User talk:IanOfNorwich - Knowledge (XXG)

1053:

argument, and being on the warmist side but having seen the disgraceful behaviour to the sceptics, I honestly thought I could help to mediate. The simple truth, is that I tried to mediate, I remember some very simple sentence, and I tried for a week to try and find a form of words which were acceptable to the warmists. The simple fact, is that nothing that explained what was happening was acceptable to the warmists. Eventually, I became so disallusioned of the warmists that I said to myself: "I cannot continue to believe there is evidence for manmade global warming unless or until I actually see it for myself" ... in other words I had to stop assuming that it was there and stop taking assurances. It took me around a month of searching to find that where ever I looked, the supposed evidence just evaporated. Eventually, I set myself a test and said: "there are known benefits for a warmer climate (less deaths from cold) ... I don't need a degree in climate science to know that, so I will go and check as many papers on the effects of global warming and see howmany mention the known benefits." After check around 100 papers from University websites, I had totally failed to find any that listed any of the list of benefits I had set as the test". I think one mentioned "there are benefits" without mentioning what they were, but overwhelmingly they totally failed to outline the clear and obvious benefits of warming.

1125:

is no empirical evidence of anything - you can say somethings more empirical than something else but every measurement you take or observation you make depends on assumptions you have about the world and the way it works. One example is measuring temperature with a thermometer (just trying to find the temperature of a room) - making the measurement requires all sorts of assumptions (or models) about how the world works such as that the coefficient of thermal expansion of the liquid in the thermometer has a constant value; that the container is impermeable to the liquid; that the thermometer is at the same temp as the air in the room. The papers I linked, at least in part, seemed fairy empirical to me in that they include estimates of climate sensitivity that don't depend on computer models. To quote from the abstract of one "An alternative to model-based estimates is in principle available from the reconstruction of past climates, which implicitly includes cloud feedback. Here we retrieve the sensitivity of two palaeoclimates, one colder and one warmer than present, by independently reconstructing both the equilibrium surface temperature change and the radiative forcing.", while the title of the other is "An

1148:"As for niceness", it's not the "niceness", its the lack of any meaningful attempt to find a compromise on the warmist side. As I said, it must of been a couple of weeks as a pro-warmist, trying to find a form of words that would cover the sentence, and nothing has changed since ... it may have been "some dispute the hockey stick" ... which on reflection seems very modest now. In the end it was a simple calculation. If it took weeks of my time to NOT GET NPOV on one sentence, when it was plainly obvious to me AS A WARMIST that the sceptic position had to be included, it was absolutely senseless to try editing the hundreds of other sentences. I think every other sceptic has made the same calculation ... it's not worth trying to edit wikipedia ... the bias is obvious to those who read widely on the subject, so 544:

certain contributors on GW rather than engage positively with them that encourages anti-social behavior. What is AGF, btw? I agree that wikipedia's purpose isn't to resolve controversies. The lede of the Global warming article should be a succinct intro to that topic. Look at the article on gravity it doesn't say that it is the scientific consensus etc. it just states the verifiable facts (as should the GW lede). I DO NOT want to suppress the fact that some people dispute the existence of GW, because they (verifyably) do or that there is an opposing scientific consensus. I just don't think that it is of sufficient weight to go in the lede twice. I have been around here a few years and I have read

1214:

create a POV article, but that because Knowledge (XXG) tends to attract people of a like mind, and because that like mind is pro-warming and hostile to sceptics, you not only do not attract the sceptics, but when you do get sceptics they are treated in the most disdainful way -- in other words like a lynch mob. This isn't anyone's "Fault", it's just a natural tendency of groups to tend to support their own and be hostile to outsiders. E.g. when dealing with racism, it is quite possible to believe you are not a racist, but to e.g. believe in racial stereotypes which cause you to behave in a racist way. That is why racism usually requires pro-active policies to get rid of racism.

1018:

bad for Knowledge (XXG) that we gain a more nuanced view of the subject. I imagine that our two understandings of the topic currently differ quite a bit so I don't expect we can reach any kind of shared understanding just by me pointing out a paper or two. However, I do think that given sufficient patience on both our parts we might do so. Basically I'd like to have the conversation, provided it is approached by both of us in the spirit of seeking understanding rather than trying to 'win' a debate. One aspect of that would be not using terms like 'warmist' or 'denier'. Also I should point out I'm not an expert on climate science just someone who has taken an interest in it.

954:

whole history. Nor will most readers swim thru the article history and see an old version of the article. Therefore, most readers will never see that John Cook of Skeptical Science was the original author. I know for a fact that the skepSci crew discussed licensing specifically to allow for posting on wiki, and they had a team consensus to adopt the Creative Commons 3.0 license. Legalities aside, I'm thinking most artists would want credit for every viewing, not just credit by ultra nerds (a term of affection BTW) who find it in the archives or wiki commons post, so IMO, credit needs to go in the caption or supporting citation on every article where the image is used.

1232:

sceptics, just as there are disruptive warmists. The problem is that none of the reasonable sceptics who have tried to edit Knowledge (XXG) have been able to do so. I think in schools, the total absence of inclusion leads to what they call "attention deficit disorder". In schoolchildren that is measured in minutes. In my case, I've totally given up any intention to edit Knowledge (XXG) because I'm not wasting my time on the pretence of the "discussion" when the end result is always refusal if it is sceptical ... why bother with the discussion, when you can just skip to the anger that is the inevitable consequence of trying to edit climate articles on Knowledge (XXG).

1647:

science for purely political (not scientific) reasons. This is not some victimless crime! I am sick to death of hearing the phrase "it is so difficult to get anything published" from decent academics whose only crime is to find evidence that contradicts the overwhelming political POV of these pages. And having seen the evidence yes I know what fraud is, and yes I do think people on Knowledge (XXG) have been criminally fraudulent and criminally denying the public the vast amount of evidence contradicting the totally unscientific assertions about CO2 (notably the unsubstantiated positive feedbacks). I want to have nothing to do with WIKIPEDIA. GOODBYE

1165:

draft text, with citations, on talk pages. Some eventually gets included, some doesn't. If you just want to debate the concept you won't get far. Conceptual debates happen elsewhere, and it is our job to report them, within the wiki framework for sources, weight etc. And don't feel bad, recently I collapsed one of TS' threads, and he's someone who appears to give a lot of weight to the mainstream scientific view. My collapses are not content driven, they are wiki talk page guideline driven, period. But if you do feel you have a grievance with my collapses there is a dispute resolution process you can follow, and I'll participate.

