This user may have left Wikipedia. Isonomia has not edited Wikipedia since 10 December 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Do you think you could more correctly marks the parts copied from Domestic Annals or rewrite the whole thing. You've just cut and pasted chunks from the book. It reads like it was written in 1850! --Trieste12:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, I appreciate the work you have done against enormous odds. The way William M. Connolley and his crew of censors work is infuriating. You are absolutely correct that they completely disregard NPOV as we can clearly read above. I have also had a great deal of work and effort destroyed arbitrarily by this group trying to chase ANY dissenting contributors out of the GW debate. As an example they will not even allow the simple fact: "However, there remain respected scientists who hold differing opinions." Here is the history of what they did when I tried to keep that tiny mention of other views in the GW article:
17:10, 21 February 2007 Vsmith (Talk | contribs) (if "repected scientists disagree" - provide valid source)
(cur) (last) 17:05, 21 February 2007 Rameses (Talk | contribs) (←Undid revision 109846090 by BozMo (talk) You cannot censor the simple fact that some scientists hold other views)
(cur) (last) 17:00, 21 February 2007 BozMo (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Brittainia (talk) to last version by Hu12)
(cur) (last) 16:48, 21 February 2007 Brittainia (Talk | contribs) (NPOV - still worth mentioning there are scientists with other views)
Their actions are equivalent to the burning of books in Germany and other totalitarian states. However we cannot give up, we must continue to fight for a NPOV in Wikipedia. The only alternative would be to give up using Wikipedia altogether. Good luck and thanks for your hard work - it truly is appreciated by us older Wikipedians. Rameses17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rameses - Some people are their own worst enemy. It's very easy to see when an argument is being skewed and contrary views squashed - the public aren't stupid, and this is probably why there is so much skeptism about global warming. All they are achieving is to ensure that people won't believe what they are being told. Far from convincing people, this type of behaviour does the opposite and taints those sensible people who do agree with the science with the aspect of a "bunch of religious nutters". I'm beginning to wonder whether some of them may not be working for an oil company with the sole purpose of bringing the whole global warming consensus into disrepute. Mike17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied this to my wiki.racetotheright.com/GW_Bias evidence gathering location. -- Tony of Race to the Right 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Now Raymond Arritt and William M Connolley are trying to eradicate the Solar system warming article. I am sick and tired of this continuing censorship. If you agree with me, go and vote to save this article. Thanks, ~ Rameses04:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rameses, thanks for pointing that out. I'm really saddened by the whole atmosphere around the global warming articles. Far from being the "anti-" lobby as I had originally assumed, in fact the pro- lobby are clearly breaking the spirit of Wikipedia and attacking every article with which they disagree. These people are the modern equivalent of the catholic inquisition. Mike09:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should have caught it before it passed the speedy deletion deadline
Here is evidence of more people who are willing to delete articles to stop people reading and deciding for themselves - from User talk:Michaelbusch:=I think you'll enjoy this one=
Solar system warming Someguy1221 04:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Pretty bad. Someone should have caught it before it passed the speedy deletion deadline. Michaelbusch 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Mike,
I just got this message from Uber, he 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, -- Brittainia00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brittainia, I really do sympathise with you. I have seen perfectly reasonable changes simply wiped by this bunch of thugs. This fiasco has not only altered my whole perception of the risks of global warming, it has altered my perception of the neutrality of Wikipedia. When you have one side with professional lobbyists spending all day everyday changing articles to suit their case and on the other side a few odd-balls who not only don't have the time but don't have the experience to fight these professional lobbyists, it is a completely uneven fight and the result is so obviously biased it is a joke. I'm sorry I can't do more to help, I reached the conclusion there is no point trying to be a neutral editor on the articles because the "gang" just come along and ignoring everyone else change it back to their own POV.
