods for determining global temperatures. You seem like an intelligent and reasonable person. Once you have a handle on all the issues, I think you will be as outraged as I am regarding the conduct of these scientists. Please take a look at the links I provided.RonCram 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

this is the one right? Mann ME, Bradley RS, Hughes MK. 1998. Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392:779–87 sbandrews (t) 22:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is the right one. It is available free here. [18] Also, please note the corrigendum Mann et al were forced to publish because McIntyre attempted to replicate their results. Mann admitted some of the errors but not all. The debate is still ongoing because even though the NAS agreed with McIntyre that the bristlecone pine series was unreliable and should not be used, some of Mann's supporters continue to publish using it. I'm starting to get off track here, sorry. Read that, then read the links regarding Mann above.RonCram 22:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you explain why you undid this revision please? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exploration_of_Mars&diff=113681202&oldid=113289366 Thanks in advance, --82.41.42.96 12:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thank you for asking, I appreciated that you were taking the time to improve the article in good faith but I felt that you removed too much information just to make the page tidy, although you certainly did tidy it :) Please don't let me put you off from editing the page, regards sbandrews 13:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here's another interesting new phenomenon on Mars, from the HiRISE camera [19], but I can't decide whether it belongs in the Geology section or the Geography section - what do you think? Regards sbandrews (t) 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mmm... I'd guess it's more applicable to geology, as it could be a wide-spread phenomenon. Geography seems to be more about map-making and individual, named features. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I've requested an arbitration regarding the conduct of Freedom skies.

Can I trouble you to write a brief statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Freedom skies about your impressions of Freedom skies' edits and conduct?

A brief recounting of your comments at Talk:Indian mathematics and will suffice.

Thank you.

JFD 05:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, upon further research, the previous edit may have been right. I based my edit on the reading of a scholarly article that now seems to have been an "in-between" between the old story of countrywide panic and what seems to be the current story in vogue - that people were scared and uneasy, but hardly "panicked". In short - I was wrong:

( http://www.livescience.com/scienceoffiction/050722_war_world.html )

So, thank you for your diligence, and I'm sorry for a bad edit. Throw 'er back in, I guess - and there's a free cite from a Ph.D for your troubles! --Action Jackson IV 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your good intentions at removing what you thought was vandalism; however, the former Israeli Ambassador to El Salvador really was found by police drunk and naked except for a bra and bondage gear and with a dildo shoved up his ass. This is why he is no longer the Israeli Ambassador to El Salvador.

Check the BBC links. DS 00:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Re your edit [20], phycology, phycological etc... the study of algae, you must be learning a lot with this bot project of yours, good luck :) sbandrews (t) 11:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Indeed! Although I suppose that's no bad thing :) By the way, I like the interactive map of Mars you have on your user page. Nice job. Cheers, CmdrObot 00:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The source was a 1924 book on the Berlin-Bagdad railway. Published by Yale Univ. Press.

That article should probably be merged with the Berlin-Baghdad artikle.

Any ideas for expansion on "US Energy Policy."

There does not seem to be a forum for basic facts.

ie tons of coal, oil, electricity, used annually in the US. tons of Co2 per capita or nationally put out.

Basic numbers y'now. Key polluters, bad industries. etc etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfsorrow2 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

No the Baghdad RR was from Janke 1917, I checked the wiki site. It has been greatly updated. My mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfsorrow2 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

Well, it doesn't look like proper process was followed in nominating a group of articles. And I don't think he should have renominated it the morning after I closed it, if his only suggestion is to transwiki it without naming what wiki he wants it moved to. But it does appear that some issues have been raised on the page for some time. If you want them to be kept, you could try to improve them according to the problems addressed on the talk pages and AfDs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I feel the page stands in it's own right, there are no improvments I can make to overcome the deficiencies others see in the page. Indeed the comments on the talk page, they were made by me, no-one else has bothered. I took a look at the AFD guidelines, on one page it says that after a closure without consensus the proper process is to discuss on the talk page what is to be done, it says 'no further AFD is required'. There is no discussion of how to handle repeated nominations, I am assuming that this is because repeated nominations (for the same reasons) are not supposed to happen. There does not seem anywhere for me to turn, sbandrews (t) 19:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Make a comment on the current AfD, and you can also bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. There were, however, many issues brought up at the first AfD that need to be taken care of; if they are not I can see the article being deleted in the future.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Good God" is a profanity? john k 13:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you are right that it was unhelpful, and I apologize if you feel I was mocking you, but it's hardly a profanity. As to oil, it should not be discussed as a factor in the origins of World War I, because it was not one. The Berlin-Baghdad Railroad ought perhaps to be mentioned, but only as a relatively minor factor irritating Anglo-German relations which was settled before the war. john k 14:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was not accusing you of original research. I said that including a lengthy discussion of oil and the Baghdad railway as a cause of the war would either constitute original research or, if a source could be found, violate our due weight policies by putting too much emphasis on a very fringe position. I stand by those remarks. john k 18:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bleh, sorry about that; seems like I inadvertenly blanked some sections there. Kirill Lokshin 14:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

hehe, no probs, I do it all the time :) I'm especially good at messing up in edit conflicts :D regards sbandrews (t) 14:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button   located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 19:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

bleh :) sbandrews (t) 20:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sbandrews

Tks :)

But.. what blue background ?

