|
</div>
[[User:Searchme|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#007FFF;">Jo]]</font><font color="green"span>]][[User:Searchme/Esperanza|e ]]</font><fontspan colorstyle="#007FFFcolor:green;">e </span>]][[User talk:Searchme|<span style="color:#007FFF;"> I]]</fontspan>]] 17:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
== Talk page postings ==
== [[Moon landing]] ==
I've been applauding your work on the Moon landing article, and deleted a previous comment which was actually meant for another editor, which got pasted onto your talk page by mistake. Apologies for that. Best regards. --[[User:OliverTwisted|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#006699;"><b><i>Oliver</fonti></b></span>]]<b><i>[[User:OliverTwisted|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#33CC99;">Twisted </fontspan>]]</i></b><sup>[[User_talk:OliverTwisted|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#006699"; font-size="1px:x-small;"> (Talk) </fontspan>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/OliverTwisted|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#33CC99"; font-size="1px:x-small;">(Stuff)</span>]] 03:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
== Some advice on moving pages ==
This subject is more appropriately discussed on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_Consciousness_Project#see_also_section article talk page], I have responded there. [[User:Voiceofreason01|Voiceofreason01]] ([[User talk:Voiceofreason01#top|talk]]) 19:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
==Web Bot==
The merge discussion there seems to have died the death. I was wondering what you thought I should do. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 09:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
:I'm not sure. But given the luckwarm response to the merge discussion and most of that supporting the merge I'd say you would probably be ok to go ahead the merge the articles. [[User:Voiceofreason01|Voiceofreason01]] ([[User talk:Voiceofreason01#top|talk]]) 22:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
==Recent developments==
While looking for items that needed following up on on the Sustainability talk page, I noticed a couple of recent posts by you. The first one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sustainability&diff=320542523&oldid=320493644] was a masterpiece of [[WP:EQ|wikietiquette]], IMO. You made your points in the form of observations; clearly and fairly. I especially liked your reference to the "Beware of the tigers" essay. By doing this you gave some feedback in a way that was both humourous and compassionate, IMO. I hadn't seen that essay, but it is spot on.
The more recent post by you wasn't quite as neutral, but I understand your frustration. I would like to pursue your concerns as I think that they are important for the GA assessment. One of the things I was going to do before things went sideways was get the opinion of a peer reviewer about the lead. I still intend to do that. Now things are settling down a bit (with Skip having agreed to stay away from the article for awhile, AdenR warned about edit warring, and the article protected) so we can get back to it. I hope that you will continue editing on the Sustainability page. We need good editors there. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] ([[User talk:Sunray|talk]]) 02:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
==Richmond gangWeb rapeBot voteEdits page==
I think your comment about "two weeks later and no one is talking about it" is not exactly true. Just two days ago, CNN had another piece on it(http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2009/11/07/simon.richmond.rape.911.cnn). I do believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion about whether the article should be deleted or not, I person think it should be kept, but I think that everyone needs to be judicious in their arguments one way or another. [[User:Ericsean|Ericsean]] ([[User talk:Ericsean|talk]]) 00:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
* another editor posted a comment below mine on the afd page with a link to a New York Times article from yesterday, which is where you should've posted this comment. The video link you posted does seem to legitimately have some new information, however the Times article from the other editor is just a followup piece, essentially signalling that they're done with the story unless something else happens. [[User:Voiceofreason01|Voiceofreason01]] ([[User talk:Voiceofreason01#top|talk]]) 01:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
==Scientific opinion on climate change==
I must admit, you were very brave to have stuck your neck out in the discussions at [[Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Content fork]]. However, it order to get some tangible results out the discussions that have taken place to date. Would you be willing to enter into a [[WP:Mediation cabal|mediation case]] on the issue of the unsourced content in the lead? I feel the debate has switch from the content issues to whether there should be any discussion about these matters at all. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins#top|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Gavin.collins|contribs)]] 14:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:The glaciers of original research approach, and you are on your own, alas. --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins#top|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Gavin.collins|contribs)]] 22:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::Before I submit a request for mediation I am going to take the issue to the [[WP:OR/N]] noticeboard and see if I can get some other editors involved and maybe get a few more opinions on the matter. Depending on the results of that discussion I would be willing to consider submitting a request for mediation in a week or two. Given my reading of the decision on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Gavin.collins probation case] concerning you, while you are banned from editing the [[Scientific opinion on climate change | article]] or talk page you can still take this issue to mediation. I am unfamiliar with the mediation process but if you did submit a request for mediation I would be happy to participate. I would suggest waiting to see what [[WP:OR/N]] comes up with, Wikipedia works by building consensus and there are more ways to build consensus than arguing with other editors on the article talk page. [[User:Voiceofreason01|Voiceofreason01]] ([[User talk:Voiceofreason01#top|talk]]) 14:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
:::The problem with mediation is that, if opponents to the criticisms do not want to participate, then a mediation case cannot be initiated. Probably being refered to [[WP:OR/N]] is another way of placing the discussions out of "sight, out of mind".--[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins#top|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Gavin.collins|contribs)]] 15:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::::No, uninvolved admins gave you an article ban for 3 months. Experienced and trusted editors who know what they are talking about felt that your behavior was out of line. The reason they banned you for 3 months was so you could cool down and rethink the way you are interaction with other editors, it could easily have been an indefinite topic ban. They are not trying to silence opposition to the status quo, in fact they specifically suggested and allowed for means whereby your complaints might be answered. I do not think the group of administrators at the probation board are trying to sweep this under the rug. [[WP:ASG |Assume good faith]] and lets proceed by building consensus and improving the encyclopedia instead of making enemies of the other editors on the article. Trying to force the issue is exactly why you drew the article ban and it probably isn't a good strategy to continue. [[User:Voiceofreason01|Voiceofreason01]] ([[User talk:Voiceofreason01#top|talk]]) 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
== Typo? ==
Did you leave out a "not" in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crop_circle&curid=21281293&diff=342931342&oldid=342895632 this] comment? -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 14:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
:Wow, yes I did. Thanks for letting me know. [[User:Voiceofreason01|Voiceofreason01]] ([[User talk:Voiceofreason01#top|talk]]) 15:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
= Web Bot Edits =
Thanks for you feedback regarding my edits of the Web Bot entry. As you have pointed out, I am new again to Wikipedia. I will review the documents you suggested before making further edits.
===Reply===
{{User:Stepshep/TB|gary Larson Photo}} [[User:Stepshep|<span style="font-family:Calibri;color:#617c58;">'''Shep'''</span>]][[User talk:Stepshep|<span style="font-family:Helvetica;color:#617c58;"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 16:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
== Added the chart source and yet reverted stating unsourced ==
You need to stop going around deleting things that you think are wrong without doing your homework. The chart you claim is unsourced is graphed in the picture below and is duplicated from [[money multiplier]]. If you look at the math used to describe that monetary expansion series, it's all correct, verifiable, and sourced and/or self-sourced! So stop removing the whole relending section and claiming its some nonsense like original research or unsourced. Please stop imposing your lack of knowledge about this topic on others. I call it that not out of spite or malice; i just don't know what else to call it. [[User:Javalizard|Javalizard]] ([[User talk:Javalizard|talk]]) 00:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
== Your perspective would be valued ==
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/11&oldid=866998401 -->
== Discretionary sanctions alert ==
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.''
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] is in effect. Any administrator may impose [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions|sanctions]] on editors who do not strictly follow [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies]], or the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions|page-specific restrictions]], when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality|here]]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> [[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] 15:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2022|2022 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1124425183 -->
| 