User talk:JonGwynne

Comments from others

Anyone who has something to say to me can put it below - but please leave your name and date - anonymous comments or ones with a simple IP address will probably be deleted.

Saw your revert on partial-birth abortion... I had skimmed the discussion before I made the changes. Looked through it more carefully just a moment ago and I don't see any comments on the external links with the exception of the "Refactor the Links" subheading, to which no one replied. Am I blind? If there actually was discussion on this, I'd be happy to join the discussion instead of just making changes. --MikeJ9919 20:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FYI

Common protocol is to have the homepage material on your User: page, and leave your UserTalk page *strictly* for comment threads; the latter one notifies you of changes when you log in. --Baylink 18:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks--JonGwynne 20:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Penfield Jackson

Hi. I reverted your edits to the Thomas Penfield Jackson article. Here at Wikipedia, we strive for Neutral point of view. Rick K 05:14, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The new edits look good. Rick K 20:58, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC, William M. Connolley

I started an RFC regarding user William M. Connolley, located here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley. If you are interested, please comment or sign as appropriate. — Cortonin | Talk 12:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Consensus Science

I think you had a good start on that page. I rearranged and reworded it a bunch to help out the NPOV a bit and give it a more wiki-article feel, and I added some sections giving examples. I think it's a concept that definitely deserves a wiki page. — Cortonin | Talk 09:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Digital artist

Hi Jon, I noticed on your user page that you are a digital artist but unsure of the policy for uploading your work.

In order to upload a file, you have to click an extra button that confirms licensing per the Wikipedia:Copyrights policy. If you are the copyright holder/creator, this means that you are licensing your work per the GNU_Free_Documentation_License (GFDL). After uploading you need to add this tag to the file page. If you don't add this tag, someone else might do it for you, since by virtue of clicking the button you've agreed to this.

You may also choose to license your work per another license. Just edit the image page, after uploading, and add the appropriate copyright tag.

Many people upload some personal images for their user pages; just remember, you need to add the appropriate license tag after uploading. Also, images may be deleted by the community for various reasons.

There are always request for art work and pictures, see Wikipedia:Image recreation requests and Wikipedia:Requested_pictures.

I hope this helps, Duk 10:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. You can also add you name to the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Graphic Artists page after contributing work. Duk 10:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas spelling

Hi Jon, The Greenhouse gas page was standardized on British spelling and should stay that way, it doesn't matter if related pages are American spelling. Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling. I know you are new here and working hard to improve articles, please don't add unnecessary disputes to already controversial pages. Thanks, Duk 20:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. see additional comments on the talk page. Duk 20:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jon, I owe you an apology. Cortonin pointed out that when the article's spelling was standardized it should have been to Americana spelling, not British. This has been fixed. Please note though, pages shouldn't be standardized to a particular spelling to match similar pages, they should be standardized to the language they started in, or to whatever spelling they are mostly in. Again, my apologies. Duk 21:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No worries. Still, I have a question. Why shouldn't one page which references another be made to be consistent with the one it references? It seems to me that this promotes confusion and inconsistency. Surely a page which discussed water vapor and references the article should match the usage of the page it referenced. Shouldn't it? p.s. Thanks for the info on pics! --JonGwynne 20:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can't answer that question, I'm not sure of the history of this rule. Something that I have noticed, however, is that mixed spelling in an article sticks out like a sore thumb. But going from an article with one spelling, to an article with another spelling doesn't seem to stick out much (at least for me). Duk 21:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Please read up on the Three Revert Rule, which you have broken on Carbon dioxide. In doing so you run the risk of being blocked. Don't just edit war, use the talk page, that's what it's there for. See also: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --fvw * 00:44, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

I am familiar with the policy, thank you. The majority of my changes to the CO2 page were not reverts but edits. I don't believe there is a rule which discourages more than three edits in a day, is there?--JonGwynne 12:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have been (improperly) blocked for 24 hours for violating the Three revert rule on Greenhouse gas. When you return, please work out differences on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have been (improperly) blocked again for violating the 3RR on Medieval Warm Period. Please use the talk page to disscuss changes in futureGeni 19:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation on Global warming you know the score by nowGeni 02:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least this blockage was legitimate. The rest were not.--JonGwynne 17:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne

(William M. Connolley 00:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne against you. This is the notification that I am required to provide.

