User talk:Irbisgreif

Re: my RfA.

Hi Irbisgreif, I wanted to take this opportunity to show my sincere gratitude in response to your support on my RfA nomination. Thanks you from the bottom of my heart - I hope we can build a friendship upon this. Kindest regards; Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk)

HappyInGeneral

Nice post to ANI re the above. I agree that he needs to have an eye kept on him. He's a Falun Gong single purpose account who has recently taken to gnoming in order to hide his true editing pattern and to shake off being called an SPA, which seems to really hurt him. Since the other known SPAs have ducked out, been blocked or otherwise know their number is up, Happy has come to the fore in Falun Gong advocacy. I am not aware of any significant positive contribution from him in the realm of Falun Gong. While I think that, in his heart of hearts, he is acting in good faith, he exists in a whole different paradigm to the rest of us that I find him irritating at best (because he hounds and pesters), and disruptive at worst. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably best not to comment here, I don't wish to get dragged back into Falun Gong issues. Thank you, however, for the support. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

New message

Hello, Irbisgreif. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Irbisgreif. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Printemps Editor in chief Faraday Salinan Defense industry Eric People Tundra Stockholm Records The Story of Louis Pasteur Decaydance Records Zebra Motor City Online Monitor Ring galaxy Irish Sign Language Sneeze Affray Moldova

Cleanup Black people Intel Corporation Y'all Merge Eight Witnesses National historic site Naked singularity Add Sources Vaginal flatulence Bureaucracy Sicco Mansholt Wikify Advanced Configuration and Power Interface Indian Health Service Patpong Expand Hawthorne Heights Cool (aesthetic) Dust Bowl

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 (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I asked for one myself. Hope I did it right. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It can take a while to show up. But it is quite handy. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Communism

Actually I came to your talk page, because just now I noticed your insight, placed here. Since there is a probability that we run into each other on pages, I think it is nice to state my view on communism. I just wish to state my view, so that we can respect each others views, I am not trying to convince you of anything.

My view on communism is that I agree with the "Nine commentaries on the Communist Party", see here: [1] and while I read it I noticed that it is truly about communism (as I live in Romania, a country with communist history), not just communism in China. Please note in my mind there is a big difference in Communism and Socialism, the latter I think it's OK, and that there people truly have the wish to help each other, and actually I'm all for that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As a libertarian and market socialist, all I can say is that my views represent a completely different view of how to establish a utopian society from that of the PRC. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I will check out libertarian and Market socialism, as I'm also interested in the topic of Utopian society. My initial search lead me to ideas presented in the Foundation series, however right now I think that the most important part is the underlying moral element. Do people want to do the right thing or not, because that can be swayed by education. For example right now I see that the difference between capitalism and socialism is the same as the difference between apple and pears, actually they are both good while they are fresh, but when they get rotten they are both bad. And I think that in a society what makes it good or rotten is the comprising elements that is people's morality. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you nominated {{Impeach}}...

... here's a similar template for your consideration and perusal: {{BrownGordon}}. Cheers! 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Irbisgreif

Sorry for being grumpy earlier on. I've checked out your contributions and you appear to be a genuine wikipedia editor and not another pseudoname for an environmentalist. But seriously, if you are genuine there's no point bashing your head against a brick wall and until there is unequivacable evidence in the form of dramatic cooling, there's not a chance in hell of getting NPOV on global warming when the same people act as judge, jury, executioner and tea lady for the "evidence". There are much better things to do and if you do get involved, all you'll end up doing is getting sucked into the catch 22, that "it's a scientific article" so "the only valid references are from the 'scientists'" and as most of those 'scientists' are represented amongst the editors of wikipedia (there may be a few missing - but you get the idea), you may as well just let them carry on as they are now. You'd have to be a fool like me even to attempt to try to balance the article given odds like that against you. All I'm hoping is that I will still be around to watch and see how long this gang manage to maintain the pretence that the temperature has not dropped when we get a serious swing downward! 88.110.76.120 (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, all you need to do is find a RS. Just find a paper in a scientific journal that talks about what you've present. In other news, please consider making an article, it gets you taken much more seriously around here. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

After a week trying to get the global warmers to accept 'any description of the hockey stick that any ordinary person would understand I realised this was not part of a normal "dispute", but was clear tactics on their part to prevent certain information getting into the article. (And at the time I accepted manmade global warming). I have since discovered that the same people write all the key papers, sit on all the key bodies, feed the journalists the same key stories which our gullible press take as "science" rather than political environmentalism. You will also notice that some people writing on climate are able to work at this as if they are in a full time job. How on earth they do this without being paid to do it I have no idea. As for the "fossil fuel funded lobby" ... don't make me laugh. If such a group exists, I've seen no sight of them in the last many years just a stream of well intentioned people with no particular political mindset who are faced with a well organised well resourced "inside job" which makes it impossible to balance the article with contrary views. Seriously, DO NOT GET INVOLVED, it is a thankless task, you will up against some very professional well funded lobby organisations. Fortuntely, I'm not adverse to a bit of higher tax on petrol heads, so whether or not the world believes this nonsense I win either way. 88.110.76.120 (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are fighting both scientific consensus. So it is only natural that your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That is the bar on wikipedia for science. Scientific papers from reputable journals. Irbisgreif (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Irbisgreif, what claims? You seem to think I'm claiming anything. I simply want the global warmers to back up their extraordinary claims with the kind of evidence that any decent scientist would expect a fellow scientist to produce. If you really want to see the kind of standards that this "science" uses have a look here [2] (and its nothing to do with me!). But the real point I would like you to take is not that there has been highly dubious practices by the kind of people we see editing wikipedia ... but that some idiot thought they could take on this crowd and has literally wasted 10 years of their life on a fruitless push for openness, honesty and basically sound science and that such people simply will never get the support they deserve. So, please don't become another martyr to honesty. And to be honest, I'm not sure I want to see the Global Warming article amended. The chance of getting anything remotely balanced is zero in the current POLITICAL climate, and in a strange way, it is better for "balance" for people to see a very obviously imbalanced article rather than give a thin veneer of respectability and thereby give some credence to their political distortion of what should be a scientific subject.(Anyway I should be working...)88.110.76.120 (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)