The color is light ocre.. I made like that after seeing some articles on the Feauture Content.

I´m new to wikipedia edition, but i´m still struggling to understand exactly how it works (the keywords and all)

How to make the article appears on the Featured content ? I didn´t found where to vote or nominate it as a candidate, neither know all the edition rules.

Best Regards,

--Beyond2000 19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Freedom skies is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
• Freedom skies shall select one account and use only that account. Any other account used may be indefinitely banned. Pending selection of an account Freedom skies may not edit Wikipedia.
• Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by blocks for an appropriate period of time. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sbandrews, I finally have some time to start doing a major revision of the page, which I had originally planned to do much earlier (after the RfC in March). I hope you'll have some time to look in every now and then and offer criticism. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sbandrews. Since you made the initial change without any rationale beyond "pointless wikilinks", I think you should express your concerns on the talk page before reverting further. Do you have any reason to remove the red links other than for aesthetic purposes? Mgiganteus1 15:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

the wikilinks are pointless as none of them link to anywhere - save one which links back to the Vorticella page - which is poor and should not happen. Further the links point to sub-species which are not likely to be filled in soon, seing as the Vorticella page itself is only a paragraph long. That said however, I see no problem with making changes for aesthetic purposes, but that is very clearly not the case here, kindest regards, sbandrews (t) 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The red links are not pointless. Of course "none of them link to anywhere"; that's why they're red links! The one that links back to the Vorticella article should probably be deleted or turned into an article on the species. Please understand that red links can be a good thing. They encourage article creation and make it easier to start new articles under the correct title. They also ensure that when a new page is created many articles will already point to it. Please read Wikipedia:Red link. Also, the links point to species, not subspecies, and should have their own articles eventually. Since you still haven't provided a valid reason for your reverts, I am changing it back. Regards, Mgiganteus1 19:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

from the red link page 'Do not create links for subsidiary topics that result in red links (links that go nowhere) to articles that will never be created, such as the titles of book chapters. Do create red links to articles you intend to create or technical terms that need to be explained.' - do you intend to create the pages? No of course not. So they are pointless - like the chapters of a book, but thanks for pointing out the red link page, it reinforces my opinion that the links should go - not just the one that points back to the vorticella page itself that for some reason you keep reverting! please see Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context warmest regards sbandrews (t) 20:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The individual chapters of a book are not notable. That's why they will never have their own articles, and even if such articles are created they will quickly be deleted or merged. Every species is inherently notable and should have its own article. That's the difference. Please look at almost any taxon article with a list of species; it is standard practice to link all of them. Wikipedia:Red link also states: "In topic lists, it is useful to include every topic on the subject you can possibly find or think of. When they are turned into links, the list immediately shows where the gaps in Wikipedia's coverage for that subject are, since all of the topics missing articles will show up in red. Such lists are useful tools in developing subject areas on Wikipedia, as they show where work is needed most." With regards to Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, if species are not relevant to their genera, then I don't know what is. Mgiganteus1 20:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It clearly states on the page that you poined out that red links should not be made to articles you have no intention of making. Of course the species are relevant, that is not the criteria I am using to say the links should be deleted until articles for the species - and thank you for correcting me there - are created. If only one of the linked to articles were created then the links would be fine - but none are and have little or no liklihood of being any time soon, sbandrews (t) 20:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, it does not state "that red links should not be made to articles you have no intention of making". It states "Do create red links to articles you intend to create". Those are two different statements, please do not equate them. In many cases, red links should be created regardless of whether one intends to write the articles themselves. Mgiganteus1 20:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

well a rather twisted argument on do's and dont's from you - though I am not surprised. When an article is likely to be created with a little encouagement the red links are of course perfectly good, but in this case that is not going to happen, an issue that you keep avoiding, why I wonder. Like you keep avoiding the issue of the self referring link you keep reverting into existance. sbandrews (t) 20:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, are you still intending to add detail to this redirect? It is creating a circular link on vorticella and should otherwise be speedy deleted... regards, sbandrews (t) 22:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, are you still intending to add detail to this redirect?

And have I stopped beating my wife? I've never stated any intention to add detail to this.