Ah, more petulant whining from the master...--JonGwynne 17:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

The case against you has been accepted. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:33, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

I've written in your support. WMC is clearly out of line and POV pushing, and uses mobocracy and abuses the judicial process. If anyone is a clear reason to dump the 3rr, then he is it. I support banning him for one year. Stirling Newberry 14:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having done yet more research, I offer the following:

I am not a global warming sceptic, in the least, in fact, I first encounted theories of global warming in the early 1980's, and the climate work of Hermann von Schelling.
You should have escalated sooner. It can often seem as if people are alone and outnumbered when making edits against the consensus, RFCs are an important procedure when discussion has broken down.
While WMC's behavior is clearly beyond the pale, many of your accusations have not helped your case. You would do best to let others make strong assertions.
When involved in an edit war, or edit wars, it is generally best to research more carefully and first work to make sure the page is headed towards NPOV with each of your edits.
It is important to be particularly meticulous when involved in an edit war to make sure that summaries are clear to others, because it is the edit summaries which other members of the community go on in order to make edits to the page.
It is important to separate the POV information you would like to include from NPOV problems.
It is important to discuss with others who do not share your POV on presentation - NPOV is an important idea, beyond wikipedia.

Hence, I feel that the arbcom proceding against you is inappropriate because WMC is at least as guilty, and his repeated appeals to mobocracy (many of them from people who are edit warring on his side) are both inappropriate and a violation of the standards we agree to. However, I would ask that you look at your own response, not in the context of the proceding, but in the context of "best practice", and privately evaluate it.

The arbcom members I have dealt with are extremely reasonable people, and it is best to approach them from the point of view not of being on the other side, but from the context of people who are doing service to the wiki-community in resolving difficult disputes. Bear this in mind as you argue your case, bear in mind also that you have made what many people would describe as questionable moves in presentation of material.

Just because I strongly object to WMC's abuse of the process does not mean I endorse your approach to dealing with him. And I specifically do not endorse many of the statements you have made in the course of the edit wars, but, instead, feel that they are beyond the bounds of good procedure. And I urge you to edit in a more NPOV fashion, adding documentation of points of view which you do not agree with as a sign to others that you are editting in good faith, which is the essential building block of the wikiprocess.

We are not here to decide the issue of global warming, nor to endorse any particular version of it. We are here to document, and to document in accordance with available POVs to inform readers who are seeking context and enrichment which is often lacking in materials that are written and posted on the web from particular POVs. This is, in fact, liberating, once it is grasped. Please think on these matters, I strongly urge you to realize that you need supporters, and that therefore you should focus on that which is solid and broadly acceptable, and show good judgement in which issues are issues of NPOV, and which ones represent your own POV.

Stirling Newberry 15:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling

The Arbitration Committee has ruled on the case against you. You are hereby placed on standard personal attack parole for three months, until 6 June 2005; if you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then you shall be temporarily banned for a short time of up to one week. You are also limited to one revert per 24 hour period on articles related to global warming; violations shall be interpreted as violations of the three revert rule. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 16:02, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

I have considered this decision and I find it without any credibility or balance. Nothing I was accused of doing was in any way different than the actions of several other individuals and yet I was the only one censured. The practice of selective prosecution by the "Arbitration Committee" clearly demonstrates their lack of objectivity or basic competence and while I will abide by the decision because I have no choice, I consider it ridiculous and contemptable - the action of bullies. I expected better and hold all of you in the contempt your actions have brought on you.

Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 20:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blockage successfully appealed. Please be more careful in future. The complaint against me was invalid. In fact, if you look at the list, there are at least two other recent and invalid complaints. Perhaps those who make invalid complaints in an apparent effort to stifle correction of their extreme POV edits should themselves be punished - not that I expect this to happen, considering the bias/incompetence of some of the administrators here.--JonGwynne 06:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In future, before blocking me, please check the complaint very carefully, there are several individuals on wikipedia who love to complain about me and whose complaints are nearly always without merit. If they're complaining about the "probation" I'm on, please make certain that the article in question is in the Climate Change category, they like to complain about reverts in unrelated articles... --JonGwynne 05:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listing on RFA

(William M. Connolley 17:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)) I have listed you on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. This is your notice, as required.[reply]

Oh joy... I see you just can't take challenges to your extremist POV --JonGwynne 17:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please use care

If you note the temporary injunction here, the last clause says, "Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case," and three of the five WMC reverts listed involve revert wars between yourself and WMC. As I do not believe it would benefit anyone to have you join the RfA with WMC, I advise that you use caution and keep your editing careful and well explained so that you do not encourage such a joining. — Cortonin | Talk 16:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up and the link. I had no idea that WMC has been under a 1RR injunction. Nice to see the admins taking it so seriously [/sarcasm]. --JonGwynne 17:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/3RR template

In this edit you just made, which part of Make a ***COPY*** of the rest of this template did you fail to comprehend? Luckily for you, someone else edited the page before I noticed this, or I would have simply reverted your edit. Noel (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude... Take a pill... Who pissed in your Cheerios? My finger must have slipped and I did a Ctl-X instead of a Ctl-C. So sue me! I'm not perfect - apparently unlike you...

What really irritated me is that you also screwed up the template the last time you filed a 3RR (and I seem to recall more, but I can't be bothered to search the history for them). One accident, yeah, maybe - two in a row, no, I don't think so. And if you bothered to check your edits (with a diff - always wise on heavily edited pages like /3RR, where edit collisions are common) after they were committed, you'd have seen the errors - but you plainly didn't bother to check, either time. Noel (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, maybe you need two of those pills. Did it occur to you to look at your computer keyboard? If it had, you might have noticed that the "X" and "C" keys are right next to each other. Someone as perfect as you should already have figured out that this makes it easier to accidentally hit one instead of the other. In this case, I'm using a laptop and since those keys are a bit smaller and closer together than usual and so that would tend to increase the likelihood of the mistake. So, my advice to you is to rest your neck and look for something more useful to do than get snotty with people about simple and easy-to-fix typos. --JonGwynne 05:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee case merged

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the case against you to be merged with the current case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin. Please bring any additional evidence you may have to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

I am up for adminship. I feel it only right that I let you know in case you want to oppose my nomination. Guettarda 16:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proper spacing comment on your front page.

I saw the comment on your front page about putting two (2) spaces between the period and any new sentence following. I have a comment or two:

1) I noticed that the spaces are in the edit page, but NOT in the finished product. That is, when you edit your page, there really ARE two spaces, but for the readers that see your front page, please note that the page only has ONE space after the period. It is not so easy to see, but I copied and pasted into a text editor and counted. Check me on this.

2) Where is this point of grammar found? (I might be able to find it in Google or Wiki myself.)

You can answer me here, but there's a better chance of you answering me either on my page or in an email: Gww1210@aol.com.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quoting your answer on my page: "Thanks for pointing that out... I don't think I would have noticed. But, you're absolutely right, wikipedia truncates double-spacing when they display the output. How rude!" My reply:

You're welcome! I think there's a way to do spaces manually: Let's see if it works. Next sentence. YES, it does work, only the text of the space, the "& n b s p ;" does not appear in the "Nowiki" brackets. I had to put spaces between each character to get it to print out. Hmm...--GordonWattsDotCom 16:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Please note, however, that my recent edit was not for this subsection ("Proper spacing comment on your front page.") I only edited the other subsections (e.g., "Prescription drugs and Terri Schiavo" below, "Arbitration Committee case merged" above and all the other subsections) --making only one change in this section, a spelling error of the word sentence. OK, here's how I did it: I copied and pasted this whole section into my word processor. Then clicked "edit" --> "replace". Then, with that dialogue open, I put in the top box two spaces, and in the bottom box, I put "nbsp;nbsp;" Then, I clicked the replace button, and copied and pasted the final product to this page's edit dialogue. However, the utility of an extra space after a period is merely (in my humble opinion) "marginal utility" [1] with diminishing returns. While it looks better, the extra-added benefit is probably not worth the extra time: The period at the end of one sentence and the capitol letter beginning the next one seem to be clear and unambiguous.--GordonWattsDotCom 18:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- One more experiment, using your page as the "guinea pig." I replaced all the "double spaces" in the top section all the way down to the "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne" subsection, but not including it. The reason was to see if the double space is visible, and for you to be able to see what a "triple space" looks like. I hope this is helpful; after all, if I screwed up, all you'd have to do is revert. PS: I think Duck and Wagon are weird, but they seem to have good points about the way they mention the facts; your version wasn't bad either, and i defended it in the talk section, looking at each point. Take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 19:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Prescription drugs and Terri Schiavo