Paradoxically if you are "anti-" you might do better to let the "pro-" camp get on with it without opposition, because the more POV the article the less likely anyone is to believe it. However, I'm really pissed off with them, because I (used to) think that global warming was an important issue and I know we aren't doing nearly enough to stop it - and all they are doing is making more people sceptical - including me - in fact I ought to thank Mr Connolley because by his actions he has done me a favour - he has convinced me it is a much less important issue than I once thought, a few degrees of warming isn't going to hurt many and it will actually do a lot of good, so what's the point arguing about it! There are much more important issues! Mike11:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Final Proof of conspiracy - Raul654 filed complaint just to "get this monkey off WMC's back"
The following is from my recent post, please go to the Admin noticeboard and post your views on this now exposed conspiracy by a group of Administrators. It is at:[1] -- Brittainia05:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654, this post [2] that you made just after UBeR filed a checkuser against William M. Connolley, clearly shows that this entire complaint against UBeR was orchestrated just to "get this monkey off WMC's back". The next step should be to stop this intentional diversionary complaint against UBeR and investigate your activities instead. Your entire group [3], [4], orchestrating these illicit activities should be thoroughly investigated by all those who have wasted a lot of their valuable time on your "getting this monkey off WMC's back". It is now clear that you yourself are guilty of most of the accusations which you have levelled at UBeR above, I believe that you and your co-conspirators should be permanently banned from editing global warming articles in order to stop the kind of bias, frustration and witch hunts which you are causing by your devious tactics. Everyone should know that this group are currently being investigated and exposed by a radio show for their hijacking of global warming articles as this group already knows [5] - thus they are bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. -- Brittainia06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at this Talk page, especially the part on "pseudoscience" and William's reverts. The POV of certain editors is preventing them from objectively dealing with the facts. The concepts involved are not difficult but they do take a little investment of time to understand. You may need to spend some time in the Pseudoscience article to be fully comfortable. I hope you are able to find the time to help out. Thanks! RonCram15:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, not all Tiscali customers are as diligent or helpful as yourself -- at least one is a very persistent troll, repeatedly vandalizing, threatening and harassing a few members of the community. They've been at it for quite some time, even registering a few sleeper accounts to circumvent semi-protection and engage in pagemove vandalism. The hope is that they'll eventually get bored and move on. Or that Tiscali will one day respond to abuse reports. On the one hand, yes, being blocked sucks -- you did log in easily enough, though, and the block was for three days (I'll probably lift it by then). I apologize for the inconvenience; if you or anybody you know is unable to edit because they don't have an account, get in touch with me (whether by email or at the unblock-en-l mailing list) and I'll be more than happy to register an account on their behalf. – Luna Santin (talk)18:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Need for simpler Wikipedia Articles on Global "Warming"
I run a local village web site and would like to summarise the global warming issue. Unfortunately, this article is so long and so convoluted that it really isn't much help as a starting point. Would it not be an idea to create 1 or 2 simpler wikipedia articles aimed at explaining to the average Scottish reader (without a degree in climate science) of a small village like ours, the essential arguments pro and anti global warming?
Clearly I can't promise an/some article(s) in Wikipedia as that will be highly fraught with problems, so to convince people to help, I should say that as our village site is always looking for interesting articles, so no contribution need go to waste. If anyone would like to help work on these prototype wikipedia articles please put comments on my discussion page or just add the essentials to the above pages. Bugsy12:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've been working on the Global Warming page myself trying to get some new research in. The monitors there are making it a pain. I've been digging deep and have found articles that date back to the 70's talking about what they predicted what going to happen, like the fact everyone was going to start saying that Global Warming exists. You have to understand that I am strictly anti Global Warming, but right now I would like at least to have information put on the page that shows more than one side. I know that they will respond with "put it on the global warming controversy" line, but after reading that page briefly it's as if they are discussing more what global warming is going to do to the environment. Not if it actually exists. Let me know what you think, and what are the articles that you would like to put in yourself. Infonation101 (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Infonation101, nice to hear from you. May I quote a comment I once saw: "you don't understand the nature of the article, It isn't meant to be unbiased, it is meant to be a propaganda leaflet for the eco-fascists." It isn't worth the fight, anyone reading the article will know that it doesn't fairly represent all views, so why go through all the hassle of trying to add material that simply gets deleted? I suggest you just accept it is a pro-warming article and if you want to help make it more pro-warming then whether you are actually pro or anti, you can improve the article by adding more such material, but if you want to add anti-warming bits then don't bother. Bugsy (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:HadCRUT3-temp-record-alternate.svgBasic recreation Infonation101, there is no such thing as opinion in science. There is science based on evidence and testability, and then there is politics based on opinion. The problem for editors of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia doesn't pretend to be scientific, it is almost solely based on opinion. This obviously allows certain people to propagate published "opinion" as fact, and unfortunately scientists don't spend a lot of time debunking such junk science because in the science community the rule is that science backs the sceptic, and it is up to those who assert something to prove it, and not up to those who are sceptical to prove the negative.
Whilst this has the benefit of allowing many subjects to be covered that would not otherwise be covered in a traditional encyclopaedia, it does allow those will a political agenda to publish their pseudo-scientific nonsense as "fact", purely on the basis that no decent scientist has taken the time to debunk it (which is actually an order of magnitude more difficult a task than asserting it anyway so why should they bother?).
