User talk:Brittainia

Welcome!

Hello, Brittainia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley 17:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Please be aware of WP:3RR William M. Connolley 17:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thank you for taking notice in William M. Connolley's abuse of Wikipedia's policies. For others, I've created an advisory board. ~ UBeR 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Barnstar

It is nice to know people are reading my entries. I simply want the science, include the uncertainties, to be properly understood. RonCram 19:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am being reviewed

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)[reply]

Global Warming skeptic userbox

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:

Feel free to tell your friends. Thanks! Oren0 21:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming debate

Hello. IntelligenceSquared held an interesting debate on Global Warming. Based on the votes of the audience, those who said it was not a crisis won the debate. I thought you might be interesting in reading about it. [1]RonCram 17:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read the transcript. It was quite interesting, though Gavin Schmidt was rather embarrassing. --JonGwynne 02:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connolley using Wikipedia to blog?

One administrator thinks so. ~ UBeR 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 05:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Scientific data archiving

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! RonCram 15:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI Violations?

Brittainia, I am trying to get more information to see if it is a Conflict of Intrest violation for an Environmental Activist/Green Party member to be actavly editing pages that have to do with Environmental issues. Your thoughts?--Zeeboid 17:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Global warming. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly let me know what parts of my edit you disapprove of? I don't want to know what you personally do not want revealed on Wikipedia, but what actually should be rewritten to get these facts into the otherwise POV Global Warming article. I think it is about time that Wikipedia stopped allowing this article to be controlled by a POV group. So please rewrite the following in a way that you would not object to. Simply deleting these facts is censorship - so I look forward to your rewrite. Thank you.

"However, a number of highly respected scientists dispute the consensus view. Recently, leaked emails reveal that the leading Global Warming scientists, at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia and elsewhere, have been concealing or altering the raw data, which shows the world has been cooling for the past decade. These Global Warming scientists have admitted in their emails, that none of the climate models can account for this lack of warming in the real world." - Brittainia (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly, the only things that are correct is the name of the university, and that emails have been leaked. The rest is somewhere between obviously wrong and egregiously wrong, with a bit of WP:PEACOCK thrown in for good measure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're not very specific, I can only assume that the email you're construing as revealing there was "concealing or altering the raw data" is the "hide the decline" email. But that was written in 1999. So, unless UEA had a time-machine back then, I don't see how a temp graph Jones produced 10 years ago could have concealed any "cooling for the past decade" (1999 to 2009.)--CurtisSwain (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to admit that the Global Warming intro is completely one sided, I believe Wikipedia has a duty to be more balanced than this. Again, I would ask you to rewrite my statements in a way that you would not object to. Simply deleting these facts is censorship - so I still look forward to your rewrite. Thank you. - Brittainia (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: edits to Talk:Global warming

Hello. I'd like to extend a friendly reminder to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Although you may be understandably frustrated, accusing other users of censorship can be offensive; likewise, stating that the lead doesn't have the "tiniest bit of balance" can be construed as an insult to the editors who have worked hard to make the article balanced. Cheers, — DroEsperanto (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, ok. so I suppose the numerous comments stating that Brittainia is destroying the lead are just fine?

Brittainia's comments all seem to be appropriate expressions of genuine concerns which she has with the nature of the discussion and the edit process. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DroEsperanto, you must be looking at a completely different lead than I am reading! I would like you to copy below the bits of the lead which you consider provide any balance against the entirely pro-AGW slant. I have re-read the lead carefully and cannot find any at all. There is no hint in the lead that the temperature record shows that the world has not warmed at all in the past decade. Nor is there any mention that the leading AGW scientists are at a loss to explain it as their models don't "account for this lack of warming."