If I recall rightly, some article (now deleted or edited) redlinked Vorticella citrina, so I redirected that to Vorticella pending creation (by someone interested in such things) of a Vorticella citrina article. Not my fault if subsequent edits have created a circular link.

I see from the previous topic that you have issues with redlinks, and I agree with Mgiganteus1: they imply no obligation or intention to produce an article; they merely highlight the option - and perhaps opinion - that such an article might be created. Tearlach 00:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

hmm well thats two of you think i'm a pain in th neck, but now at least there is no circular link on vorticella and two of the red links now at least point somewhere, regards, sbandrews (t) 08:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I just wanted to let you know, as you may not be aware, that the templates you have on your user page for different article groups have some categories associated with them that your user page is placed in automatically. Generally, user pages shouldn't be in article categories (and article templates shouldn't be on user pages for that reason). I'm sure it's because you want to have quick links to the articles, and you weren't trying to add the categories on purpose. I have a suggestion; you could substitute the templates to your user page and remove the category manually. Let me know what you think. Happy editing! Leebo ^T/C 12:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

ok, thx for the info, i'll do that :) ,sbandrews (t) 15:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi SB. In case you've not dropped by lately, I've been doing a lot of work on the portal over the past week and, with the exception of adding another couple of selected articles, and a few minor adjustments, I think its ready for featured status. Perhaps you can take a look? Gralo 01:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

hi gralo, as always it is looking good - I tampered a bit with the lead and fixed the watch function, sbandrews (t) 10:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your input. I was wondering about the watch function too, so am pleased you fixed that! Regards Gralo 11:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cydonia Mensae. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. I recognize that this was several days ago, but this dispute still seems to be unresolved. Please discuss the issue on the talk page rather than making any further reversions to the article. Thanks.--Chaser - T 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Whatever your smokin, i'll have some :) sbandrews (t) 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

LOL. Your reaction is much better than Ronz's. Sorry about that. I didn't notice that you were making more effort to use the talk page than the IP. Can we cut a deal? I'll focus on trying to direct the IPs to the article talk page and you and Ronz try to hold yourselves to 1RR in the meantime?--Chaser - T 21:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

that sounds fine - welcome aboard :) sbandrews (t) 21:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear sb, thank you for the interesting web link about this. Helped me think more carefully about the relationship between ecology and biology. I have removed from ecological economics the term 'biology', just leaving 'economics' and 'ecology'. Both are wikilinked, and so if anyone wants to know more about 'ecology', for example, they could click on the wikilink. That should solve the problem. What do you think? AppleJuggler 01:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

yes that feels much better - you're doing some good work there :) sbandrews (t) 06:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would like like to do a portal review for Portal:Environment? Thanks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sbandrews:

I think if you review Albertini and others you will find that the 6 assassins overseen by Danilo Ilic were irredentists, not separatists. Several history texts on this subject refer to them as irredentists, and I have not found any texts using the word separatist to describe them. It conveys the wrong impression that this was a revolutionary movement for an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina which it was not. Chief of Serbia Military Intelligence Dragutin Dimitrievic was behind the operation and his goal clearly was that of a Greater Serbia. The assassins themselves had various and sometimes not entirely clear objectives but all wanted Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia to be in a common state (even the anarchists wanted a state which I find strange), whether that be a Yugoslavia, a Greater Serbia, or some other amalgamation of states and provinces.

The link you put in for irredentist has a slightly more restrictive meaning than the dictionaries on my desk. Is that the best link?

Werchovsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.32.132 (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2007

Hi Werchovsky, as a layman I can see little difference in Princip being a irredentist (to Serbia) or a separatist (from Austria-Hungary), though I am of course willing to accept that from a more in depth political or historical viewpoint (from which I assume you are looking) there is an important distinction. I note that a google search for "Princip separatist" gets more hits than "Princip irredentist" so I am clearly not the only layman thinking this way. Now for the link I put in to irredentist, that page begins "Irredentism is any position advocating annexation of territories administered by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity and/or prior historical possession, actual or alleged" - the page separatist begins - "Separatism is a term usually applied to describe the attitudes or motivations of those seeking independence or "separation" of their land or region from the country that governs them. To a lesser extent, separatism may also refer to social isolation or involvement in cliques. The term separatist movements usually refers to social movements" - which to me conveys no suggestion that there has to be a revolutionary movement involved per se unless explicitly stated?. I only have the oxford concise to hand but the entry for irredentist matches the wiki article exactly.