Basic recreationFortunately, we are now getting to the stage where real evidence is becoming a fly in the ointment. Remember global temperature is the phallus of the eco-fascist. They use its huge size and prominent erection to stuff all kinds of rubbish down our throats. Well, now the phallus is broke, their proud symbol of manhood is beginning to look a lot less like a rocket and more like shrunken turkey giblets fit for the dog. But don't go over the top trying to "correct the article", remember Global warming was only the millennium bug on viagra, in the story of man's history I doubt it will receive even a few lines, so it is best not to get too het up about it! Bugsy (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good data in that last graph, but as so many would say, "It's not a trend. It would have to happen for at least 30 years before it holds any type of scientific validity." My biggest concern is that by converting students to this idea will help big government intrude into our lives. Interesting about the eco-fascism you spoke of. I've been doing research on the history of Political Correctness and truly modern environmentalism is completely based on Cultural Marxism. It's a way by which we can be controlled, "For the better good." So in the end you could say that it's not because I'm an anti global warmist. I just worry about what is going to be taken away from us because of it. Infonation101 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm writing a very concise commentary on wikipedia and praising the way wikipedia insist articles are based on fact rather than personal opinion and I'm looking for a "wiki" way to say this.
I want to say something like "if we want to make progress, we should be more like wikipedia and kick any WIKI-ZEALOTs out of the discussion", but I'm sure this isn't the proper term and would like to know if there is a better phrase.
What I'm trying to say is that if some will not work toward a consensus then they should be removed rather than allowed to stop others making progress, and I'm using wikipedia as an analogy!
Why doesn't the article menton peak oil? It doesn't mention peak oil because every single time I inserted a short section on peak oil or even a link it was removed in stark contradiction to Wikipedia policy. But because this article (at least at that time) was heavily policed by the pro-warming lobbyists, I ended up getting banned simply for trying to insist on wikipedia policy by one Billy Connolly who is hardly an unbiased judge. The only good thing that came of that episode was that it forced me to actually look at the evidence I had taken for granted and I can now thank Billy for the realisation that global warming is a theory based on almost no evidence worth speaking of and that there are much better explanations such as sun-spot activity and its affect on ionising radiation and hence to cloud cover. Whilst I was pretty livid at the time that Wikipedia could allow this vile mobbing by this evil group who edited the page it did at least have a positive effect and I now realise global warming isn't a problem, But even so I wouldn't recommend trying to mention peak oil because it fundamentally drives a coach and horse through the theory of global warming through CO2 - if CO2 is naturally limited by the availablity of oil - and many here would look pretty stupid if the problem was not too much oil to burn but too little! 88.111.89.46 (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Some of your recent posts on Talk:Global warming are straining the boundaries of the talk page guidelines. The article talk page isn't a forum for general argumentation, debate, name-calling, etc on the subject of global warming. Especially on a subject like warming, there is a lot of noise and very little signal to begin with. Please don't make that problem worse. Since Wikipedia functions by consensus, you're going to need to convince at least some other editors that your proposals make the article better, more policy-compliant, etc. If a set of arguments have been rejected, then reposting them with a bit of added sarcasm 10 minutes later is unlikely to convince anyone. Also, you have several draft versions of global-warming-related articles in your userspace - these need to be tagged with {{userpage}} to make clear that they are not encyclopedia articles, and should not be in any categories. I'll take care of this for you. MastCellTalk17:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MastCell, thanks for the comments, I very much appreciate them. However I will however continue to press for a clear decision/consensus as to when it will be possible to consider that global warming has stopped. And forgive me if I am cynical because I suspect the real answer of many of those who edit the article is "never" and unless I am very much mistaken that is not a wiki policy that you can quote to me. In particular, when the temperatures cool, I don't want to have a pathetic fight over which figures to use, or which timescale is appropriate, I want clear guidelines, and if it upsets some of those who have been quoting policy in order to create a POV article I don't have any problem with that.Bugsy (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should consider the policy-based arguments put forth on the talk page in response to your proposal, including those from editors who tend to be more "skeptical". The bottom line, as always, is that Wikipedia will reflect what reliable secondary sources and expert opinion have to say on a subject. When expert opinion holds that global warming has "stopped", Wikipedia will reflect that, in proportion to the number and weight of experts who express such views. MastCellTalk19:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pity I don't have the time to challenge your assertion that wikipedia doesn't care about scientific fact and only reports political opinion. Unfortunately, I've got some important work, but I'll be back! Bugsy (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're describing is a strawman argument which I did not advance. Although it is pleasing to be accused of both excess scientism (elsewhere) and a belief that "Wikipedia doesn't care about scientific fact" (here) - I must be doing something right. :) MastCellTalk17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over the next few months I'll be compiling a lot of information. After going through every possible WP policy, when I return it will be interesting to see what they dispute. I do have to say that this research will not be to "debunk" the global warming theory, but introduce a lot of information that is being ignored. I'm trying to gather the support of other WP users that would like to see more information presented on the page, and also I'm interested in seeing any research that you have been able to dig up. One question, what program did you use to create the graph you posted on the talk page of global warming? Infonation101 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:LordsReform/New, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LordsReform/New and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:LordsReform/New during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RichardΩ612Ɣɸ 15:36, May 26, 2008 (UTC)