521:. Those (particulalrly the latter) are the ones that I would suggest are relevant to the deletion that started this thread. Even more, it's a simple matter of user-centric information ordering. It's all three of those things. Re Big Oil: I don't give a crap what Big Oil does, and neither should you (in the specific context of Knowledge (XXG), at least), because if you do then you are a part of the problem rather than the solution. I don't mean that the controversies don't have their place; I mean that their place isn't here. the problem with AGF on AGW articles is folks who mentally divide the issue into camps " 1720:

California (his home). The style of edits is exactly the same. After about 12 edits over 2 months he turns up on the GW talk and makes the kind of comment you'd expect. But the thing that really convinces me is that when first created the account he used some auto page creation thing which he always seems/seemed to use to make his user blue-linked. Then strait after editing the GW talk he changed it. Another thing is he hasn't denied it or objected - I know I would if I wasn't a sock and was accused (and did once when JJ suggested I was!) but S doesn't ever seem to bother he just creates the next acc.

1262:

corrected them), so there was a grain of truth in the skeptic line (ie at one point in the 1990's the UAH dataset didn't show warming but since it's been corrected - mostly for the satellites orbital decay) but ultimately what I was told by a skeptic (in 2008/9) turned out to be at best a gross error (and that seems to be a pattern when I look in depth at skeptic arguments, but it often takes time). Now taking this as an example should the GW article include a line saying that some people think that the satellite data doesn't show warming?--

1327:

Guvernator physique by injecting Hostess Twinkies? No, you work out and eat right. In that example we're building muscle, but in wiki we're building an encyclopedia of ideas, hopefully with intellectual biceps to match the Guv's fleshy ones. That ain't gonna happen by eating cognitive Hostess Twinkies, whether the creamy filling is from the warmist or denialist camp. Ideas have to be presented in peer review and survive examination by others in the field. Unless we want to bring back the Dark Ages, of course. Not me.

1153:

neutral article on Knowledge (XXG) to discuss these aspects of global warming. ... so perversely, the best strategy of the sceptics has long been to not encourage Knowledge (XXG) to cover any of the argument from a sceptic position ... that way, it's almost as if it were labelled "WARNING THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY WARMISTS AND DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE SCEPTIC VIEW" ... which means people go look at our websites for our views, which is just fine by us!

708:), was made explicit, and the flow was improved (to a very minor degree, and perhaps even "arguably")... I was not trying to press any "teach the controversy" agenda (as dave put it). Saying that I was is purely against AGF. But no matter. All I was doing was tidying up an EGG. That's all... Have fun with the article. I will not touch it again (though... someone should WP:FAR it on grounds of 1(e), it won't be me... ). Good luck in all you do. – 888: 1520:

to back it up. Should there be an 'is she a lizard' section? I'm guessing you'd say no? Well, that's extreme compared to global warming skeptism but it's a question of how far down the scale the things you want to include are. I was hoping we might gain a shared POV (and we're all editing from a POV trying to find a NPOV) by discussing the details of Global Warming and working out how we have reached different conclusions.--

1913: 1297:

light of that information, I un-collapse it. If that makes me an anti-sceptic-racist, that is more of a reflection on the offended party's lack of intellectual discipline and/or emotional maturity, and says nothing about wiki's accessability to their ideas. All they have to do is spit out a coherent way they want to see the article be improved. Simply re-stating talking points isn't going to cut it.

79: 793:

have is misleading statements or links in the lead giving a false impression of disunited opinions where there is a solid near-universal consensus within science. That's even more of an EGG than the piped links discussed earlier. Coverage of controversy should be explicitly about the controversy concerned, and should be clear about the weight of expert opinion. Adds to todo list :-/ . .

372:

time I think that is better than leading the to the controversy first. The lede should be simple straightforward. I know no one has a monoploy on the truth, indeed no one can know the truth on anything - the world's to complex and all interconnected but if we aren't about striving towards the unachevable goal (of having wikipedia reflect the truth) then what are we doing here?--

1107:

topic whatever way you view it (grievous hoax or it is a serious threat). Combine the seriousness of topic with the fact that it is much easier to have an argument in text than face to face and a general public lack of understanding of the topic and you tend to get rather irate editors. It shouldn't and doesn't have to be that way but I think that's what's happened.

759:(and very best) line of defense of partisan editors, because they know that the issue at hand is their personal editing behavior (that is, the issue is themselves rather than the topic)... so if the issue is themselves, and others must address that issue, then those others must talk about that editor, and hey presto! we have an opening for calling it NPA... 1043:

parameters can be chosen to make the curve fit. However, (unlike Knowledge (XXG)) I might add a category of "non-empirical evidence" to ensure I'm not being unfair to warmists (and what on earth do you call someone who isn't a sceptic ... the "warmist" label is simply a short hand for "someone who is not sceptical of the large global warming that ...".

1083:

Honestly, I can't see why some people have a problem just stating the facts - both those they agree with and those they don't. I really do think that the best way to win an argument is to show all the evidence, explain why you come to the conclusion you do, and then let other people look at the evidence and let them come to the same conclusion.