I do like the idea of anarchists wanting a state, so long as they didn't have an army :). By the way, don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages by adding four tildas, like this, ~~~~ at the end of your post, regards sbandrews (t) 07:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the reason you don't get many hits for Princip "irredentist" is because the word "irredentist" is out of vogue. I tried a similar search on the Irish Republican Army and got 100X more hits for separatism than irredentism, and then simply on those words with a ratio of about 15X. Irredentism is however, a very accurate and appropriate word in the context of the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand. It followed on the heals of Italian irredentism against Austria-Hungary. The conspirators did not seek an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina, but one unified with Serbia. The result was indeed the creation of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croates and Slovenes under a Serbian Sovereign. There is a somewhat subtle warguilt distinction between the two words. The assassination planning and facilitization by members of the Serbian Military is a slightly more aggregious crime when the motives include territorial engrandizement of Serbia in addition to the dismemberment of a neighbor. Werchovsky 21:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am beginning to favour the use of irredentism now over separatism - for one thing it conveys those seeking independence in a more positive light, that they are trying to bulid something rather new rather than just destroying the old. More importantly it forces the reader to re-examine who the separatists/irredentists were and perhaps abandon old stereotypes, and that is a very good thing! Thank you for taking the time to explain this all to me, best wishes, sbandrews (t) 04:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Upon further inspection of edit histories, it seems I got the times a bit mixed up, and the editor didn't use an alternate IP or proxy to evade a block. A mistake on my part. However, the fact remains that the editor has threatened to use such tactics to evade any blocks. --Madchester 17:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, however I have to say that although I do not fault any of your edits as an admin in this matter, and the above mistake is quite understandable given the two IP's and one account used by the editor, you could have given more time to explaining why user pages should not be blanked, kind regards sbandrews (t) 17:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing this up. Any lessons learned on how to handle such situations?

How bad is the behavior? In the Barrett-related articles there was an editor with clear COI problems who other editors rallied behind until the editor was brought to an ArbCom and banned for making attacks during it.

Additionally, there are BLP issues. Just a year ago, long before I did any editing to the articles, editors were still making openly hostile statements against Barrett, and using those statements as supporting arguments for including critical material in the article. Sadly, it is one of those editors that is behind the current dispute which has been dragged out for over three months. --Ronz 19:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The global warming talk page has the same 'two camp' structure, each camp having typically one strong leading figure often with entrenched views not open to compromise, but rather endless debate, as in the Barrett page. With barrett the complicating factor is BLP - with global warming we only have armageddon to worry about :D On the GW page there is an admin with a good scientific backgound and endless patience who keeps things on the right track. Perhaps you could find some pointers (or people to ask) on the Daniel Brandt talk page - Barrett seems in many ways a similar character, and there has been very much discussion there recently sbandrews (t) 20:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

wow, it all got deleted at Daniel Brandt, still there are people there to ask on the new page, and an article in signpost about it all, and the deletion page probably sbandrews (t) 20:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Daniel Brandt is not deleted, only redirecting. I'll take a look. Thanks. --Ronz 03:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi sbandrews. I notice you're active on the Wikiquette alerts page, so I was wondering if I could ask for some assistance in the matter between myself and JAF1970. I filed an alert on that page, as well as a request for informal mediation (which blew up into a really big argument), and went on to file an ArbCom request (which looks like it will be declined for being premature). So far, I've only gotten two replies from any mediators on this topic, none in Wikiquette alerts, and while JAF hasn't posted for a little while, I'm afraid things are just going to continue when he does return to WP. I'd like to take as many steps as possible to get this situation resolved.

Any help? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem I'll take a look :-) sbandrews (t) 17:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, it appears that mediation has stalled completely, both on WQA and in MedCab. I left a note in the main MedCab talk asking for someone to revisit the case and either continue it or close it, and still nothing has happened. Anything else you can recommend? If nothing else is going to happen with it, it would be nice to get it closed so we can get the MedCab notice off the PMCE Talk page. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi... After looking at your WQA and Medcab pages, I think the reason you're having trouble getting anywhere with this is that any time you've tried to solve the problem, the discussion has gone onto the content issues and so much information has been entered that it's almost impossible for anoutside observer to understand what's happening.

What is it that's really bothering you? Is it that JAF1970 has been uncivil to you, or that he's been editing improperly, in bad faith, or ignoring consensus? It's possible you might need formal mediation or a formal RFC/U, or a report to the administrators notice board. But even with those, if you don't focus your complaint to very specific and easy to read descriptions, including specific diffs showing examples of the bad behavior, none of those forums will accept your case. They're all overloaded and they need to be able to understand the situation at a glance.

