Voiceofreason01

Welcome!

Howdy, Voiceofreason01, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions; you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles, see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting pages, visit the manual of style. For general questions, go to Wikipedia:Help or the FAQ; if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page.

---

Additional tips

Here are some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

• For Wikipedia policies and guidelines, see The Five Pillars of Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not.
• Find everything in the Directory.
• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, the Sandbox is for you.
• If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random article button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
• If you have edits from before creating an account, see the page on changing attribution for edits.
• You can also upload images. Make sure you use the correct copyright tags when you do.
• Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Be bold

Be bold in updating pages! You can find instantaneous help any time simply by typing {{help}} anywhere on your own user or user talk page.
You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round.

 Joe  I 17:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page postings

Just a friendly suggestion - can you please post new talk page items at the bottom of the page, and sign them with four tildes rather than copying an old signature? Thanks! BTW, thanks for your contributions! Jminthorne (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from LG KG290

Hello Voiceofreason01, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to LG KG290 has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(we usually merge these to a suitable combination article or list)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

WP:Fringe

Are you aware of this notice board? You might, for instance, want to ask others there to take a look at Unexplained human mutilation, Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 03:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Some advice on moving pages

When you are changing page titles, as you did with Outline of recreational number theory->List of recreational number theory topics, it is better to use Wikipedia's page move utility rather than doing a cut-and-paste move. Reasons are:

• Page move moves the talk page along with the main page. At the moment, Until it was fixed by User:Verbal, Talk:List of recreational number theory topics redirected back to Talk:Outline of recreational number theory !
• Page move moves the edit history of the page and its talk page.
• Page move automatically adds the new page name to the watch lists of editors who were watching the old page.

See Help:Moving a page for instructions. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, thanks for the help. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

POV, nPOV, NPOV, nNPOV

Hi, I've noticed that a few times you've said npov (for neutral POV) when I think you mean nNPOV (non-NPOV, or just POV). Just a heads up! Verbal chat 16:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was using "npov" as shorthand for "npov problems", if this is confusing I will try to be more specific in future edits. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

See also

Web Bot is another way to try to tap into the "global conciousness" using technology; how is it not a suitable "See also" link for the Global Consciousness Project? The two projects have been compared in the Jerusalem Post:[1]. Perhaps you didn't realise that "Web Bot" is a specific project, and not a generic name for a web spider? Fences&Windows 19:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This subject is more appropriately discussed on the article talk page, I have responded there. Voiceofreason01 (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. Serendi^podous 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. Voiceofreason01 (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 [2] was a masterpiece of 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. Sunray (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Richmond gang rape vote 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. 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. Voiceofreason01 (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 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. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The glaciers of original research approach, and you are on your own, alas. --Gavin Collins (talk|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 probation case concerning you, while you are banned from editing the 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. Voiceofreason01 (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".--Gavin Collins (talk|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. 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. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Typo?

Did you leave out a "not" in this comment? -- Brangifer (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, yes I did. Thanks for letting me know. Voiceofreason01 (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. Mcmarturano (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Gary Larson photo

Exactly how does this photo look ok? It's a picture of some sort of plastic mannequin. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen any of his work? This image is perfect and from the cover on one of his books with essentially the same caption(although that might be considered a primary source and therefore not satisfy notability requirements). Besides, he's retired and the value to the article of a recent photograph is very small. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the photo was taken from one of his books. It's an obvious joke, as Gary Larson is not a plastic mannequin. So you think it's appropriate to have a joke photo in the article which is clearly not him? --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)