What do you find "irrelevant" about stating facts (not opinions) from the police report concerning the prescription drugs the police found in the kitchen? This was included in the article before Thogmartin claimed that a drug overdose had not been ruled out, but had been removed by another editor. Do you think we should only state some facts, but not all? That appears to be a violation of the NPOV policy. --Viriditas | Talk 06:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is irrelevant because there is no question of her misusing prescription drugs. In addition, to raise the subject creates implications that are not supported by evidence. It is a similar concept to the push poll --JonGwynne 19:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ludlow Massarce editing

Thanks, Jon; For the even-handed editing that you are doing on this entry. It appeared for a moment that we might have Ludlow Massacre II there. PS. I sort of disagree with you regarding the verbalizing of nouns. One of the wonders of the English language is the way it can accomadate all sorts of changes, whether made by yuppie weasels or . . . me. Carptrash 16:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliment.

p.s. I guess we do disagree on that. For me, there is a difference between changing the language by adding new words to describe new concepts (e.g. "Modem") and twisting existing words from their original meanings to create new ones. This will cause future generations to have the same problem understanding older writing as some people today have understanding Shakeaspeare. For this reason, I believe it is important to adhere to a standard usage of English and if individuals or popular trends try to deviate from that, they must be the ones to change rather than the language. --JonGwynne 16:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Climate dispute arbitration case

A final decision has been reached in the climate dispute arbitration case. →Raul654 14:57, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

RFC on SlimVirgin

I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WMC broke his parole can you help me?

WMC is up to his old tricks. Can you help me to get justice. William M. Connolley reverted the article of the lomborg whitout any explanation or any note in the talk pages[2]. This constitutes a violation of his parole[3]. How can I instigate that the appropriate action is taken.--MichaelSirks 19:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parole

Dear Gwynne,

as you know, William Connolley is not allowed to revert climate wikipages without justifying it on Talk pages (parole) - and not allowed to revert a page twice in 24 hours. If you want to help him, or on the contrary if you think he has violated it in 2005, see [4] --Lumidek 21:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration re-opened

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 has been re-opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 case. Raul654 18:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image without source information

Hi, Jon. An image that you've uploaded, Image:Mercedes 300SL Gullwing.jpg, has no source information and will be deleted if none can be supplied. It's been tagged as a no-source image for several months but I wanted to let you know it was out there and give you a chance to update its source before it's deleted. Thanks! —Cleared as filed. 06:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

moved from user page

This is the previous user. I apologise for the personal attack. It was immature and uncalled for. By the way, you administrators are very quick on the mark! You're doing a great job. I apologise for writing here, but I don't know where else to put it. My humble apologies to the administrators and to the wider Wikipedia community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.24.61 (talk • contribs) :) Dlohcierekim 08:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"consensus science" page possible deletion

Sorry for the late notice, but I have recently nominated the "consensus science" page for deletion. For my arguments on this, please see that article's discussion page and its deletion page. Deletion policy says that I should tell frequent contributors to the page about the proposed deletion, and I only just saw this today.