I think I suggested previously in my first response at WQA that you might get a better result from Wikipedia:Editor assistance. You could approach them with clearly defined points and diffs (keeping it simple and short), and ask them to help you unravel the situation, and ask them if a formal process might be needed. If you do ask them though, they might also give you feedback on your own methods too, so you would have to be prepared to accept that (I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, but we don't know how someone else would see it). Some of them are administrators, so if there is a clear problem with civility or other policy violations by JAF1970, they may be able to help with that more directly. I've seen some good work by the person who is first on the list, maybe start by asking him, or look through the list to see who else there has posted a note that seems to apply. Or you can just post your request generally to the page, but I think contacting an individual would be better in this situation. Some of them specialize in helping with disputes. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, at this point, JAF has kinda disengaged from all discussion on the pertinent issues. My biggest problem with him was the way he addressed me - I have no issues at all with his article-content points, but he was treating me very uncivilly, and he accused me of breaking mediation because of an edit someone else made. He has refused to acknowledge his behavior, so I have a feeling this will happen again (to me or someone else) when another edit comes along that he disagrees with.

My other big problem with JAF was that he insisted on blocking my efforts to call for consensus discussion in Talk:Pac-Man Championship Edition (see the Archive), and he publicly outed me on other Talk pages when I attempted to call for similar discussion there (see Talk:Pac-Man for an example - his comment about it being "embarrassing" that I was discussing scoring details there). In effect, he not only ignored consensus, he outright rejected it on the grounds of politics, bureacracy and "logical fallacies" (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines), and he didn't drop the subject there until several project leaders argued him down on it.

In any case, it appears consensus has been reached in the Wikiproject, and while discussion is continuing in Talk:Pac-Man, several editors have come out in favor of removing the scoring details from that article, which helps with the precedent issues that affect other game articles like PMCE. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, also, for the most part I tried to keep both the WQA and MedCab pages on the topic of JAF's behavior, and I pointed out to him several times that I was addressing his behavior and not the article contents in those pages. That was an attempt on my part to separate the two issues, so that we could keep the article talks on-topic and keep the mediation on-topic as well. I'm not sure I did a good enough job with that, though. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to refocus discussions when they stray off-course, especially when it;s about someone's behavikor and they want to cloud the issue. It takes a lot of discipline, and works best if you use minimal words and more bullet points and diffs. If the person strays from the topic, don't respond to the other stuff, just say: "That's off-topic, we can discuss it on the talk page. Please respond to my specific request that you withdraw your uncivil comments about me..." ... or whatever, but something like that.

In this situation now, I suggest just dropping it and see what happens next. Read WP:CIVIL in detail (it has some good info) and next time if he starts to violate it, respond with something like this, depending on the particular situation: "Please stop insulting me, your comment is in violation of WP:CIVIL." Leave it at that and don't let it bug you. If it keeps happening over and over after you've been doing that for a while, you can start keeping track of the diff links (off-wiki, in a text doc), so that eventually if you decide to ask for administrative help, you'll know where the examples are - and also, the diffs will show your prefectly polite responses, where you did not engage in arguing with him at all.

Does that seem like a good plan? --Parzival418 _Hello 21:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me. :) Thanks! Any ideas on how to get followup or closure from MedCab? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well the guy at medcab didn't even respond to your friendly email, and none of them have even acknowdedge that the medcab page exists. I suggest you just post a note at the very top, in the section where you first explained the dispute. Put the note above everything else, right under the heading. Just say that due to receiving no response from medcab, you're working it out another way and they should consider the case closed. --Parzival418 _Hello 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kiefer, sorry I somehow missed your post [21] on WQA, but it looks like Parzival has covered everything and you seem to be doing all the right things yourself. I note that you have archived the offending sections of Pac Man CE, a good idea, are you happy with the way things stand now? Oh and while I'm at it, thanks for all your hard work on WQA, its been very pleasing to see so many active editors really proving that the concept can work, especially since none of us are admins, justice for the people by the people :), sbandrews (t) 08:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can't say I'm HAPPY with the situation - I'm still offended by JAF's behavior and would really like to see that totally resolved, but there's nothing more I can do about it at this point - he isn't willing to admit that he has a problem, so chances are pretty good that it'll just happen all over again, likely to someone else somewhere else on WP. But I'm at least satisfied that things have calmed down at this point.

It appears that we've (minus JAF) reached consensus on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, Talk:Pac-Man and Talk:Pac-Man Championship Edition about the scoring details - namely, that they don't belong. So I've gone ahead and made some bold edits on many articles, and I made one edit to the Guidelines themselves that I believe should be fair to everyone (allowing for certain scoring/strategy/behavior details in game articles when that info is especially significant). Already got one piece of positive feedback on that particular edit. :)

Also, thank you for the positive feedback on my WQA participation. I appreciate it. I'm always willing to help out - had I known about WQA before this dispute, I probably would have been spending a lot more time there. :) Lemme know if there's anything in particular I should or should not be doing there. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, let sleeping dogs lie... If its any consolation I've had mud thrown at me before on wiki, and like you I was offended at the time, but now looking back however I'm proud that I stood up to the flack when I thought I was doing the right thing, and I'm glad that there is a permanent record in the talk archives of what I and others said. Good for you editing the guidelines, that's something I've not done yet :) luego amigo, sbandrews (t) 18:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