1022:

the recent (since instrumental records) forcing and temperature change and see what the sensitivity is - though the problem with that is that the inertia (the heat capacity of the air and oceans) means it's hard to tell how far from equilibrium we are. Here's one that looks at paleoclimate though I don't have access to the full text:

1519:

No not happy with any lack of NPOV, it's just we seem to disagree with how things look from a NPOV. The slow in the rate of warming in the 21st century might need a mention but I'm skeptical about the rest. There are people who believe that Queen Elisabeth II is a lizard - they have lots of arguments

1326:

equals and don't need to do anything but be themselves. So I support anti-racism legislation (with a goal of making society color blind). But we're not talking about inherent inalienable characteristics here, we're talking about ideas. Some have a solid foundation and some do not. Do you create a

1296:

When a thread fails to articulate an article improvement idea I collapse it, whether it makes oblique ambiguous reference to so-called "warmist" information, "denialist" information, or something in between. When people, such as TS, then apologize and say exactly how the article should be changed in

1256:

was a mess - not the Knowledge (XXG) I'm used to at all. There were lots of unconnected facts pulled from journals, a lot of them clearly trying to push an anti global warming POV and bits POVing back. The article is much better now (with only minuscule contributions from me) and bits have been split

1198:

Thanks for kind words, Ian. When I have anything to feel bad about, I apologize, and no worries... I didn't take your comment as being aimed at me (though I confess some folks did come to my own mind). BTW, I lurk on your talk page here because we're involved in several constructive discussions and

1164:

The thread was "pulled", i.e., it was collapsed for the reason that you were only debating issues. You weren't talking about a specific change you wanted to make to the article. If you write some draft text you might get more traction. Check user Enescot's contributions for examples where he puts

1152:

In other words, one only needs to look at a few websites to find debate about the 21st century "cooling", the climategate "hide the decline" and the problems with measurement equipment. One doesn't have to be some extremist "denier", to read about these issues and any reasonable person would expect a

1124:

you think its proponents are. If you did you'd always follow a charlatan rather than a scientist - Charlatans have much better people skills. The way to decide seems to me to be to look at the evidence. Which brings us to the question of what is empirical evidence? My view is that fundamentally there

1072:

And to be quite honest, when I started, I would have been quite content if Knowledge (XXG) had just honestly listed the arguments and evidence asserted by the sceptics. Quite literally: "the evidence for warming is this, this, this, but some people disagree for these reasons". Just a factual article,

1062:

At that point, I realised that not only had I been misled, not only had I been extremely gullible, but worse, because I had been quite vocal spreading the global warming thesis, I had actively misled an enormous number of people and common decency meant I should try to make amends and do something to

1021:

I imagine this might go elsewhere but you asked about feedbacks - ie climate sensitivity, right? In particular you were interested in empirical evidence. I've read a bit of some papers that try to establish climate sensitivity by looking at the paleontological climate record, another route is look at

1017:

My belief is that were people differ, open minded discussion is usually beneficial to both. The global warming talk page isn't the right place for such a general discussion. Arguably my talk page isn't either, but as we are Wikipedians taking an interest in climate change related articles it can't be

703:

I don't really have anything else to add to this conversation, but am responding out of courtesy. I certainly am not going to go to the talk page of the article, nor will I edit it again in the near future. No time, and no desire to spend weeks running around in circles... My edits retained precisely

1261:

which still has a mess in the middle section. BTW what I found when I researched the topic was that the satellite data definitely does show warming, even the data as produced by Christy and Spencer shows significant warming (though others had to point out the errors that they were making before they

1001:

PS. I do have a signon to Knowledge (XXG) but by way of protest at the censorship on global warming I am refusing to use it ... (which is another way of saying I've learnt from bitter experience that I haven't a hope in hell of ever getting any edits in climate articles so I've decided "I don't want

792:

Unfortunately Ling.Nut2 appears to be more interested in prejudging other editors. We should indeed improve coverage of "controversies" in the article. The lead should summarise the content, and improved coverage in the article should come first. Hope to assist with that sometime. What we should not

679:

registered their support that the change should happen, the timing was my own. Unsurprisingly I didn't know you were asleep. Your last comment above was "OK.Later" which I took as some degree of acquiescence. You accuse us of being purely partisan editors, that is untrue and unfair. I want Knowledge

1746:

Fair enough, did look over the edit history but it didn't seem like some of the earlier incarnations. I'm hopeless at sock spotting though some of his have been so blatant that even I've been right. I do know that some editors keep hints about how to spot him to themselves to avoid tipping him off,

938:

I thought that as I uploaded it as a modification of the original graphic that the attribution was implicit. If there is somewhere that an attribution is needed I'm happy to add it or for it to be added (Where?). I hope you don't mind the modification but the previous one simply wasn't supported by

922:

Hi Ian, Thanks for your interest in the climate graphic I posted recently. FYI, the license for that graphic (Creative Commons 3.0) requires attribution to the original author, so if you want to go with your revised image, which is fine with me, I think it should say something like "Modified from

543:

I absolutely agree that we should not be in camps! However the outside world does have an influence on wikipedia and it's important to understand why there is such a polarization of views which leads to many of the problems with the global warming article. There has been a tenancy there to shut out

21:

The "license" refers not to a simple verbal or written agreement (which would be classified as a contract, already mentioned). Within property law, a license is an agreement attached not to the parties but to the land itself, and is part of the documents associated with that piece of land. As such,

1820:

Since the pic you think is "silly" is well sourced and you're not quibbling with the factual statement it represents, I plan to put it back on all the pages, and I'll be perfectly happy to see a pie chart replace it when a pie chart is made by somebody (other than me). Meanwhile, Andy's stylistic

1538:

Ian, FYI, about the supposed slowing? First please ask yourself whether you risk your naked tender parts just plunging into the jacuzzi on the basis of how warm (or cool) the AIR is? Yes sir, that unfortunate sort of experience has taught all of us that water is a far superior heat sink to air.

1231:

Likewise, Knowledge (XXG) has to have pro-active policies to ensure it includes the sceptic position. Indeed, the biggest problem Knowledge (XXG) now faces is finding any sceptics willing to work with what most sceptics see as a completely one-sided coverage. And ... of course there are disruptive

1213:

NewsAndEventsGuy, this is nothing personal. Under the rules of Knowledge (XXG) you were probably right to pull the comments, but then again if I were black in the south pre-civil rights, I could say the same about enacting race legislation. The problem is not that majority of editors intentionally

548:

a couple of times (and practically live life by NPOV) and from what I remember of WP:LEDE I try to follow it. You may have noticed that I've returned the link to the GW lede in the second sentence. Basically we have just that pointing out the scientific consensus rather than it being said twice in

286:

Seems fine now, though I'm not really an expert myself. Having spent quite a bit of time on the global warming pages lately where the smallest thing gets picked over to see that on the main page was quite a shock. There is a lot of misinformation around on the subject and I feared that was part of

1144:

Ian, I will take another look at the papers, but as I say, I was looking for empirical evidence ... ideally evidence "testing" of the hypothesis. That's why I don't like "back projections". The minimum would be a forward prediction and a comparison to data. ... BUT AS I SAID, (UNLIKE WIKIPEDIA) I