Sorry for any inconvenience. Dicksonlaprade 15:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Zentner article

You appear to be the first editor for the article about the Zentner unit of mass. I have never heard of this unit, and cannot find it in any of my reference books. Do you have a source for this information? --Gerry Ashton 16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UBeR is being reviewed

Jon, 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, -- Brittainia 00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I doubt anything can be done about the POV-pushing of WMC and his minions. In spite of the fact that they have little in the way of facts on their side, they have the undeniable ability to marshall a clique of supporters who will brook no contradiction of their opinions and will seek to impose their opinions as fact. I will do what I can against them and so will a handful of other brave souls, but I don't hold out much hope of success. --JonGwynne 04:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of your revert limit

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JonGwynne#Revert_limitation you are allowed only one revert per GW-related article in 24 hours. Your have violated the arbcomm ruling here. Please undo your revert. Guettarda 05:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was two years ago. You can't seriously be arguing that it is still in effect. Besides, the reverts you made were completely unjustified and offensive. Now that you've filed this ridiculous complaint, I now believe that you made the reversions simply in order to give you an excuse to censor me (again). I'm sad to see that wikipedia hasn't changed, that the same extremist ideologues are still pushing their preposterous POV. --JonGwynne 13:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was also decided that you operate the SpinyNorman account so the probation and revert parole that applies to that account applies to this one too. [5] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the revert parole imposed by the Arbitration Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block to be unjustified, please place {{unblock|your reason}} to request that it be reviewed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yes I believe it is unjustified. The parole was imposed in 2005. Did you not bother to look at that?

Also, my changes were not "controversial". They were perfectly justified in my documentation. It is just that a couple of extremist POV-pushers who profane this place with their presence can't handle them and automatically revert my changes. Shame on them and shame on you for facilitating them. --JonGwynne 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I have no link to this case, but I noticed you thought this blocking was unjustified and figured I'd better point out that if you want your block reviewed by an admin you need to put the exact text {{unblock|your reason}} on the page so that it will be flagged to be looked at. If you knew that already but have decided not to appeal your block, my apologies for wasting your time. It should also be said that, looking at the remedies from your arbitration case, although they were imposed 2 years ago, there does not appear to be a time limit on the ruling to restrict your reversions. Will (aka Wimt) 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. It is nice to hear from someone who is capable of objectivity and reason. However, I doubt I will bother with applying to have the block overturned. Too few administrators here are capable of rational actions and I have no expectation that I would be lucky enough to stumble on one who is. In any case it will be simply and less frustrating to wait for the block to expire. Still, I doubt I will remain here much longer, apart from the valiant efforts of editors like ourselves, Wikipedia is still a cesspool of ignorance and bigotry. --JonGwynne 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terms of the ArbCom parole appear to be indefinite, and the edits were definitely controversial. Block appears justified to me. 151.151.73.169 17:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice than our anonymous contributor is both unwilling to identify themselves and also isn't willing to actually support their opinions with any actual evidence. If I didn't believe that removing things unceremoniously from a talk page like this was a gross violation of wiki protocol, I'd delete that nonsense. --JonGwynne 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conditions were imposed in 2005, yes. And now that you have returned for the first time since mid-2005 it took you 4.5 hours to violate the terms of your revert parole. In addition, you were placed on personal attack parole. And yet, within 13 hours of your return, you are back to engaging in personal attacks. If you want the conditions lifted, you need to show that you can abide by them. Guettarda 18:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. I didn't engage in personal attacks and I consider your unsustantiated allegations to be a personal attack in and of themselves. I also notice that there is absolutely no consistency here with regard to enforcing the guideline again personal attacks (I notice that WMC regularly still regularly engages in the extremely offensive and obnoxious behavior and he hasn't been reprimanded for it). So between the selective prosecution of the rules here and you own personal hypocrisy, it is impossible to take you seriously on the subject. So, if you have nothing substantive to contribute to this discussion, I'd ask you to kindly make your personal attacks elsewhere and stop harrassing me. --JonGwynne 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact me via e-mail option

JonGwynne, Please contact me via the E-mail User option. Your assistance regarding historical information in conflicts is requested.

Thank you. -- Tony 13:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyroterrorism

In view of your many contributions to the Eco-terrorism article, would you please consider commenting at Pyroterrorism DRV. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 00:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like 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. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of LobbyWatch

The article LobbyWatch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability. Primary sources only.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brustopher (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]