Instead any reader coming to Wikipedia for a balanced overview of Global Warming would finish reading the lead and believe that AGW is as proven a theory as Newton's Laws of Motion. Do you honestly believe Wikipedia is doing it's job responsibly by giving this erroneous one-sided view to people looking for a balanced understanding of Global Warming? - Brittainia (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss the article, do it at Talk:Global warming; my intention here wasn't to continue the content dispute, but just to make sure you did it as politely as you can. To be honest, I've noticed that the regulars tend to be a bit less receptive when they feel attacked (as is understandable), so it's really in your best interest as well as the encyclopedia's to make sure you're extra careful with how you present your arguments. I also didn't mean to suggest that you were alone in any tone-related issues; I don't deny that many other editors there tend to be pretty brusque and dismissing in their style. But, as the old adage goes, two wrongs don't make a right. ;) — DroEsperanto (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page behavior

Please stop using dedicated talk pages for your complaints. Talk pages are for discussing the article in question. Dispute resolution is the proper way to deal with behavioral issues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well my complaint resulted from William Connolley deleting my valid comment which was about your deletion of my edit. As long as it is not deleted again I won't have to complain about it. My complaint happened to contain a link to an article which exposed his and his group's (which includes yourself) control over the Global Warming articles. I reverted that silent deletion and realised that your group would then start your usual process of tag team deletions until you could 3RR me - a blatant form of censorship that is your group's habit. I decided to at least put on the record that what he was doing was censorship, which I did by posting the following below the original comment given below:

::::::::::Actually, if you look carefully at the revert you will see that no reason was given at all for keeping the fact of scientific debate out of the lead. This is typical of the vast number of reverts and deletions made to this important article for many years now. Those controlling the Global Warming articles on Wikipedia^[1] clearly feel no need to explain themselves. In this they presumably look up to the shining example of those controlling the "Global Warming Science" who felt no obligation to provide the raw data requested even when they were legally required to. Instead they decided to shred it. No real scientist would ever destroy irreplaceable scientific data - only a propagandist would do that if it didn't support their propaganda. ~ Brittainia (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn how Wikipedia operates. I've given you the proper link. You don't "self-defend" against censorship by spray-painting school buildings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well... maybe you're right... But it really worked rather well for those guys who posted the AGW conspiracy evidence all over the Net, didn't it? I mean they were getting nowhere for years by politely asking for the information, which they were legally entitled to. But now, it's become impossible to hide the fact that the Global Warming scientists were manipulating and fixing the "Global Warming Science." These AGW pushers didn't care about the Law and instead of providing the raw data requested - even when they were legally required to - they just shredded it! What's the right thing to do when you're dealing with people who continually and blatantly flout all the rules, all of the time?? = Brittainia (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMC complaints

moved posts William Connolley, please stop deleting my comments. Since they refer to your group controlling the Global Warming articles, you are in WP:COI. This is censorship. = Brittainia (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am sure your group will try your usual tricks to silence me as is your habit. But, the world is now waking up to your and the AGW propagandists "Tricks" and I will make sure that this censorship does not go unnoticed. = Brittainia (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The days when you could get away with your censorship are OVER. = Brittainia (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that your group will now start your usual process of tag team deletions until you can 3RR me - a blatant form of censorship that is your group's habit. I have posted this here so that other editors can see exactly what is going on. = Brittainia (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The place to take your complaint would be [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances by users ("Administrator

abuse")]].--CurtisSwain (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he isn't an Administrator. = Brittainia (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place/venue is WP:Rfc, specifically probably you want Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. There are detailed instructions on how to formulate and present evidence; allow me to merely strongly note that copypasting posts has been a blockable offense and may lead to sanctions including blocking; paste difs instead. If you do not know how to paste a dif or formulate evidence please let me know. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I am sorry Brittainia but the Global Warming pages are not the place for your Wikipedia conspiracy theories. If you carry on someone will block you for talk page disruption and given the previous warnings above it will probably be a long block. --BozMo talk 12:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Talk:Global warming, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Restrict yourself to one account. Recently you also have been using your User:Rameses account, in violation of Wikipedia's policies on use of alternate accounts. If you agree to stay with one account I will not request that both accounts be indefinitely blocked. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Persistent WP:ADVOCACY, edit warring, and abuse of multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ [2]

[1] [2]

[1]