997:

thanks for the offer of empirical evidence. As you may be aware the discussion got pulled - if you aren't aware this always happens to any discussion where the sceptics have a valid point. But as I'm seriously looking for any warmist papers with empirical evidence, let's just say I'll be happy to

371:

Hi Ling.Nut, I agree with you that the link is valuable - there might be a place for that in the lede still I'll see if I can get that in. The reason I changed the sentence is that it was *so* defensive. What we have now is a plain statement of fact. For someone coming to this topic for the first

1646:

Ian, I've been looking into this Svensmark/CERN solar link, and I've totally changed my mind. I found there to be plenty of compelling evidence. This is no longer an academic dispute. As far as I can see this is actually a case of outright fraud by some editors on Knowledge (XXG) repressing good

1106:

Well, yes, some contributers to the Global warming pages are more than a bit spikey. I certainly don't think the way everyone who edits those pages discusses the topic in the best possible way. But I look at the reasons why they are like that and can, at least partly, see why. It is an important

1082:

But now, we've gone way beyond that. The evidence is now overwhelmingly on the sceptic side ... that is to say, that the science only supports less than 1C of warming, and anything greater is unsubstantiated speculation. But that doesn't mean I would leave out the evidence on positive feedbacks.

953:

No I don't mind the tweak. Technically, I don't know the legalities of attribution, but just think about it from the original author's perspective. Most readers will pass by a wiki article and see an image. In this case it won't be necessary to see the image full size at wiki commons with the

780:

WP:LEDE says "include mention of notable criticism or controversies" not "all period". My view is that the naming of potentially linked material should not govern the choice of words in an article, but the words should be chosen on their merits and the links come next. In any case discussions of

1500:

No one needs a PhD in the subject to know when the wool is being pulled over them - and as every lecturer says to every group of students: "don't trust what you read on the internet". As they say, you can take a horse to water, but you can't force a Knowledge (XXG) editor to change their POV.

1482:

From the gist of what is being said, I take it you are just fine with the lack of NPOV on Knowledge (XXG). People are not stupid, we all read stuff from politicians and everyone has their bullshit detector and can sense when they are not being told the truth. The best indicator that a source is

1422:

Ian. PS, for clarity with the IP... my prior comment, where I said all needs to do is to articulate article improvement ideas? I meant that's what's needed to avoid having the thread archived or collapsed. Once an article improvement idea has been articulated, everyone (including me) gets to

1042:

Ian, thanks for the links. Unfortunately, these both really fall in the "climate model" category which I've specifically rejected as empirical evidence. The reason for this is that I can't count fitting a model to data as empirical, because it doesn't test that there is a causal link, only that

1052:

And Ian, just to let you know, I started with the global warming at a time when I was like you: a believer. I honestly tried to put a link to an article on peak oil (purely because I found it interesting) and I was utterly horrified with the response on the article. Seeing that there was a big

1719:

Well I'm not sure about Logic. Have you looked at his edit history? The checkuser seems to have shown that he's not on the same IP range as our old friend normally uses (he's been quite for a week) but he sure as hell looks like him. He's only edited about half a dozen articles. One local to

1179:

I don't think you should feel bad about removing that thread NewsAndEventsGuy, because, as you say it wasn't about specific content. As the IP user says he 'doesn't want to play anymore' and while it happened to be a vaguely interesting link (which I read) the Global Warming Talk page wasn't

939:

the sources. It's not as neat as the original but things rarely are neat when you look at the detail. I think the graphic is a great addition, btw, but just think we have to be scrupulous about accuracy and that holding ourselves to a high standard in that regard will help in the long run.--

568:

is... I'm unlikely to edit the article. I have no time for their crap, at least not at present. I'm also unlikely to read it closely and try to determine if one mention or two of the controversy is "enough'... but I still think the link you deleted should go back in. It's all about making

1925:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

357:? I don't give a crap about Truth , which is what all the AGW and nti-AGW folks are trying to take possession of on-wiki. I just happen to think that you removed an extremely high-value link (doing damage to the version read by all later readers) by removing valuable information. – 632:

rather than in peer reviewed publications and scientific discourse. There's clearly a dispute between environmentalists and big business, the difficulty is in accurately representing scientific findings when mass media promote contrarian views as though they're equally valid. . .

1452:

Yes, specific article improvements are what's needed to avoid thread collapse but I fear the IP contributor would still, generally, end up disappointed if he made such suggestions the way things are. So either he or Knowledge (XXG) must change (in fact inevitably both, at least

1620:

Did I give that impression? I apologize! You seem like a true skeptic, which in my vocabulary is high praise. As my research/teaching professor of a hard science wife says "All scientists worth their salt are skeptics about everything for their entire careers." 'cheerio

627:

As you'll both have noted, I've tried modifying the wording a little, and have commented on the talk page about the issue of undue weight being given to the tiny minority of scientists whose views are promoted by industrial groups, and appear in conservative media like the

1251:

The way I got into all this was after talking to a skeptic; he told me that the satellite data showed no warming. So I thought I'd go to Knowledge (XXG) to find the facts (and in my experience with the right caution it's not a bad place to look for facts). What I found at

1557:

Yes, water has a higher heat capacity and thermal conductivity, but there is an effect going on with air temp. My understanding was that radiative flux into the earth had decreased somewhat due to reduced solar activity and sulphates. (But I couldn't get that from the

207:

It seems from your last 500 contribs that you're not particularly interested in football(!), but given the all-round contributions of this man to Norwich, I thought that you might be interested in joining the small group of us trying to push the biography of

245:

Grand. There's a to-do list on the talk page, if you're interested. On non-football issues, we're struggling with information about his early life in particular. We've also got next to nothing about his current business career. Good to have you.

287:

it, though I see it was likely no more than an understandable error. The troposphere is warming and the stratosphere cooling (beneath plenty of variability) so the main page agrees with my perception of reality so no need to edit either one! --

972:. N makes suggests the strict counting approach you used based on Doran ("75 out of 79") creates a conflict with Anderberg's results in the other paper. Suggest you add any comments on this to the thread on the talk page I just linked to. 688:

understanding of the subjects that I contribute to, the same as you or anyone else does. Unfortunately we are on the topic of me as an editor rather than the substance any change, which in any case is best talked about on the relevant talk

737:

requires that "Knowledge (XXG) should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view". Hopefully this is more a disagreement about how best to meet that policy. . .

1235:

I see what you are saying about the Global Warming article not including a 'skeptic viewpoint'. I think part of the problem there is that there are people who (for motives best known to themselves) come up with arguments against

1129:

Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity", I haven't read it in detail but it does appear to live up to it's title doesn't it? You say that "the science only supports less than 1C of warming" - but what is the evidence of

1723:

Thanks for the links - good stuff (though simply confirmation of the ruthless worldwide scientific cabal, of course). As soon as I have time to do it properly I'll march off to Dr. S's bio. I'll also try to improve the

1352:

As for satellite data, I think you said skeptics often say sat data shows no warming but they are basing on that on something that is wrong because sat data DOES show warming. Sounds like a splendid thing to work into

1028:

which can be downloaded. These are just a couple I dug up with google scholar there are plenty more. I can't find it at the mo but there is a good synthesis of various estimates of climate sensitivity somewhere....--

1953: 1871:. 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 1606:

Well yes, I'm not disagreeing with any of that but it's not me who's in need of convincing, is it? BTW I meant to say above the rate of change of radiative flux was reduced rather than the radiative flux.--

1937:. 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 1390:

In sum, I think things are just fine on wiki except for the rampant lack of civility, and I think things are just fine in the world, so long as we oppose the assault on the scientific process.

569:

information available to the reader. Also, well.... you know.... I hate to say this, but the anti-AGW crowd would say your position is POV whenever you equate AGW and gravity...but whatever. –

900:

Thanks for helping me out on the Global warming page -- as I am still getting the hang of Knowledge (XXG), I appreciate you taking a look to provide solutions instead of just deleting edits.

763:

says all controversies go in the lede. Period. Final. And hiding it behind an EGG is eliding the rule as well... I only came to fix an egg; you came to press a partisan view. That's all. –

923:(my version of the cite) and based on research by (Doran paper)." Or if you don't want to use the full cite I originally posted it at least needs to say John Cook and Skeptical Science. 1821:

opinion that use of people instead of pie is "silly" is not a reason to delete the relevant graphic, since its well sourced within wiki guidelines. Make pie, Andy, don't delete please.

1748: 455:, I don't give a crap what folks in America teach (or more accurately, I kinda do, but not really very strongly, and certainly not in the context of this conversation). I'm in favor of 1792:

I think you are right that a pie chart would be better. I just think the graph with the 100 little people looks silly and distracts from the greater purpose of the article.

1150:

in a sense, the best way to signal to people that the articles are not credible, is to allow them to be so warmist in viewpoint that anyone reading widely will see the bias.

863:

Takes a bit of faith sometimes. You show a remarkable combination of passion and objectivity, NAEG, and I think it paid off. Plenty still to do though as dave notes above.--

1697:

does indeed still have problems, as do the Spencer and Christy bios. I'll maybe try to fix the obvious in the main article, but some good third party sourcing is needed.

781:

content are best done on the relevant talk page because assuming we agree something (and I trust given long enough we would) others may still have a different view.--

733:, even though undoubtedly made with the best of intentions. While agreeing with the point that we should avoid EGGs, I appear to differ from Ling in thinking that 272:, interesting news. As a non-expert I've tried to help with tweaking the news item, hope all's reasonably ok now. Or at least as much as can be expected. . . 680:(XXG) to be accurate and useful and I have a degree of humility about my understanding of the world. I'm willing to engage open-mindedly with anyone on the 684:

of this or any other topic on which I might contribute and as I have already stated only add verifiable material. So how am I partisan? Because I do have

494:

is that that is is major tactic of pro fossil fuel PR with regard to global warming - keep people wondering if it is true then they won't demand action.--

1199:

I've noticed newcomers to a chat often wander into personal talk space instead of just boldly joining in at the appropriate place... hope you don't mind.

650:, apparently citing yourselves as consensus. No offense, but you are purely partisan editors. I have no time for such. This article desperately needs 154: 231:

Well, I'm delighted to be asked so will take a look; but you are spot on I'm not much of a footie fan so not sure how much use I'll be there....--

968:

HOLD THE PRESSES. Maybe I do mind the tweak. I did not read the other paper cited in the skep sci column, but Nigelj did. See discussion at

1404:

The world and wiki are both great but we still have to try to find where we can make changes for the better (and where to leave well alone).--

1180:

necessarily the place to post it. Btw my comments about some people who edit the global warming articles weren't aimed at you (they weren't

1967: 1896: 1654: 1505: 1093: 969: 592: 350: 341: 1693:

appear to be unfounded, may I suggest that it would be tactful if you could delete your comment? As an aside from looking over the above,

1361:

the erroneous things skeptics say in a single article... and when they say an important thing that adds a missing piece to the puzzle, a

1003: 1725: 1694: 1354: 1253: 158: 1729: 1258: 1702: 1963: 1892: 1946: 1026: 477:

I love the 5 pillars and agree that content should be verifiable. I have not (and don't intend to) add unverifiable content.--

1808: 146: 90: 68: 1504:

But don't worry, I'll be back, because I fully anticipate a need to totally rewrite the article by the end of next year!!!

317: 41:

Yes I do not think it makes much difference either way. I was going with "Foods high in simple sugars should be avoided"

150: 54: 1883:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1958: 1888: 1092:

Anyway ... thanks for the information, I do appreciate it ... even if I'm going to have to think about how to use it.

848:

Ian, just wanted to thank your for your obvious skills in remaining constructive when consensus seems slow to arrive

1826: 1626: 1588: 1548: 1428: 1395: 1204: 1170: 977: 959: 928: 853: 1669:

I'm sorry to hear that. I had hoped we could discus the detail of this topic and reached a shared understanding.--

22:

some licenses are revocable (contractual ones) but most are part of the deeds; similar to a right of access, say.

1483:

trustworthy is that it covers all the issues in a none partisan way. What will trigger the bullshit detector is:

491: 452: 420: 58: 1934: 1658: 1509: 1097: 583:

Well they might do but I'd fall back on verifiable facts same as I would with the gravity deniers (Newton was

1007: 193: 1796: 1650: 725:

With regret, must point out that Ling.Nut2's accusation of "purely partisan editors" is both a failure to

308:

Thanks for the suggestion, I was not aware of that convention, this move also fixed a bunch of red links.