--Parzival418 _Hello 20:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sbandrews... I've been aware of your work at WP:WQA for a while now, and wanted you to know that your efforts have been making a real difference. You have a way of offering positive advice based on understanding how people can get along with each other better - that's good to see. A lot of times the users who have been helped don't say thanks to the Wikiquette volunteers.Maybe they don't even realize until later how much difference the advice has made, probably because we don't do obvious stuff like blocking or warning or issuing formal statements, or whatever. Our work is more subtle, guiding people back onto the collaboration track when they've gotten derailed. Sometimes there are editors so disruptive that we can't help and administors have to be brought in or arbitration, etc, but most of the time, as you've seen, that's not needed, and a bit of wisdom and perspective can go a long way.

Well, anyway,... I Just wanted to stop by and say hello, and let you know that your work is appreciated. You're welcome to move the barnstar to your user page if you like, do with it whatever you please. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow, how very kind :) I shall display it proudly, and maybe even pass it on to the next volunteer that sets up shop on the wikiquette page, best wishes, sbandrews (t) 20:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

These are very difficult terms to use and apply, with no really fixed meaning. As an example, take human growth hormone. This is a short protein that acts as a signal in the human body. This is a "natural" molecule as it exists in nature. However, exact copies of the hormone can be made in the lab, so you can have "synthetic" copies of the natural hormone that have precisely the same properties as the hormone found in the body. If you change the structure of the hormone a little bit, you will have an "artificial" version of the hormone that may or may not have the same properties as the "natural" hormone.

Other animals have slightly different versions of growth hormone, so if the "natural" molecule cow growth hormone entered the human body, it would become an "unnatural" addition to our bodies. (In biochemistry we would call it a xenobiotic.) Equally, human hormones in cows would be natural molecules, but in an unnatural situation.

I think the hormones used in agriculture are synthetic copies of the natural hormones, so identical in chemistry and biochemistry, but different in origin. Calling one molecule "artificial" and one "natural" is a difficult statement to justify, and not very clear. All the best Tim Vickers 15:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping out with this, by the way, the nominator seems to have been a "drive-by editor" with little involvement in the article. Tim Vickers 18:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

no problem, its of some importance to me anyway as I've been a vegan for a year now - long enough in to start worrying about B12 and other obscure things they never taught me at school :D sbandrews (t) 18:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ugh, I've noticed an editor with whom I have a particularly poor relationship is an editor of this article. I've asked somebody else to take over the review, since I don't want personality clashes to mess up the GA process. If you have any questions about biochemistry stuff in the future please don't hesitate to get in touch, good luck with the Veganism, I'd probably be one myself if I had the willpower! Tim Vickers 23:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

How silly, your the perfect editor for the job, must be all those vitamins we're missing that make us vegans so grumpy :), kind regards, sbandrews (t) 07:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sbandrews. “Entente cordiale” being french i have applied the french typography rules which state that as “cordiale” is an adjective it doesn't have an uppercase letter. The french article uses the correct spelling (which is not always the case though). Med 16:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I may add that according to the typography rules, “Entente” has an uppercase letter though. Med 16:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is a widespread misuse of uppercase letters in french violating the typography rules. Add the habit of english typography to put uppercase everywhere you have the reason why people tend to write erroneously “Entente Cordiale” instead of “Entende cordiale” i think. I think on the wiki the habit is to use the typography of the language from where the locution comes from. For instance of fr: they write “Federal Bureau of Investigation” respecting the english typography rules and not “Federal bureau of investigation” as would be written if the sentence was french. Med 17:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would have appreciated that you tell me about your message on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters). Some precisions. I have not changed all occurrences, but only renamed an article and corrected the article accordingly. The second point is that google is not an argument. And i doubt that historians writing books are all knowledgeable about typography of french locutions. Moreover there are entries which don't use uppercase letter contrary to what you say. Regards. Med 17:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I made this, is it good ? I will have to delete some of this propositions, since the context of an RfC don't seems to be what I had believed. This is a first test, and quick and efficient comments are welcome ! --Yug (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

if its ok I will de-list the current RfC, then we can re-list when we are ready and that way hopefully attract more editors to comment... sbandrews (t) 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Umh... ok, but there are really few books explaining stroke order in more than 7 images. This one is the best that I have on the 10 that I have. Most just expose the stroke order. I should have more explaining books in September 2007, when I will move to Taiwan. So, I have delete the reference note... --Yug (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your change and have responded to it on the talk page. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

you have ignored my comments on the talk page, I am dissapointed, sbandrews (t) 22:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, so today at Talk:Veganism I saw that you had questioned whether Criticism sections were actually "illegal" or not, and yes, in fact, they are. Per the manual of style (direct link to section here), separating positive and negative information is bad practice and should not be done.--danielfolsom 22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

