User talk:Jkelly

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (September 2 2005 to November 7 2005)
• Archive 2 (November 7 2005 to January 8 2006)
• Archive 3 (January 10 2006 to March 10 2006)
• Archive 4 (March 11 2006 to May 1 2006)
• Archive 5 (May 2 2006 to June 23 2006)
• Archive 6 (June 23 2006 to August 5 2006)
• Archive 7 (August 5 2006 to October 31 2006)
• Archive 8 (October 31 2006 to January 30 2007)

---

Thanks

Appreciate your help cleaning up the BLP vio at Francis Pym. Could you block PyatPree (talk · contribs) too, as he's been confirmed by RFCU as a sock of an indef-blocked user? Choess 05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use (Cont'd)

Thanks for the pointers in your response. Currently, I have a written request (cc: permissions at WP dot org) of Artists Rights Society (http://www.arsny.com/) for consent. I am hoping to add Campbell's Soup Cans II to with consent. The Museum of Contemporary Arts, Chicago will send image if I get consent. The ARSNY will probably render an opinion on the 8 current image inclusions soon as well. I also may request an image from the Andy Warhol Museum depicting phase 3 if they have one once ARSNY gives me an understanding of their perspective on consent. TonyTheTiger 11:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Do you have any general opinion of the qualification of the article for FA now? TonyTheTiger 11:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding That Help

Firstly, thanks for your attention, and attempt to help orient me. I had gotten as far as reading the guildline pages you've directed me to, but as always, the difference between theory and practice is the devil's playground.

Perhaps my difficulty arises from the pre-existing defects in the Inconvenient Truth page to which you allude. After all, given that it is so self evidently try, why doesn't the article acknowledge that Gore's thesis is a hotly contested one?

In any event, perhaps we could work through what you would regard as the proper course of action for correcting the flaw that I have set about correcting. Specifically, the section I have edited is deliberately crafted to give the false impression that Gore's thesis--that man is a principle cause of observed global warming--is, if not demonstrated scientific fact, at least the only sensible presumption in view of the evidence. Clearly, that's the POV of a certain faction. My POV is that Gore's arguments sweep under the rug several serious holes in our present understanding of climatology (we needn't address motives; those are neither here nor there). Surely, the NPOV thesis is to acknowledge both positions, at least presuming that I can support my POV by specifically identifying one or more of those holes?

Or, to put it another way, I am offering a different thesis as the proper NPOV thesis. Either (1) I am self evidently correct, and the thesis statements in the article should be changed to acknowlege the contentious nature of Gore's thesis, or (2) it is incumbent upon me to support my position with citations to evidence. I chose the later path.

I am, therefore, stunned at the suggestion that it might be inappropriate for me to support my position with citations. So I infer that the real key to your statement about the "no new research" policy is the bit about how that reputable climatologist needs to be speaking specifically about Gore, rather than about the things that Gore said. To put it in abstract logical terms, I understand you to be saying that, if Gore states "P," it is a violation of the "no new research" policy for me to cite reputable climatologists saying "not P"--to conform to the policy, I have to cite reputable climatologists saying "when Gore said P he was wrong."

At this point, I rather hope you think I've misrepresented your statement. Believe me, I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse. Frankly, I'm quite confident that I can back up my position on the science--I've studied the matter since my days as a physics undergrad in the late 80s--and I'm eager to do exactly that. My goal is to do so without arguing with or changing the policies of this forum. But I have trouble believing that this is really the policy. By all means, set me strait...— Preceding unsigned comment added by QBeam (talk • contribs)

Assistance

Some person is modifying my userpage and has slapped a "personal attack" template on my talk page because he /she disagress with my position about IP editors. I do not feel that anything on my userpage constitutes a "personal attack" and feel that this template is inappropriate. Will you please intervene? - WeniWidiWiki 06:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Disregard - Apparently I am not allowed to express an opinion on my userpage. - WeniWidiWiki 07:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

East of Eden copyright infringements?

There have been some disputes regarding the article, East of Eden. You have been somewhat involved in the discussion resulting from these disputes, so you may wish to check out the situation and make some comments. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)