1884: 162: 1822: 1622: 1584: 1544: 1424: 1391: 1200: 1166: 973: 955: 924: 905: 849: 676: 1756: 1710: 1419: 798: 743: 638: 584: 277: 185: 1921: 1860: 1851: 1835:

Well I probably agree, more or less with both of you there. I watch the page so we can talk there.--

1322:

The racism analogy falls short. Society can create a multiculture reality of equals because blacks

1023: 764: 709: 655: 611: 570: 530: 464: 406: 358: 166: 1800: 768: 713: 659: 615: 574: 534: 468: 410: 362: 170: 138: 115: 27: 1930: 1880: 1864: 734: 1804: 189: 1145:

DON'T WANT TO FRAME THE REQUIREMENT IN A WAY THAT RULES OUT ONE SIDE, SO I'LL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK.

213: 1836: 1769: 1765: 1733: 1670: 1607: 1559: 1521: 1469: 1454: 1405: 1357:

but not the mainstream science overview article.... I mean, have you been ? We can't include

1263: 1185: 1131: 1029: 940: 864: 782: 690: 596: 550: 495: 478: 463:, because it is a first line of defense against "shit people make up on the Internet". :-) – 437: 424: 373: 325: 313: 288: 251: 232: 221: 123: 1942: 1876: 1868: 760: 545: 518: 514: 396: 392: 354: 901: 50: 1945:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1938: 1879:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1872: 752: 730: 726: 705: 651: 565: 104: 1752: 1706: 834: 794: 739: 672: 634: 273: 456: 887: 103:

While all contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, content or articles may be

23: 510: 460: 388: 78: 1705:

but don't have time to edit much at present. Think you could incorporate this? . .

309: 247: 217: 1912: 704:

the contents of the lede before I touched it, except that the link (which is an

42: 830: 522: 209: 127: 1698: 1120:

But more importantly it doesn't seem to make sense to base your views on how

1073:

factually giving the evidence for, and factually giving the evidence against.

133:

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing

1971: 1900: 1844: 1830: 1812: 1777: 1759: 1741: 1713: 1678: 1662: 1630: 1615: 1592: 1567: 1552: 1529: 1513: 1477: 1462: 1432: 1413: 1399: 1271: 1208: 1193: 1174: 1139: 1101: 1037: 1011: 981: 963: 948: 932: 909: 872: 857: 838: 801: 771: 746: 716: 698: 662: 641: 618: 604: 577: 558: 537: 503: 486: 471: 445: 432: 413: 405:

go in the lede, and shouldn't be buried in its nether regions either... –

381: 365: 333: 296: 280: 255: 240: 225: 197: 174: 62: 31: 1244:

argument for or against anything, so which ones to include? If we include

1751:

has a piece (not a blog, unclear if it's an op/ed) which looks useful. .

1487:

missing subjects (like the 21st century pause which everyone knows about)

269: 1949:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

564:

If you've been around Knowledge (XXG) for a while, you should know what

387:

what we are doing here is striving for the eminently achievable goal of

1867:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

1690: 1468:

PS I'm a actually a sockpuppet of St Francis - you've blown my cover.--

646:

For dave and ian, you guys restored your favored language while I was

526: 529:". They just argue and edit war all over each other. 'Nuff said. – 1701:

may be of interest, and I'm rather pleased to have found a reliable

595:"). Ah, AFG (you should have said :-) Again one I try to live by. -- 86: 72: 391:

first and above all; the difficult but still reachable goal of

1952:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

970:

Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Infograph_-_is_it_relevant

395:

second, and I forgot what's third but it ain't Truth. ;-) Read

844:

Thanks, an excellent example of constructive consensus seeking

77: 1747:

so must content myself with ignorance. On the other topic,

1539:

With that thought in mind, you may find these interesting:

1025:. Here is another that looks at recent temperature changes: 184:

I don't think what you wrote is correct, see discussion at

826:

You've been around long enough. Mark your reverts as such.

436:

Why do we want a verifiable encyclopedia(I agree we do)?--

1240:

aspect of global warming. It's possible to come up with

1933:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

827: 110:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

268:

