User talk:2over0

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2over0.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Welcome!

Hello, 2over0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Mpaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

James O'Keefe page

How does the page protection thing work? I'm not familiar with this. Is it completely impossible to make any edits whatsoever until April 14? That would seem to be rather problematic given the heinous bias of the article. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection prevents anyone from editing the page for the next week, and is outlined at WP:FULL. Basically, a great many of the edits over the last few days have been reverts of much the same material without first establishing consensus at Talk:James O'Keefe. If such a consensus is established, you can put {{editprotected}} in the relevant discussion section to attract the attention of an uninvolved admin. If you think that the article does not need to be protected at this time, you can make a request at WP:RFPP (or outline your case here - I like to think that I am amenable to reason). The software will automatically allow editing again in one week. Hopefully this will provide some breathing room while the involved editors work out a compromise at the talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, and thanks for the prompt response. It was probably reasonable to protect the page given that this is a very recent controversy. What amazes me though is just how shockingly slanted it is. There are editors on the page who are all of a sudden defending to the death the notion that Glenn Beck and his blog are now reliable sources when those same editors have in the past fiercely opposed the notion when Glenn Beck or his blog (or any such blog) oppose their point of view. On top of that, there are people throwing in random opinions - like that of Michael Gerson - as though they somehow belong in a Wikipedia page...DoctorFuManchu (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helium association with hydrocarbons

If you read the book you will see. In part, of course, ²He is a daughter from uranium, but not ³He that is primordial helium and ³He is present in hydrocarbons accumulations, indeed, of course, is a strong evidence as pointed by Dr. Thomas Gold. Geologist (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that ³He is an alpha ...

Anyway, as Orangemarlin just said - please make your case at Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin, establish consensus, and avoid edit warring. At the very least, your proposed edit needs to be reworded to avoid leaving the reader with the impression that this research is widely accepted in the petrogeological community. A secondary reliable source would go a long way to establishing due weight. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, it's been a while since we last chatted. I hope you are doing well though. :) I just wanted to know how to get filemover access? Can you grant me this right or do I have to go through some kind of special process? I'd appreciate your thoughts about this, thanks and take care of yourself, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done - try not to move the main page. The relevant policy is at that link, so you should be good to go. Pretty much the only image work I have done has been uploading a few charts to Commons and deleting copyrighted pictures of Miley Cirus, but if I might be able to help with anything just let me know. In the meantime, I will be enjoying a few pleasant hours on my front porch with a nice cool glass of iced tea until it becomes unbearably hot around 2. Danged axial tilt, always ruining my fun. And I believe the correct phrasing is: "you take care of yourself now, you hear?". :) - 2/0 (cont.) 14:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for doing this for me. I'm not sure I'll need it but I have done a few myself but I don't see any in the near future for the need for this function but I figured it's best to have it and not need it than not to have and get slowed down because I need it. :) It's too hot here to sit outside. It's been nice in the early morning though. You take care and keep in touch. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You banned me, I was just wondering if you had any clue what I was banned for/diffs of what I did wrong, cause I certainly do not know, and obviously would be unable to improve without such knowledge. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 19:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were quite a few diffs cited at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive86#Mbz1. I urge you to re-read them with an eye to understanding how an observer not familiar with your particular thoughts at time of posting might form an impression that you have focused more on ideological argumentation and point-scoring than on building an encyclopedia. Please focus on collaboratively building articles in other topic areas for the next few months at least; you may find that editing Wikipedia is more rewarding without soapboxing, trying to game the system, or treating it like a battleground. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I realize there were lots of diffs mixed into the long rants, but I am asking again and again, which diffs did you actually take seriously? Which diffs since my last block would allow for an admin to block another editor from editting? Show me them! Passionless -Talk 21:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orthomolecular medicine article

Perhaps I am guilty of not sufficiently checking through the most recent edits to the article before I made my one. If so, then I apologize. Vitaminman (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All good, sorry for jumping the gun like that. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can OrangeMarlin be warned about his aggressive behavior? Based upon his latest talk entries, he's in clear contravention of WP:CIV. Vitaminman (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much not an admin at that article, but I will check in on the discussion and see if I can lend a hand. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Fund