However Wikipedia:Criticism seems to suggest its ok - like I said plenty of pages have them and I find them usful where appropriate, anyway the editor chose not to place the info in a separate section. Also he chose, imo, to present veganism in a bad light, so I'm not the friendliest person for you to be talking to right now, but thanks for sharing that info with me, regards sbandrews (t) 22:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just fyi, WP:Criticism is a essay, not a policy - not trying to be pushy, just letting you know. As far as veganism goes - there's good and bad to everything, the key is balance. Probably nothing will come out of the editor's attempt - maybe one sentence but that's it. However that phrase of yours kind of scares me. If your only editting the article to make veganism look good then it's a conflict of interest - remember that the purpose of the article is to be filled with information and satisfy NPOV, not to take sides.--danielfolsom 02:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oops, sorry. Vsst 23:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

) no problem, just thought I'd point it out, thanks for your contributions, sbandrews (t) 23:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sbandrews...

Regarding the situation with Yug and EB,...

Yug is doing just fine, please don't try to provoke him, sbandrews (t) 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? Exploding Boy 23:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to interfere with the good work you're doing, but I thought you should know about the this inflamatory comment posted by Yug on EB's talk page just yesterday, before the long comment that EB posted at WQA.

While Yug has shown you a side of himself that seems to be improving, at the same time, he provoked EB without telling you. It seems that comment was what lead to EB's response at WQA, where he was so upset he used an expletive. Other than that one word, which was an unfortunate lapse, I did not see his comment as uncivil.

Also, the details EB wrote in his long note at WQA are correct - according to the history pages and his contribs, he has not edited those pages or communicated with Yug at all in the last couple weeks, other than to respond at WQA. So why is Yug still going on about this?

This dispute in now being carried on exclusively by Yug. At first it was hard to see, but now that I've read through the talk pages and history logs, it seems to me, EB was right to file the alert and call this harrassment.

Even when EB was editing those articles, he did not use any uncivil comments at any time in his edit summaries or talk page comments. I read the whole thing and did not see anything improper from him. Maybe I missed something, so if I did, please let me know.

I'm not sure yet if I will post any WQA comments on this, but either way, I wanted to give you this information so you have the whole story. If you already saw it and to you the situation looks different than how it looks to me, then certainly I'm interested in your viewpoint.

From my perspective, it's not just the language difficulty; it's starting to appear there is a real problem with the way Yug is still focused on Exploding Boy, even after EB has disengaged and stayed away from Yug.--Parzival418 _Hello 03:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

yes, sigh, I saw that comment - though I thought an earlier comment by EB on the WQA about Yug being back was counterproductive too - really both of them are as bad as each other. But I counter to you that Yug is making real progress, he has made his edit of good faith and has now gone beyond that by reformulation of the RfC - imo he has real intentions to move beyond this. If you have the energy do step back in on the WQA page, you are always welcome, best wishes, sbandrews (t) 05:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You may be right, and I certainly appreciate your optimism and the work you've already done on this.... But I found Yug's post on EB's page disturbing, coming up so long after EB had stepped away. I've posted a response at WQA and also a note to EB on his talk page. I don't usually take the approach I used this time, but I wanted to be extra clear and not use too many words because of the language issue. If you don't agree with my somewhat direct comments, no problem if you post an alternate view.

Even after what I posted, Yug will still need someone to help him keep the RfC focused, though I imagine you're getting tired of that too. Maybe he needs a Wikifriend who speaks French so he can get help translating - he could look for one among the editors of French language, or at the Village Pump. --Parzival418 _Hello 08:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

until you said it I didn't notice, but I am getting a little tired, or perhaps stale is a better word, a time out to reflect and get back to editing (and some work!) is called for I feel. I will keep an eye on the RfC, I think that is almost there, and of course I am available here for comment as ever, best wishes, sbandrews (t) 18:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, good idea. I think the WQA page is helpful in many situations, and overall probably still a good thing. But sometimes it gets off track and things can spin out and just suck up the energy. I've learned a lot about Wikipedia and about people in general from working on WQA. One thing that continually surprises me, and is pretty much a drag, is that even the people who are helped almost never bother to offer even a simple thank you. What's up with that? The other thing I only see rarely is an editor returning to let us know when our suggestions have improved the situation, or even to let us know that it's OK now and they don't need the alert to be kept open.