User:LordsReform/New, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LordsReform/New and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:LordsReform/New during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RichardΩ612Ɣɸ 15:36, May 26, 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I am so late to congratulate you on your excellent article Global Warming Scam. I too started out being concerned about Global Warming, but after researching the science realized there is no scientific proof that increasing CO2 causes increasing global temperatures. You are correct to characterize the Global Warming Zealots as being very much like the narrow minded "born again Christians" and that the pro-GW lobby are "a highly organised, ruthlessly efficient well-oiled publicity machine that was railroading their ideas based on only the flimsiest of evidence." As someone who also studied Physics as my first university degree, I am glad to see that there remain scientists out there who want to check the real science and are willing to stand up to the "GW Denier" witch hunts against top scientists which are currently underway (see: Lindzen, Richard S. (April 12, 2006). "Climate of Fear" [6]). The only way to stop a witch hunt is for good people to stand up and denounce it in ever increasing numbers. To this end you have done your part and deserve to be congratulated. I am particularly proud that you are one of a handful of the "All Seeing Eye" recipients (in fact you were the second Wikipedia Editor to receive this Award after UBeR.) Please feel free to Award the "All Seeing Eye" to other deserving editors (just post the name on my talk page so that I can keep a list of all the Awardees) "When one man stands up to injustice the spines of all others are stiffened." ~~ Rameses (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiPropaganda - WMC & his GW POV Censors are Finally Exposed on CBS
At last the world is coming to know of the WikiPropaganda which we have been fighting for years. See: [7]. This article from the CBS News website exposes the control over all global warming related articles by William Connolley and other censors including Kim Dabelstein Petersen. ~~ Rameses (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the "Wikipropaganda" article, I have come to the belief that it is time to unite the "Order of The All Seeing Eye." The aim would be to unite all editors and Administrators who wish to create a truly NPOV Wikipedia to more effectively resist and remove POV pushing and censorship on Wikipedia. The alternative is to let Wikipedia continue on its current course of becoming discredited as a propaganda tool in the hands of zealous censors. Let me know your thoughts on this? ~~ Rameses (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any useful content in the article history. Your best bet is to go ahead and make a proper article, being sure to cite good sources. Friday(talk)14:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but there is nothing there! But I think events have overtaken my request. Given the publicity a lot of people who know a lot more than me are going to demand they can start editing the articles on Georgina Baillie and, by association, the Satan Sluts - afterall I just wanted to read them not create them Bugsy (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:User:Isonomia/Georgina Baillie|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst this was speedily deleted by another admin I have since restored it as I don't consider it to be an attack page since it appears to be properly sourced and the development of articles outside of the mainspace is perfectly acceptable. Adambro (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Adambro - must admit I didn't read the article before I posted a version ready for editing. But having read the article I fail to see anything in the original that in any way is a personal attack. Obviously if there is anything I will be more than willing to see it changed. But to be honest I'm getting a very strong fealing that some people do not like this girl and intend to do whatever they can to prevent an article. Bugsy (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the hasty deletion. Sometimes we delete first and don't ask questions when there's a BLP question. I should have engaged in discussion first. The article looks better now, too. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it Hlohcierekim ... I've just been researching her "career" and except for the fact I know she's not going to give up this chance to become (I'm reading old articles) famous I wouldn't see any point in trying to start the article. It is actually quite amusing to see just how ordinary she is!! Bugsy (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I restored Kim's comments. We might do this if it were a personal attack, and we might put it under a {{hat}} if it we're irrelevant, but there's no cause to refactor here. If you like, you can remove them altogether, but altering the words creates the incorrect impression that Kim posted what you wrote. Cool HandLuke01:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke, I do not suffer fools gladly, particularly when they are not working toward the cardinal requirement of wikipedia: NPOV. But I will assume good faith on your part. To be honest, I'd quite like someone to ban me just at the moment, because I've no intention of helping to edit wikipedia as long as there are articles like global warming which are so blatantly one-sided and run by a gang of internet thugs who ban anyone who disagrees with them. And that is not a personal attack, it is an attack on the failure of wikipedia to enforce NPOV.
umpa-lumpa: a short bronze colored person with green hair possibly desendents of leprecons who knows a lot about the rights and wrong of a candy factory and are taught to spontainiosly break out with a funky fresh beat about those rights and wrongs. Bugsy (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made some comment that I would rather not edit wikipedia than watch a bunch of people using strong arm tactics to prevent NPOV and the prime candidate who has repeatedly used these strong arm tactics comes to my talk pages and totally misconstrues my comments and blocks me.