Thanks for picking up the misunderstanding about the

1859:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current 1493:The absence of information found in other sources 1184:at anyone but if they were it wouldn't be you).-- 1490:Bias in wording: "global warming is happening". 1423:support/oppose/ignore/tweak it on the merits. 324:Oh good, neither was I but it seemed nicer :)-- 157:can result in deletion without discussion, and 8: 1572:Here's another way to look at those factors 180:Fence post errors in the Julian calendar 549:the first paragraph. Hope that is OK.-- 122:notice, but please explain why in your 186:Talk:Julian calendar#Fence post error? 1248:of them the article becomes nonsense. 918:Creative Commons license for graphics 7: 1922:2018 Arbitration Committee elections 1728:further along with my neglected pet 671:It was I who restored "finding" not 654:, but no one wants the headache. – 1935:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process 1919:Hello, IanOfNorwich. Voting in the 1906:ArbCom 2018 election voter message 1726:satellite temperature measurements 1695:satellite temperature measurements 1355:Satellite_temperature_measurements 1254:Satellite temperature measurements 105:deleted for any of several reasons 93:because of the following concern: 14: 1885:review the candidates' statements 1730:UAH satellite temperature dataset 1365:of climate nerds will embrace it. 1259:UAH satellite temperature dataset 349:Hi. Why did you rm the text "The 1911: 1063:dispel the nonsense I had found. 886: 513:: Cool. Then the next steps are 1956:and submit your choices on the 1891:. For the Election committee, 1861:Arbitration Committee election 1852:ArbCom elections are now open! 198:17:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 1: 1972:18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) 1901:13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC) 1845:07:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 1831:00:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 1813:23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC) 1778:20:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 1760:19:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 1742:18:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 1714:17:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 1679:14:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 1663:13:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 1631:13:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 1616:11:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 1593:10:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 1568:09:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 1768:means but it reassures me.-- 1764:I'm literally not sure what 1887:and submit your choices on 1553:21:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC) 1530:20:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC) 1514:19:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC) 1478:13:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC) 1463:13:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC) 1433:12:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC) 1414:12:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC) 1400:11:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC) 1272:09:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC) 1209:12:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC) 1194:06:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC) 1175:23:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 1140:22:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 1102:21:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 1038:22:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC) 1012:19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC) 998:hear what you have to say. 982:01:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC) 964:21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC) 949:20:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC) 933:19:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC) 161:allows discussion to reach 98:no indication of Notability 1989: 1964:MediaWiki message delivery 1893:MediaWiki message delivery 1257:off, I'm still working on 910:19:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 303:Move Florida geolgy -: --> 256:10:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 241:20:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 226:15:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 175:00:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC) 32:21:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC) 885: 873:20:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 858:09:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 839:21:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 802:16:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 772:01:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 747:14:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 717:12:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 699:09:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 663:02:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 642:10:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 619:10:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 605:09:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 591:back in (third sentence " 578:09:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 559:09:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 538:09:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 504:09:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 487:09:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 472:08:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 446:08:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 433:08:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 414:08:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 382:08:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 366:02:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 353:is that global" from the 318:_Geology_of_Florida": --> 297:21:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 281:20:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 147:proposed deletion process 63:00:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC) 1840: 1773: 1737: 1674: 1611: 1563: 1525: 1473: 1458: 1409: 1267: 1189: 1135: 1033: 944: 868: 786: 694: 600: 554: 499: 492:teaching the controversy 482: 453:teaching the controversy 441: 428: 421:teaching the controversy 377: 329: 292: 270:bracing effects on ozone 236: 1496:A skew in the coverage. 990:Global warming evidence 334:23:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC) 319:02:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC) 155:speedy deletion process 128:the article's talk page 1689:Your suspicions noted 82: 1931:Arbitration Committee 1865:Arbitration Committee 1732:as time allows.....