When I get motivated again after a while, maybe I'll edit the intro to add those two points to the instructions. Thanks for your help and good luck with everything. --Parzival418 _Hello 19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Parzival514 you are wise beyond your years whatever those may be :), by the way, whilst wandering recently in an interesting wiki backwater I found something called generic let it be advice, it was really quite good I thought, whoever wrote it must/should be proud of it, parts of it may also not be out of place in the intro, regards sbandrews (t) 19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You deleted a sentence of mine (+reference) from hydrogen-like atoms. This sentence carried information that you admittedly didn't understand too well. At some length I explained to you what it meant. I see that you worry about "Wikiquette". Wouldn't you agree that it would be a polite thing to do for you to reinsert my sentence? Would you not agree that, if all Wikipedians deleted all sentences they don't understand too well, the size and usefulness of Wikipedia would go to zero? --P.wormer 16:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

pardon me, I've been away, I do agree, it will be back forthwith, and I do appreciate your kind efforts in helping me to understand a concept that has eluded me for a long time, kindest regards, sbandrews (t) 17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sbandrews:

Back on April 7 you tagged "Causes of World War 1" "unbalanced" and pointed to the discussion section. During that period in the discussion I found a lot of chatter about the proposed Berlin-Bagdad railway and British interests. Is that all resolved now? Can the tag be removed? If not, what needs to be done?

There is of course much controversy over the causes of WW1. When I confined myself to reading general western civ texts, I like most people felt the bulk of the warguilt fell on Germany and to a lesser extent on Russia. But after reading the Entente suppressed confessions of the Salonika 3: Apis' written confession, Vulovic's confession at trial (where the Serbian prosecution tried to block the admission) that also implicated Putnik, Malobabic's confession to a priest just before execution and combining that with "The Blood of Slavism", "Le Crépuscule d’une Autocratie", "Il Dramma di Seraievo", and "Recollections of a Russian Diplomat", "The Road to Sarajevo", "Origins of the War", "The Russian Imperial Conspiracy" and so on, while the spin of blame might vary, the first source facts just kept stacking up against Serbia, Russia, France and Montenegro. In the days surrounding the assassination these countries did not conduct themselves responsibly, lawfully, or truthfully. Each flimsy defense put forward by Entente apologists has fallen apart as suppressed documents or the falsification of documents have come to light and those still trying to defend these powers now seem to fall back on the "We'll likely never know the whole truth." defense. Quite so. These powers elected to destroy, suppress, or simply not maintain records which would normally be kept in the course of business and Serbia, in French Occupied Salonkia, had the three most key witnesses executed on false charges. If this were a trial, the efforts by Serbia, Russia, France and Montenegro to suppress the truth through judicial murder and other means could be used as evidence of the underlying crime and the most negative interpretation against these powers of ambiguous evidence could be used by the trier of fact. Since mine is a minority view, in the articles I try to stick closely to proven facts and footnote them.

Werchovsky 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Werchovsky, well I still feel the article is unbalanced, as you see from the talk page I was thwarted in my efforts to use a non anglo-american text for a source, namely the book by F. William Engdahl. Not only that, there is a great reluctance of American editors of any background to concede that oil was in any way important in the economic and political build-up to the war. Alas partaking in a battle on the talk page was about as far as my energy took me on that issue - that is enough for me however, especially as quality editors such as yourself are now active on the page. So I am afraid my answer is rather weak, you must do as you think right, I doubt I will be making much further contribution to the page, kind regards, and thank you, sbandrews (t) 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

How can images from other wikipedias be saved on the English version?Italus (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I read your excellent essay on the myth "the science is settled" on global warming. Since you are respected level-headed editor of climate change related articles, I am coming to you for help as a new editor. I have been subejct to lots of harassment and accusations of bad faith for trying to make articles promoting the so- "scientific consensus" man-made global theory theory conform to NPOV. Several users have been reverting my work with no care, and posting nasty threats on my user talk page, such as [22] Any help or advice you can offer me will be quite appreciated. Regards, The Noosphere (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

well, i don't know if i can help you much, since i myself believe that the world must do as much as it can to combat the threat of global warming. It is not really the point any more whether or not consensus has been reached - that is a low level question - the important point is that if global warming theory is correct the impact on life on earth will be enormous. The question we should now be addressing is what can we do and at what cost - in what timeframe - and what should we do in 10, 20 etc. years if things suddenly get worse (or better!). also please see the disclaimer i just added to the 'science is settled article', all the best to you in your editing, sbandrews (t) 10:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Category:The Great Powers, 1900-1914, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:List-class Mars pages, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:List-class Mars pages has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:List-class Mars pages, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the space-related WikiProjects, some changes have been made to the lists of members of WikiProject Moon (here) and Mars (here). If you still consider yourself to be an active editor either of these projects, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Solar System at 17:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC).Reply

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) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply