User talk:Zeeboid

My Hybrid

My Hybrid burns Gas and Rubber.

3RR

Please be aware of WP:3RR William M. Connolley 22:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that WMC engages in outright biased content deletions. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 02:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that WMC has stated before that he is unfamiliar with many of Wikipedia's policies. ~ UBeR 03:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you UBeR, for pointing out how this all goes back to WMC's Outright Biast content deletions.--Zeeboid 03:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anything for a fellow Minnesotan. ~ UBeR 04:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable

Regarding [1], there is no policy requiring that sources be generally accessible online to be necessary. Please read WP:V in detail. JoshuaZ 23:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Interview with Art Robinson, Prof of Chemestry of the Oregon Petition

Sunday 1-3pm CST on Race to the right. click here to listen online and Click Here for the Race to the Right website

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

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 00:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

DOHA, sorry!!--Zeeboid 01:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions I would like answered

The Image listed under the Global Warming section for 1995-2004 mean temperatures reads as:

Mean surface temperature anomalies during the period 1995 to 2004 with respect to the average temperatures from 1940 to 1980

1. How is it fair to compare a 40 year time span with a 9 year time span?
2. Wouldn't the average temperature be lowered using a broader range of 40 years?
3. What about the time between 1980-1995? There is no listing of temperature data here.
4. what about the recorded temperatures before 1940? The way it reads you could als make the argument for Global Warming using the following: Between the hours of 12:01am-7:00am the average temperature was 45 degrease. then from 2:00pm-3:00pm the average temperature was 96 degrease. This is proof that the earth is rapidly warming.
5. Where does the data of the Earth warming without man's intervention play into the climate models of today?
6. How did man cause the Climate Optimum?
7. If Glaciers are receding from Greenland, Who is to say its a bad thing? The Vikings, as you well know, lived on Greenland while it was Green, and prospered there for a few hundred years, only to be killed off by Global Cooling while entering the little ice age.
8. Do you have data on the average Earth Temperature throughout history (from core samples and what not) to compare it to today's temperature to see if what we are experiencing now for temp is even "normal"?--Zeeboid 17:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

UBeR is being reviewed

Zeeboid, I hope you don't mind my contacting you but it is urgent. I just got this message from UBeR, he is being attacked by William Connolley & co. and needs our help: Hello, friend. I'd like to inform you of the attacks and claims made by Raul654 to the administrator noticeboard regarding my actions. I whole heartedly believe my actions are just and warranted. Please review the current situation. Thank you. ~ UBeR 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC) We should write our views of the situation with the proof to show the degree of frustration which Uber and we all are suffering. If we cannot save Uber from this injustice, WMC and company will simply extend this witch hunt to all who do not support their POV. Thanks, -- Brittainia 00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming skeptic userbox

Based on comments you've made on the Global Warming Talk Page, I thought you might be interested in having a userbox on your user page that expresses your skepticism of anthropogenic global warming. It looks like this and will also add you to :Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming]]. If you're interested, put the following on your user page:

{{User:Oren0/GWSkeptic}}

Feel free to tell your friends. Thanks! Oren0 22:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

St. Cloud

One of your userboxes say you are a broadcaster. Are you a broadcaster for Race to the Right, by any chance, along with Tony? If so, are you in the St. Cloud area at all? ~ UBeR 23:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, however I do not live in the St. Cloud area. --Zeeboid 15:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Award

File:Resilient-silver.png		The Resilient Barnstar
		For always seeking balance in the face of systematic attempts to thwart your efforts, you are hereby awarded the Resilient Barnstar. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Please see WP:CIVIL and don't make edits like this [2] William M. Connolley 19:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Whats not Civial about that edit? Even if it was not cival, which it is... You are the LAST person to be talking to anyone about Civality.--Zeeboid 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Valour

The Barnstar of Valour In recognition of your defence of NPOV and fairness. When one man stands tall, the backbones of all others are stiffened. Remember you are not alone in believing Wikipedia should be free of censors and bias. Good luck & many thanks. -- Brittainia 03:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to the Apple, Inc. Talk page

Please be careful not to overwrite or delete others' comments as you recently did on the Apple, Inc. Talk page. I'm sure it was accident but please be more careful in the future. Happy editing! --ElKevbo 23:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoopsiedoodle--Zeeboid 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguing against the notion of anthropogenic global warming makes you a conspiracy theorist?

According to this article you are. Vote to delete this nonsense here. Quite obviously the article violates notability (a few journalist may have classified it as such), NPOV, verifiability (few sources actually concurring with the article), and POV forking. If you wish to disregard those who disagree with you, fine. Labeling them as conspiracy theorists is nonsense. ~ UBeR 05:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

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 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

JC

WMC, I did not rev a copy violation, I reverted your removal of something that is under discussion, -you are correct. My apologies. and you are POV Pushing - no William M. Connolley 17:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies accepted, but I am not the Environmental Activist editing to mantain my views on environmental sites remember. I am just an Electronic Medical Record Training Consultant who's outside views when it comes to this stuff are far less Bias. Its quite odd how everything that is submitted that could detur from the GW Cause is rejected by you and your group, yet things that support you and your group's cause are taken in and defended. As an Environmental Activist, and someone that makes money out of Environmentalism (Climate modeler) you can understand your own Bias when you see it? Perhaps not.--Zeeboid 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Global warming mediation

Hi Zeeboid. I am writing to you because you recently voted for option 2 in the "straw poll" at Global warming. We are currently pursuing a mediation request related to this exact topic. We could use some input from some concerned people like you. Please feel free to visit the page, and to post some comments and support for our side. You can visit the request at this location: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-25_Global_warming. Thanks for your help. --Sm8900 20:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

Just a heads up here that I replied on my Talk page. Thanks again.RonCram 12:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer

Hi Zeeboid. I don't know if it slipped by unnoticed. Do you plan to answer this question? --Stephan Schulz 19:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap...If I posted on y'alls User page for every unanswered question, unexplained rv or insufficient reference to a nebulous guidelines I would be posting on y'alls User pages 30 hours a day, 10 days a week, 60 weeks a year to MAYBE keep up. Besides, I took the use of "some" as intended to prevent the description of a problem, while accurate, from tarnishing the impecible reputations of one or more editors and/or admins; however, the issue itself needs to be brought out and discussed. Leaving the identity out prevents those who are incapable of keeping the focus on the topic at hand from trying to shift focus to others. Kind of helps minimize the 'kill the messenger' M.O. that some editors and/or users have to "defend" (or deflect) each other.

Zeeboid, correct me if I'm wrong on the "some" usage. -- Tony 19:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Tony, I'd say thats pretty accurate. And Stephan... I am using the timeline to answer questions used by this question here[3] that went unanswered.--Zeeboid 20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, I did answer that one, so feel free to go on. --Stephan Schulz 21:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

William, whats up with your deletion of the opposition?

User:William M. Connolley here is Removing posts that he doesn't agree with in talk page of Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change

listed are the questions in context, and the diffs.

It's not, since there was no such consensus. --Nethgirb 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you list for me, Nethgrib, any Science that had a "Scientific Consensus" before this "Global Warming" thing?--Zeeboid 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Taken Away[4]

Added Back[5]

So, it is acceptable to delete other's comments on the talk page without any discussion or explanation? I'm learning more about the Wikipedia culture everyday. -- Tony 21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Both lines taken away[6]

Added Back Again[7]

+ ::::::::It would appear William realy does not this question asked, after removing it twice from this page. Could you please cite for us the WIki policy you are refrencing? Also Could you answer it for us, William, you know... from your neutral point of view? Could you list for me, William, any Science that had a "Scientific Consensus" before this "Global Warming" thing?--Zeeboid 21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And taken away once again[8]

So User:William M. Connolley, whats up here?

1 week block

This account has been blocked from editing for WP:SOCK and WP:POINT as explained here. Durova^Charge! 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain what part of those rules we have broken?--Zeeboid 17:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You banned Tony and I for WP:SOCK here[9] and I need to know a few things.

1. I am looking to find out form you what the accaptable amout of time for two people who know eachother is to vote on the same topic as I can not find a polocy that voting within 5mn of each other violates. I don't want to break policy in the future, and not to break policy in the future, I need to know spicifically what I violated. What specifically warranted the block? you listed the polocy, but didn't go into it any more then we admited to know eachother. I just want to understand better here, as from what I understand from the info listed, we were banned from voting within 5mn of eachother.
2. Also You claim to have given us time to defend ourselves. How much time...where was the 'here's the charge' diff and how much time until you blocked us?

I just want to understand EXACTLY what you blocked us for. If it was for voting within 5mn of eachother, then how long is needed for two people who know eachother to vote on a topic, and where is the policy that lists this? It is not clear when there are different reasons given in different locations by you.

Article mediation

Hi Zeeboid. I just took a stand for your idea about a "criticism" section, at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-25_Global_warming#The_real_issue. Hope you can look at it when you get a chance. See you. --Sm8900 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zeeboid! Just wanted to thank you for backing me up a while back at the Global Warming talk page a few days ago. It's nice for a person when their efforts get noticed, especially since I was specifically trying to be positive to everyone there, not just those in agreement with me. So I really appreciated you backing up my efforts to try to promote some inclusiveness. So thanks. BTW, it does seem like things have improved steadily there recently. I feel this is due to the efforts of everyone. So thanks a lot. Please feel free to email or write anytime. See you. --Sm8900 00:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note

There's a thread about you and User:Mnyakko at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_WP:POINT_and_WP:HARASS_blocks. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Apple, Inc.

A request for mediation for a dispute regarding Apple, Inc. has been posted on Mediation Cabal. You can see the full listing at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Apple Inc.. You have been listed as an involved party to the issue. I am offering my time and services to assist with this issue. Please let me know if you are willing to accept my offer for mediation, I have posted a notice on Talk:Apple Inc., please reply there. Thank you! Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Skeptic category up for deletion

Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming is up for deletion. If you would like to comment on this, feel free to do so here. Oren0 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)