Now I believe this was as a direct consequence of my recent edit reverting his change on an article whereby he had deprecated well supported facts about soot causing global cooling (its in the article on global dimming) and changed the tone and meaning of the paragraph to suggest (without much evidence) that soot caused global warming.
This is precisely the kind of thuggish behaviour that turned me off editing wikipedia and this Billy Connolly is always in the thick of it and I have seen so many people disgruntled with his behaviour that it really is unbelievable that he was not struck of years ago for his failure to abide by the spirit and rules of wikipedia.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
It was very clear my comments were that I did not wish to edit wikipedia so long as there was not civil behaviour, and I think he just underlines my point. Bugsy (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll talk to the blocking admin about this. If we take his block summary at face value, I would say it's clear you don't want to be blocked now and would lift it. But I suspect this is more a case of an inadvisably flippant block summary. Mangojuicetalk16:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user requested a block. As far as I can see, the conditions for that request, as far as the user is concerned, are still fulfilled, and so the user must obviously still wish to be blocked. How to reconcile that with the users unblock request I leave to anyone else who is interested William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"so the user must obviously still wish to be blocked" well, no. He is obviously entitled to change his mind. I am taking the unblock request as a clear change of mind and unblocking, even though the unblock request is badly done and is a personal attack. --BozMotalk20:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This edit was pure soapboxing. Please review and follow WP:SOAP in the future. It makes no suggestions to improve the article, but is merely you using the article talk page to engage in chat about some senator saying something. If this behavior continues, I will ask that you be prevented from further disrupting talk pages. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, why do you have to start a new section on something that has been talked about multiple times before on this talk page, and then begin it with something that will immediately be called soapboxing? Are you expecting to get somewhere this way?
I can see which way the wind blows, and I reconginise that many will not like "Climategate", but when I sat down to read the latest news, I quickly realised that every article on the subject was using "climategate" as the name whether the media was pro or anti warming - it is simply a fact now, a fact which like many other things on the climate (like the current cooling) only wikipedia fails to mention. The evidence for the use of this name is overwhelming, it is rapidly increasing, and why on earth shouldn't I highlight the clear breach of the rules in the attempts by certain editors to yet again hide information that doesn't fit their POV push on the climate? (But I forgot, the rules are only there to protect the "in" crowd of POV pushers - aren't they!!!!) Isonomia (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to get anything changed on that article you're going to have to work towards consensus, and present your point in a way that doesn't drive the consensus away from you. Ignignot (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignignot, can't you understand that if people don't find the article by the name they know has been given to the event, then not only won't they believe the article - which makes all the hot air on the subject a waste of time by both sides - but they won't believe anything else they read in wikipedia. Wikipedia is loosing editors in the droves, the standard of articles is getting worse and worse as only a few POV pushers are left - so tell me why I should waste my time trying to edit this wiki - I want to edit something with some intellectual credibility not some PC mantra on the latest enviromental fad! Isonomia (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hipocrite, having seen all the other "skeptics" go through the same process, I was wondering when it would be my turn. I've no hard feelings, you're just doing your job, and to be honest, the present climate articles are so POV that I'd prefer to leave them as they are ... to be honest in their present state they do far more to show the distortion of the debate than anything I would ever be allowed to add to Climategate ... admittedly second best to telling the public the truth, and it kind of detrats from my other contributions to see Wikipedia going downhill so far, but the truth will out even under the worst censorship! Isonomia (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm expecting to get banned in the next few months, so I thought I would tidy up my affairs so to speak and remove any odd articles on my user pages. But, it is so long since I last edited that I have forgotten how to do it! Please help!Isonomia (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have assumed good faith for many years - I'm sick to the back teeth of these fraudlent lobbyists smothering wikipedia with their lies. Thank god it now looks like this whole case is going to get the independent review: in court! Now if you think I'm being polemic, about people who are being actively investigated for fraud, do say so! Isonomia (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about your statements directed toward scientists, lobbyists and their ilk. My concern is that you have failed to assume good faith with respect to your fellow Wikipedians. Your user page basically insults good faith editors who you happen to disagree with, and that is against Wikipedia's guidelines for what is not acceptable. Please consider changing your language, or be prepared for the MfD. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have assumed good faith. I am assumed good faith for too long so that they have abused wikipedia, and ruined its reputation as a neutral website - I am not attacking any individual, I am making a genuine comment about the failure of the systems in wikipedia and that is perfectly acceptable for a home page. So, I've basically no idea what on earth your complaint relates to, it's completely unfounded - in short it is just a personal attack with no foundation. So why are you attacking me? It's you that is not assuming good faith - you will not accept that there may be genuine problems which a well intentioned editor is trying to highlight. Your attack is clearly an assumptuion of bad faith from the very start! Did you even ask: what's the problem? That is what someone assuming good faith would do. No you came in like an attack dog. Why aren't you assuming good faith? Why are you making generalised accusations without any specific evidence? What is your complaint? What do you want me to do about it?
You assume good faith and tell me how to write that front page so it gives the same message without lying as to the serious abuse going on in Wikipedia. Isonomia (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am given to understand that your response to this request is going to be more insults toward Wikipedians (as I read your comment above), I will proceed with the MfD. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Hide the decline" refers to a decline in temperatures predicted by tree ring proxies that are contradicted by actual thermometer measurements. Thus, your charges are ignorant and nonsensical. -- 98.108.199.134 (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Isonomia, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Isonomia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Isonomia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You just accidentally posted the same lengthy comment to two different threads over there. I am not sure which thread you meant it to be in, but could you remove the other one please? - 2/0 (cont.) 11:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be attempting to (ab)use AfD either to force a change in the article's title, for which you know well there is no consensus, or to force the deletion of a well-sourced article because you don't like the content. This is a blatant abuse of AfD - if you have problems with the content or title of an article, you should be discussing it on the talk page. It is also disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which the current climate change probation strictly prohibits. If you drop this now it will not go any further, but if you attempt to refile your AfD I will request sanctions against you for disruptive behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted the mess up on the AFD page, and ChrisO above has removed the template from the article. Here at Wikipedia we have a policy of assuming good faith, I am sorry you had to see this. He is partially right though it does look like abuse. I will keep monitoring this page and a few others related. If you want to take the AFD down, please let me know as soon as possible. Let me know if you need anything. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\15:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I need some help. Whatever the content, there remains in Wikipedia an article titled: "Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident" I have put a request for deletion based on the fact that in all the time I have been following this event, I have yet to see any evidence of a hacking incident except the say so of the University. The University in their latest press release have stopped referring to it as a hacking incident, so even this slight evidence is now unsupported.
I would like to follow procedure: the article name as listed refers to an event for which there is no evidence it happened. There was no hack, there is no article, and so I see no reason at all why these other editors should abuse procedure and remove this request for delete. Isonomia (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ALL THIS JUST SHOWS THE CORRUPTION IN WIKIPEDIA THAT WE CAN'T EVEN DISCUSS DELETING AN ARTICLE WHICH SAYS IT IS ABOUT AN INCIDENT WHICH THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE HAPPENED.
Isonomia appears to believe that the title of the article is an implicit assertion by Wikipedia that a crime occurred, in spite of the fact that there is some question about the facts. While I do not support the use of AfD to make that point,nor do I even agree with the point, it to be debated in a civil manner. I don't think an editor, especially an admin, should be urging him/her to leave. --SPhilbrickT16:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.
ChrisO, am I being paranoiac or are you undertaking some kind of campaign against me? What exactly are you referring to this time? Isonomia (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The climate change article probation requires editors to be notified prior to any enforcement action. This isn't an indication that I will be filing an enforcement action, but it does put you on notice that future disruptive conduct is likely to attract an enforcement request. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And for clarificiation, AFAIK everyone regularly editing climate change related articles is usually notified by someone. I personally was notified on the 13th January (NZDT). So if you still think the notification in someway reflects negatively on you (which is clearly doesn't and wasn't intended to), consider that you've only been notified over 2 weeks later Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting this here because it explains why I am totally convinced that there must be a discussion on the article named: Climatic research hacking incident.
Dear MWOAP, thanks for the comments. My request for deletion is for the article named Climatic Research Hacking Incident is on the basis that there is no evidence of a hacking incident and that the University itself is not now talking about a hacking incident.
My request for deletion does not cover the various other events in various other institutes which have been put together under an umrella of climate .... gates.
1. glacier gate (IPCC)
2. climategate (UEA and others)
3. Darwin fiddling of the temperature data (Australian unit)
These may or may not warrant individual or collective articles - that is quite rightly a separate article(s), but whatever the decision there, there is no question that the specific incident being referred to by the title: "Climatic Research Hacking Incident" is not supported by evidence.
To be brutally honest, I don't really know whether we are talking a simple rename, or perhaps several other articles, or what, I'd rather not get involved in some petty politics. What does concern me, however, there is some individual(s) out there who Wikipedia are wrongly suggesting is a criminal and I don't think that is acceptable and for people to abuse procedure to prevent a request for deletion is just criminal in the literal sense (isn't prejudicing a trial criminal?) Isonomia (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I am totally convinced that Wikipedia is potentially breaking UK trial law and prejudicing a potential trial of an individual (You never know it might be me - JOKE!). I know there are people with strong views, but this is not a request to change an article name it is about removing any suggestion that Wikipedia supports the view that someone hacked the UEA. Obviously the effect of removing this article on hacking, is that there is likely to one or more other articles, but I TAKE THE ARTICLE AS IT IS NAMED AND HAVE REQUESTED THAT SUCH AN ARTICLE BY THAT NAME IS REMOVED BECAUSE IT IS POTENTIALLY ILLEGAL. Isonomia (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off2riorob, that won't solve anything & Will get you blocked. I am sorry, but this is one of the only times I am going to say this, but I am not getting involved in this incident. It has been taken up at ANI. I have too much on my back to deal with this now, and I don't want to say anything because I am not taking sides. Sorry, but this is where I am stepping out. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\16:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off2riorob, I think the discussion needs to take place about having an article on the "hacking incident". Potentially, there is a risk that Wikipedia is suggesting a criminal intent which would be highly prejudicial if as is suggested the individual were to be an insider who leaked information. I don't know whether that justifies a speedy delete, because this allegation was prevalent early on. I think because I have relatives who deal a lot with FOI I could imagine them being in this position - releasing data which was trying to be hidden, and Wikipedia is not being fair to them! (if that is what happenned) Isonomia (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the confusion now - Isonomia is asking for the article, not the AfD, to be deleted or blanked. Sorry if that wasn't clear at the outset. MWOAP's warning above relates to the (mistaken) impression that you were proposing to blank the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ec, right thanks, :There is nothing at ANI at all and bolding claims that I will be blocked for some small issue is hilarious, where is it at ANI then? Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
APOLOGIES sorry my last comments were removed, I still think we need to remove the article, I hope someone else can sort it out .... the bus is leaving Isonomia (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off2riorob, please see my comment immediately above - it's a misunderstanding. The ref to ANI is to a previous discussion about Isonomia, not yourself. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks I just about have it now, the messy AFD need blanking and speedy delete, and then insomnia needs to understand that this article is fine and will snow close an AFD if they request it, so can I do the housework now? Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, as you can see as a test page, what we need is more easy discussion and starting with fresh eyes, ultimately we are all wikipedia editors worthy of respect, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed User:Isonomia/Georgina Baillie linked to from your user page and in particular, noticed it concerned a WP:BLP yet had not been edited for over a year. Do you plan to complete this into an article and move it to mainspace anytime soon? If not, may I suggest you request a speedy deletion as the creator and only substanial editor? Because if you don't and have no intentions of finishing it and moving to mainspace any time soon I plan to list it as WP:MFDNil Einne (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nil Einne, I saved the original to see whether anyone wanted to edit it and to avoid redoing the work if she rapidly became notable. I think sufficient time has passed that I would be content to delete it - to be honest I thought I put in such a request - because even if she is now notable, it probably is out of date. Basically I am not fussed what happens to it. Isonomia (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alan - thanks. Unfortunately, I don't edit Wikipedia much these days (the petty politics of global warming have put me off), and so I've entirely forgotten what the template was for, so I have no problem with it being deleted if no one else is using it. Isonomia (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Global warming, is on article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
Sorry, I can't deal with any requests like this. It sounds like you need to contact an admin, if you don't know how try the help link. Isonomia (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I now realise that this person was referring to private message to Connolley which was written as a result of an external website where he invites messages to be placed on his user page.
In short the kind of action you expect from Nazi brown shirts -- no investigation, no justice, no chance to appeal, and basically the only reason I used his homepage is that last time I sent him any comments I started getting huge amounts of spam - which although I can't prove are connected - it didn't exactly endear me to him or thrill me with the idea of giving him another NEW email address.