-- 894:The Original Barnstar 677:User:NewsAndEventsGuy 587:of course). The link 419:You are in favour of 159:articles for deletion 91:proposed for deletion 81: 1420:Prayer of St Francis 351:scientific consensus 342:scientific consensus 1869:arbitration process 879:A barnstar for you! 630:Wall Street Journal 264:Ozone is so bracing 1947:arbitration policy 1881:arbitration policy 1703:third party source 304:Geology of Florida 151:deletion processes 83: 1816: 1799:comment added by 1653:comment added by 915: 914: 69:Proposed deletion 1980: 1915: 1823:NewsAndEventsGuy 1815: 1793: 1665: 1623:NewsAndEventsGuy 1585:NewsAndEventsGuy 1545:NewsAndEventsGuy 1425:NewsAndEventsGuy 1392:NewsAndEventsGuy 1201:NewsAndEventsGuy 1167:NewsAndEventsGuy 974:NewsAndEventsGuy 956:NewsAndEventsGuy 925:NewsAndEventsGuy 890: 883: 882: 850:NewsAndEventsGuy 675:, though he and 399:. Controversies 144: 143: 137: 121: 120: 114: 47: 1988: 1987: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1916: 1908: 1889:the voting page 1855: 1794: 1790: 1687: 1648: 1127:Observationally 992: 920: 881: 846: 824: 731:personal attack 346: 306: 266: 214:Featured status 205: 182: 141: 135: 134: 118: 112: 111: 76: 43: 39: 19: 12: 11: 5: 1986: 1984: 1954:the candidates 1917: 1910: 1909: 1907: 1904: 1858: 1854: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1833: 1789: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1721: 1686: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1655:88.104.194.119 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1533: 1532: 1506:88.104.194.119 1498: 1497: 1494: 1491: 1488: 1465: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1249: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1146: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1094:88.104.194.119 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1019: 991: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 966: 919: 916: 913: 912: 897: 896: 891: 880: 877: 876: 875: 845: 842: 823: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 790: 775: 774: 751:Dave, crying " 720: 719: 666: 665: 622: 621: 610:Ok. Later. – 581: 580: 541: 540: 489: 475: 474: 435: 417: 416: 369: 368: 345: 344:is that global 338: 337: 336: 305: 301: 300: 299: 265: 262: 261: 260: 259: 258: 204: 201: 181: 178: 165:for deletion. 145:will stop the 101: 100: 75: 66: 38: 35: 18: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1985: 1974: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1960: 1955: 1950: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1927: 1924: 1923: 1914: 1905: 1903: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1853: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1787: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1722: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1540: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1502: 1495: 1492: 1489: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1480: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1466: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1421: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1325: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1260: 1255: 1250: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1234: 1233: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1163: 1162: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1128: 1123: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1004:88.104.207.14 999: 995: 989: 983: 979: 975: 971: 967: 965: 961: 957: 952: 951: 950: 946: 942: 937: 936: 935: 934: 930: 926: 917: 911: 907: 903: 899: 898: 895: 892: 889: 884: 878: 874: 870: 866: 862: 861: 860: 859: 855: 851: 843: 841: 840: 836: 832: 828: 821: 803: 800: 796: 791: 788: 784: 779: 778: 777: 776: 773: 770: 766: 762: 758: 754: 750: 749: 748: 745: 741: 736: 732: 728: 724: 723: 722: 721: 718: 715: 711: 707: 702: 701: 700: 696: 692: 687: 683: 678: 674: 670: 669: 668: 667: 664: 661: 657: 653: 649: 645: 644: 643: 640: 636: 631: 626: 625: 624: 623: 620: 617: 613: 609: 608: 607: 606: 602: 598: 594: 590: 586: 579: 576: 572: 567: 563: 562: 561: 560: 556: 552: 547: 539: 536: 532: 528: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 507: 506: 505: 501: 497: 493: 488: 484: 480: 473: 470: 466: 462: 458: 454: 450: 449: 448: 447: 443: 439: 434: 430: 426: 422: 415: 412: 408: 404: 403: 398: 394: 390: 389:verifiability 386: 385: 384: 383: 379: 375: 367: 364: 360: 356: 352: 348: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 323: 322: 321: 320: 315: 311: 302: 298: 294: 290: 285: 284: 283: 282: 279: 275: 271: 263: 257: 253: 249: 244: 243: 242: 238: 234: 230: 229: 228: 227: 223: 219: 215: 211: 202: 200: 199: 195: 191: 190:Chris Bennett 187: 179: 177: 176: 172: 168: 164: 160: 156: 152: 148: 140: 131: 129: 125: 117: 108: 106: 99: 96: 95: 94: 92: 88: 80: 74: 70: 67: 65: 64: 60: 56: 52: 48: 46: 36: 34: 33: 29: 25: 16: 1957: 1951: 1928: 1920: 1918: 1856: 1837:IanOfNorwich 1795:— Preceding 1791: 1770:IanOfNorwich 1734:IanOfNorwich 1688: 1671:IanOfNorwich 1649:— Preceding 1645: 1608:IanOfNorwich 1581: 1560:IanOfNorwich 1522:IanOfNorwich 1503: 1499: 1481: 1470:IanOfNorwich 1467: 1455:IanOfNorwich 1451: 1418:Sounds like 1406:IanOfNorwich 1362: 1358: 1323: 1264:IanOfNorwich 1245: 1241: 1237: 1186:IanOfNorwich 1181: 1149: 1132:IanOfNorwich 1126: 1121: 1030:IanOfNorwich 1000: 996: 993: 941:IanOfNorwich 921: 893: 865:IanOfNorwich 847: 825: 783:IanOfNorwich 756: 691:IanOfNorwich 685: 681: 647: 629: 597:IanOfNorwich 593:not rejected 588: 582: 551:IanOfNorwich 542: 496:IanOfNorwich 490:My point re 479:IanOfNorwich 476: 438:IanOfNorwich 425:IanOfNorwich 418: 401: 400: 374:IanOfNorwich 370: 326:IanOfNorwich 307: 289:IanOfNorwich 267: 233:IanOfNorwich 206: 183: 153:exist. The 149:, but other 132: 124:edit summary 109: 102: 97: 85:The article 84: 44: 40: 20: 1959:voting page 1558:article.)-- 902:MrsEcoGreen 1943:topic bans 1877:topic bans 1753:dave souza 1707:dave souza 1453:subtly).-- 795:dave souza 757:very first 755:!" is the 740:dave souza 673:dave souza 635:dave souza 274:dave souza 210:Bryan Gunn 139:dated prod 116:dated prod 1939:site bans 1873:site bans 1002:to play") 829:Thanks. - 735:WP:WEIGHT 682:substance 167:Weaponbb7 163:consensus 89:has been 45:Doc James 24:Ironholds 1809:contribs 1801:Andy0093 1797:unsigned 1651:unsigned 525:" andf " 509:(ec) Re 451:(ec) Re 55:contribs 17:Trespass 1130:that?-- 822:Warning 761:WP:LEDE 689:page.-- 546:WP:LEDE 523:Big Oil 519:WP:LEDE 515:WP:NPOV 423:then?-- 397:WP:LEDE 393:WP:NPOV 355:WP:LEDE 248:Dweller 218:Dweller 1863:. The 1749:Forbes 1541:] and 753:WP:NPA 729:and a 727:WP:AGF 706:WP:EGG 652:WP:FAR 648:asleep 566:WP:AGF 527:Big Al 459:. Re: 126:or on 1685:Logic 1543:]. 1238:every 1182:aimed 994:Ian, 831:Atmoz 585:wrong 457:WP:5P 203:Hello 87:XFOIL 73:XFOIL 59:email 1968:talk 1929:The 1897:talk 1841:talk 1827:talk 1805:talk 1774:talk 1766:this 1757:talk 1738:talk 1711:talk 1699:This 1691:here 1675:talk 1659:talk 1627:talk 1612:talk 1589:talk 1564:talk 1549:talk 1526:talk 1510:talk 1474:talk 1459:talk 1429:talk 1410:talk 1396:talk 1268:talk 1205:talk 1190:talk 1171:talk 1136:talk 1122:nice 1098:talk 1034:talk 1008:talk 978:talk 960:talk 945:talk 929:talk 906:talk 869:talk 854:talk 835:talk 799:talk 787:talk 765:Ling 744:talk 710:Ling 695:talk 656:Ling 639:talk 612:Ling 601:talk 571:Ling 555:talk 531:Ling 517:and 511:WP:V 500:talk 483:talk 465:Ling 461:WP:V 442:talk 429:talk 407:Ling 402:must 378:talk 359:Ling 340:The 330:talk 314:talk 310:TimL 293:talk 278:talk 252:talk 237:talk 222:talk 216:. -- 194:talk 171:talk 51:talk 37:Edit 28:talk 1857:Hi, 1788:Hey 1363:lot 1359:all 1324:are 1246:all 769:Nut 714:Nut 660:Nut 616:Nut 575:Nut 535:Nut 469:Nut 411:Nut 363:Nut 212:to 71:of 1970:) 1962:. 1941:, 1899:) 1875:, 1843:) 1829:) 1811:) 1807:• 1776:) 1755:, 1740:) 1709:, 1677:) 1661:) 1629:) 1614:) 1591:) 1566:) 1551:) 1528:) 1512:) 1476:) 1461:) 1431:) 1412:) 1398:) 1270:) 1242:an 1207:) 1192:) 1173:) 1138:) 1100:) 1036:) 1010:) 980:) 962:) 947:) 931:) 908:) 871:) 856:) 837:) 797:, 742:, 697:) 686:an 637:, 603:) 589:is 557:) 502:) 485:) 444:) 431:) 380:) 332:) 316:) 295:) 276:, 254:) 246:-- 239:) 224:) 196:) 188:-- 173:) 142:}} 136:{{ 130:. 119:}} 113:{{ 107:. 61:) 57:· 53:· 30:) 1966:( 1895:( 1839:( 1825:( 1803:( 1772:( 1736:( 1673:( 1657:( 1625:( 1610:( 1587:( 1583:] 1562:( 1547:( 1524:( 1508:( 1472:( 1457:( 1427:( 1408:( 1394:( 1266:( 1203:( 1188:( 1169:( 1134:( 1096:( 1032:( 1006:( 976:( 958:( 943:( 927:( 904:( 867:( 852:( 833:( 789:) 785:( 767:. 712:. 693:( 658:. 614:. 599:( 573:. 553:( 533:. 498:( 481:( 467:. 440:( 427:( 409:. 376:( 361:. 328:( 312:( 291:( 250:( 235:( 220:( 192:( 169:( 49:( 26:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index