You protected an article that was the subject of an editwar yesterday, where Off2RioRob was editwarring against several other editors to remove information. When he reached 3 reverts he stopped and started a discussion on the talkpage. I am not sure exactly why you thought the article needed protection? ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what looked like an edit war in temporary hiatus due to sleep schedules and an RfC that had yet to attract any outside opinion. I would be happy to be proven wrong in this case, so I have asked the other editors at the talkpage whether they agree that protection is unnecessary at this time. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mail

Hello, 2over0. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tgandz's recent edits of List of indigenous peoples

Thanks for your recent intervention with Tgandz. FYI, I just reverted Tgandz's last three deletions on the List of indigenous peoples. I did not provide an edit summary as I believe, in context, they were acts of vandalism. I also left a content removal warning on Tgandz's user talk page. DieWeisseRose (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tgandz

User:Tgandz is continuing to use ethnicity's in his comments about others: "Reversing lies inserted by Arab propagandists." [1]

"the references cited by the Arabs on this page are" [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I thought there might be hope there. Please ping me again if they continue. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent arbitration decision enforcement re: Tgandz. DieWeisseRose (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2over0, you forgot to log the block here:[3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, thank you for reminding me. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban question

Hi 2over0, Today an unrelated arbitration case was closed, and an user was topic banned with clarification:"broadly but reasonably construed". I liked this language "reasonably construed". So according to the above, may I please ask for your permission to write an article about this book? It is not directly related to the conflict,but of course there would be some indirect mentions about Israel's situation in the article. If I am allowed to write this article, I will write it in my user space, and will ask you to take a look at it before it is moved to the main space. Thank you for considering my request.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "reasonably construed" is that common sense is not so common - that line of reasoning leads to editors "toeing the line" of a topic ban. Precedent at AE suggests that a clean break is preferred; getting dragged into the same old conflicts again is no fun for anyone. I have not been following the Noleander case, but my guess is that the reasoning behind including "reasonably construed" in that particular ban is that there are many people who are Jewish but have never commented on Israel or related issues and their religion or ethnicity does not form a significant part of their notability. The first sentence of the Publishers Weekly book review starts "Hampered by an Arab nation boycott that makes regional trade impossible"; reading the table of contents, it looks like Part IV deals with the conflicts. This suggests to me that this article would be too close to the topic ban, and it would be better to work offline and just upload a finished version in a few months. Any email client will let you store a draft so you do not lose your work, and you can use the Preview function here to work on formatting.

I realize that that is a deeply unsatisfying solution. I believe that there is some precedent for working on drafts in userspace as you suggest, but there is also precedent for editors using their userspace to continue fighting without technically editing the topic area, so it can be a bit dicey. I am not familiar with the book in question, though it looks like a similar premise to the Four Asian Tigers in the 1980s, Ireland in the 1990s, or India more recently. If there is a good article along those lines that only tangentially touches on the Arab-Israeli conflicts, I like your idea - this is an encyclopedia, and articles are what we want.

I am about to go offline for the evening, and I would like to consider this a bit more and perhaps get a little outside input. Please be patient with me until tomorrow. In the meantime, feel free to direct any of the other admins commenting at the ban discussion to this thread, and my helpful talkpage stalkers should feel free to chime in. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond my question!

I'd like to make some clarification please why I asked about this article. The thing is that before I was topic banned, I asked user:Ironholds to help me with the sourcing for this article, and he was kind enough to do a great and a big job in finding sources and emailing them to me. Now I feel kind of guilty towards him because he's done his work, but I have not done mine.

If I am allowed to write the article, I will avoid writing anything directly related to the conflict. After all I could start the article, and someone else could continue my work. Of course, if any info about the conflict is added to the article by someone else, I will not edit it anymore.

Having said this I would not like to put you in any jeopardy for allowing me to do something that is not allowed to other topic-banned editors. I cannot stress enough how much I am grateful to you already for your closing statement on AE request. I understand you could not have closed that AE against the consensus, but what you said in your closing statement was fair and also brave.

I assure you that whatever decision you come up with about my request will be absolutely satisfactory for me. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

thanks so much for deleting my page, dickhead. you should find something better to do with your time than destroy the work of others!