First if you are referring to the personal note to William Connolley, this clearly has nothing to do with Wikipedia nor to the articles here because 1. I do not edit these articles and 2. The last time I heard about William he had quite rightly been banned. LOOK IT UP You'll see that I have not engaged in any discussion with him for ages on Wikipedia. But as I don't edit Wikipedia, what on earth was the point of this ban? It's really juvenile! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.135.213 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of removing a considerable amount of contentious material from your user page. While Wikipedia allows a lot of leeway on user pages, much of the material you had put there seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of the general sanctions on the global warming topic. We're supposed to be working in a collegial manner and not accusing one another of skulduggery. Please do place such material on your blog or another website under your control. I just don't think it's a good idea to have it here. --TS20:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't take the Micky. Are you trying to bait me into doing something, if so I've seen your type before and you can guess what I think of you. I've taken the liberty of reverting back to the text which was judged to be acceptable .... now if you are not happy with that please contact the person who agree with it .... but don't leave a message here because I'm really not that interesed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.135.213 (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isonomia, please accept my apologies for poor timing. I came to your user page as a result of investigating some edits here and here. When I investigated that and noticed other warlike behavior I made the changes I've described above, also noticing in doing so that Sandstein had warned you earlier the same day. I didn't notice the enforcement thread at WP:AE until a few minutes ago and didn't realise you had been blocked. My edit was not opportunism and you can revert it when the block expires, though as I said I don't think it's good idea to do so and I still recommend that you post it, if anywhere, on your blog.
Tony, thanks for the apology. However, it really doesn't alter the fact that Wikipedia as a body has been entirely hypocritical in regard to sceptics of global warming. The "neutral point of view" is defined as the "peer reviewed science" - which if you had read the climategate emails and followed this subject generally, you would know really means the view of a very political group of "scientists" who have used wikipedia like a propaganda machine. Unfortunately, for you, the internet doesn't forget. It's already starting to happen on the climate, and no doubt within a few years I am quite sure there will be numerous instances, in numerous subject, where people are bringing out old articles from Wikipedia and highlighting the way they were POV in the extreme. I'm absolutely sure one of those areas will be the climate articles. And very soon as the "consensus" on subjects change as real facts (and not opinions of people calling themselves "scientists) come to light, the right wing press will have a field day highlighting the embarrassing way Wikipedia got it wrong in so many areas.
The stupid thing is that people like me tried to bl**dy well warn you, and all we got is sarky remarks and warning not be "warlike". Well, to be quite frank, I'm glad I didn't invest more time editing Wikipedia as I think an awful lot of good work is going to be severely tarnished by the stupid politicking of people like you on the climate (and don't try to pretend that "neutrally" keeping out sceptical views is not a form of politicking and POV pushing because it is). Wikipedia deserves its declining reputation because it never wanted a NPOV ... and I've only ever wanted NPOV on climate articles - and I'm sick till vomiting of the disgusting attitude of of the hypocrits who run this show who don't want NPOV but just their POV.
And over the last week, I've seen a dozen obvious mistakes (some in articles I once wrote ... but now realise I got some facts wrong) ... but why the heck should I correct them when Wikipedia doesn't care about truth and honesty only POV pushing on petty politics on the climate!Isonomia (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see Wikipedia has become a very turgid shadow of what I originally signed up to - and I really can't see any point editing it any more.
Having followed the climate articles for many years and now having a great deal of expertise, I can no longer just sit back and hope that Wikipedia will some day come around to a NPOV. There are certain simple things that are so obviously POV pushing that it beggars belief that they still go on:
Not using common names when they are used by everyone else
Not admitting simple facts like it is not currently warming.
Pretending "global warming" is a "scientific" issue when everyone knows it is mainly political rhetoric even when practised by the "scientists".
And don't you dare think I'm pushing POV - I have not once added anything to a climate article without first seeking consensus (which basically means I have never edited a climate article)!!!!
I KNOW WHAT IS A NPOV ... BECAUSE I HAVEN'T FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED FROM WHEN I USED TO BE A GLOBAL WARMING ADVOCATE AND NEITHER HAVE MY VIEWS ON THE ENVIRONMENT CHANGED ... I JUST CAN'T STAND PEOPLE BEING DISHONEST, AND I JUST THINK SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS
From the day I first tried to get a NPOV on the climate articles (when I used to work in wind and was openly saying global warming is happening) till today, I haven't once managed to get a substantial change toward NPOV into a climate article. I'm angry ... not because I f*cking wanted to put the sceptical view ... it is because you bunch of pr***s have turned me into a sceptic because you refuse to see the obvious POV pushing that has been going on.
And the great consolation, is that the climate articles have been so POV that most decent people can spot it a mile off and what with climategate, the propaganda in Wikipedia is no longer considered a reliable source. Isonomia (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thanks for uploading File:LordReformLords.jpg, which you've sourced to Mike Haseler. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Isonomia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Template:NA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Global warming, is on article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Climate change if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change#Final decision. In particular, please do not personally attack or harrass people with whom you disagree. Sandstein 08:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
wikimedia.org.
Template:Article for deletion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Template:Article for deletion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
