User talk:Squiddy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


Welcome to my talk page!

  • If you write to me here, I'll answer here. If I've written on your talk page, I will have put it on my watchlist and will look for replies there.
  • Constructive discussion of articles or subjects I'm involved with is welcome, and I'm happy to debate the merits of any of my edits.
  • If you've been vandalizing articles, but still want to come here to whine about being reverted... well, you're welcome, but I'll just tell you where to go. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust denial[edit]

Hello, I believe that this article is misleading and does not adhere to an academical standard. Especially the heavy bias in favor of the political pressure group ADL does not help to get an adequate description. Please consider these data:

([links to neo-Nazi and denialist sites removed] Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

Recent edits on Holocaust Denial[edit]

Hello, if the deleted content breaches with NPOV then surely it can be justified to delete it without consensus, or am I wrong?

No, because NPOV is hashed out on the discussion page. In this case you, a relatively inexperienced editor, are in a minority of one, and various long-term editors are opposed to your deletion. Repeatedly deleting counts as edit-warring, which is disruptive, and will not effect the change you wish to see. If you persist you are likely to be blocked. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The time I and the opposing members have spend on wikipedia, seems more or less irrelevant to the fact that the sentence at hand is in violation with NPOV I would like to rephrase my question into few following questions and get a more exact answer this time: If an item is violating the guidelines of wikipedia, can it then be removed without consensus? If the answer is yes, then surely if I prove the sentence at hand is breaching with NPOV it can be removed without consensus correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averagejoedev (talkcontribs) 00:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
No, because NPOV is hashed out on the discussion page. I can't think of a simpler way to put it. You need to get a consensus of involved editors that some text is violating policy in order to get it removed. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comment about Rasmussen Poll at Public Opinion on Global warming[edit]

Hi Squiddy, Thanks for reverting the graphic. FYI, in the summary for the change you didn't quite nail the poll. You described it as "Poll says 69% think it is at least 'somewhat possible' that scientists falsified..., not that 69% think they did"

The poll language states: "69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data"

I happen to think it's at lease somewhat likely that most people falsify at least some factoid on their tax returns too. That casts a mighty thin net.

Anyway, I just wanted to suggest reverting your own edit, and then reverting again with the accurate poll text. No biggie if this doesn't stir your crank. Cheers, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right, I didn't quite express myself accurately. I won't revert and re-revert just for the sake of an edit summary, but if the graphic is re-added I will explain myself further on the talk page. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to Climate change denial.[edit]

Thank you for your attention to Climate change denial, the revert of Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin, and thus increased clarity. (",) 99.181.141.119 (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I think it's an inappropriate use of the hatnote, and I've given reasons on the talk page. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For your scrutiny of articles and edits for the betterment of Wikipedia, I award you this barnstar. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Final_Solution[edit]

In real live it is normal that people motivate there actions when they destroy work of others, further more your correction is way out outside the scope of the lemma. Because you are on Wikipedia it must be possible that you can read. It is original data I provide. Authentic text from original source. Pure facts. Real data. The way it really was. The how it all got to happen. Maybe Herzl needs to have a paragraph of its own as the inventor of the Final Solution of the Jewish Question. Because that is what he really was. Than you can put the data on an other place and add it with something extra. The text was carefully placed in between the lines. Not prominent placed so everybody can read for itself. Wikipedia is a lie now.

The Final Solution begins with Theodore Herzl. He starts talking about it in public. It his his idea. There was no problem with Jews. The Zionists created problems for the Jews. If you read his diaries you can see that he thinks great of his invention. He is really fund of himself. Can supply you with Quotes from Herzl copy/past from his original Dairies on my desk to become convinced that Wikipedia now is less than half the truth.

Zionist leader Theodore Herzl, the soul of Zionism, is also in favor of antisemitism, against democracy, against free speech and thankful for slavery. Herzl wrote it all down by himself in his Dairies. And article in the Jewish Chronicle and papers. It also is all written down in the original protocols of the First Zionist Congress at Basel. The Wannsee conference was nothing more than the Zionist program in progress. All hard coded historical facts. The way it all really happened

So pleas re do your unmotivated editing on Final_Solution. Wikipedia looks like a propaganda machine now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roetschild (talkcontribs) 17:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits to OSIM page[edit]

I just noticed some messages regarding edits to the OSIM page? Why do you keep removing the clarifications to the OSIM page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthsayer20 (talkcontribs) 04:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

DeSmogBlog "Deniergate" Controversy[edit]

Dear Squiddy, Please good sir, it would be appreciated if you could kindly desist from deleting my factual additions and references from the DeSmogBlog page. Many thanks in advance in sincere anticipation of your cooperation.

Your Wikicomrade, Shambala2011 (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

thanx[edit]

Thank you to additions to The Heartland Institute relating to Climate change policy of the United States. Please see wp:Tea. 108.73.113.5 (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


Fossil Fuel Edits=[edit]

While I know that the writing was not spectacular, I believe that you are wrong to remove my references to gravity in the fossil fuel edits. The role of gravity in fuel formation is important to understanding its nature. For example both the deveopment periods and the nature of the final materials is dictated by the strength of planetary gravity. As a result "fuels" not based upon plant material are likely to exist on other large planets. Also on other planets with life the fuel development will depend on both plant life viability and planetary gravity. My research into the effects of planetary gravity, as director of applied research for Gravitational systems engineering, has led us to examine the role of gravity in many processes, including fuel development.

Thanks

Gare Henderson — Preceding unsigned comment added by GareHenderson (talkcontribs) 05:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree, I'm afraid. The previous wording using 'heavy' seems adequate. 'Heavy' implies 'weight' = product of mass and gravity. I don't think it needs to be made more explicit than that. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 06:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle[edit]

please clarify how should I "source" my editing! is it really important to give the exact timestamp where this phrase is told? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.154.203 (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It needs to have been picked up be reliable secondary sources to show its importance - that way it isn't just up to random editors to pick out bits they like. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 05:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Publication is the main activity of nowdays science. (Sorry, but I cannot give sources to this, it is quite evident. Do you really need sources to see this?) And there is not even a single word in this section about this, but only about less scientific questions. I quotet the opinion on possibility of publication because this is much more important for a scientist, than death threats!

(By the way, is it possible to move this talk to the talk of the article? I am not familiar wuith wikipedia editing -- sorry!)84.0.154.203 (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to include David North as Key Trotskyist[edit]

Could you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Trotskyism#Proposal_to_include_David_North_as_Key_Trotskyist ? Thanks! --Duncan (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Money as Debt for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Money as Debt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money as Debt (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down[edit]

Thank you for your attention to atmospheric methane. 99.119.131.38 (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that this IP is a blocked sock of a blocked IP. You're welcome to retain the edit on your talk page if you want to, but he had no right to add it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's extremely rude of you to delete a friendly comment on a user talk page that has nothing to do with you. Please do not edit my talk page again, in any way, for any reason. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary; there is no right for a blocked editor to make a comment, friendly or otherwise. I will stop editing your talk page except for required notices, reverting the actions of blocked editors, and any BLP or copyright violations that I notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)