User talk:Brusegadi: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Erwin85Bot (talk | contribs) New section: →[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AfD]] nomination of [[Petrodollar warfare]]: Bot notification of AfD |
→ArbCom 2017 election voter message: new section Tag: |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{busy|[[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]])}} |
|||
I will not be online very often. I will be back as a regular as soon as I have taken care of some things... [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]]) 06:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{Retired}} |
|||
== Would you visit these two talk pages? == |
|||
== [[WP:ACE2015|ArbCom elections are now open!]] == |
|||
Oi amigo. Rember me from the edits on the [[Antarctica cooling controversy]]? Would you be so kind to visit [[Talk:Food vs fuel]] and [[es:Talk:Peaje urbano de Londres|Talk:Peaje urbano de Londres]] and give us your experienced opinion on these discussions. By the way, I already gathered all the sources to contribute in the [[State of Fear]] article to give it some NPOV balance, but I have been very busy working on other articles. Those with controversial issues are very time consuming, so less productive to my taste. I hope you can contribute and give us some orientation to these discussions, particularly in Wiki Español, that users are not so experience in following Wiki policy. Your advice on [[Congestion pricing]] was great, it really helped to stop the talking and the little edit war. Thanks. [[User:Mariordo|Mariordo]] ([[User talk:Mariordo|talk]]) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Hey. I had been away for a moment. I will go take a look and see if anything was resolved. [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]]) 06:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692039973 --> |
|||
== [[WP:ACE2016|ArbCom Elections 2016]]: Voting now open! == |
|||
== Back == |
|||
Good to see you back, I started thinking you might have left for good... |
|||
My visit to Nicaragua turned out to be very brief, due to time constrains. I have only seen a bit of Managua... But I hope to be back some time this or next year. |
|||
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Brusegadi. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2016|2016 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. |
|||
take care, <span style="font-weight: bold; color:#104E8B">[[User:Splette|Splette]] :)</span> <sup>[[User_talk:Splette|<font style="color:#104E8B">How's my driving?</font>]]</sup> 21:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. |
|||
:Hey. I was a bit tired of some stuff, and then I became busy so I decided to take some time off. I see many new names in climate related articles pushing old and defeated ideas (more like agendas.) [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]]) 06:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates|the candidates' statements]] and submit your choices on '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/399|the voting page]]'''. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:: Welcome back from me too [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 06:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/19&oldid=750577592 --> |
|||
== ArbCom 2017 election voter message == |
|||
:::Hello! [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]]) 06:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Brusegadi. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2017|2017 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. |
|||
== Unmarked Bot == |
|||
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. |
|||
I saw your reverted comment. Since its in a BAG approved trial at [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WuBot]] it will make a limited number of edits like a bot, but won't be flagged until final approval is given, after reviewing the trial. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 08:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks, I was about to ask someone but this answers my question. Thanks again, [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]]) 08:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/400|voting page]]'''. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Anon ECC edit == |
|||
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/02&oldid=813406680 --> |
|||
As near as I can tell, the anon's [{{fullurl:Elliptic curve cryptography|diff=next&oldid=219341609}} edit] was a legitimate correction. I found lots of references to P-384 and not so many to P-284. I didn't both actually checking the NIST document, which is a reliable source. [[User:JackSchmidt|JackSchmidt]] ([[User talk:JackSchmidt|talk]]) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I was not sure, and I was going to check the document just now but I will go with your message! Thank you for keeping an eye one the page, [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]]) 21:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== You comments on OrenO's RfA == |
|||
My impression is that you typically try to be open minded and fair in your discussions on GW topics, but I was somewhat put off by the following comment: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
"Pro-GW" is a label that has been applied to editors in the GW articles who defend wikipedia policy, in particular WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
I am unclear as to whether you intended to imply that the "GW Contrarians" somehow ''don't defend wikipedia policy'', or not. Could you please clarify this point? |
|||
BTW, I commend you for your support of OrenO in his RfA. Much like yourself I have found him to be reason and open to both side of an argument. --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 16:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks. Much like in the real world, the topic of GW has fanatics and rationals on all ends of the spectrum. Given that I tend to take the mainstream position, I have collided with both rationals and fanatics who call themselves 'skeptics.' So, my remark stems from my personal experience in dealing mostly with the irrational skeptics. I think I could have reword it better to make it clear that some contrarians are very much rational while others go out of their way due to their strong fanaticism (again, I have seen it on both sides; but the contrarians tend to be more energetic probably because they perceive that "they are losing.") I hope this clarifies, and thank you for bring it up here and not cloud up Oreno's RfA process. [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]]) 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: OK, this is pretty much as I suspected. No offense taken ... although I am not sure which camp you would place me in! :) --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 22:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Template:Economic systems (sidebar) == |
|||
Hi. Just seen this template again and feel the font-size for the links is a little on the small side (for default Firefox font-size settings). Would any problem be caused if I increased it? [[User:Sardanaphalus|Sardanaphalus]] ([[User talk:Sardanaphalus|talk]]) 17:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)<br/> |
|||
I'm also thinking of renaming the template "Economic systems" and removing the repeated "economy"s in the Related articles section, then renaming that section "Types of economy". [[User:Sardanaphalus|Sardanaphalus]] ([[User talk:Sardanaphalus|talk]]) 18:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Sounds good. Give it a try and remember to be [[WP:BOLD|bold]]. [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]]) 19:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:* Done. Hope it looks okay. [[User:Sardanaphalus|Sardanaphalus]] ([[User talk:Sardanaphalus|talk]]) 04:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Re: Go right Rfc == |
|||
Yes, you are right. There should be a headline like that above my comment. I'll do that right away. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 13:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Glad to help. [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]]) 14:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Heritability== |
|||
Hi, in response to your post on my talk page, this is what Ned Block says about the increase in heritability with age. <blockquote>To take a real example, the heritability of IQ increases throughout childhood into adulthood. One study gives heritability figures of under 20 percent in infancy, about 30 percent in childhood, 50 percent in adolescence, and a bit higher in adult life. Studies of older twins in Sweden report an 80 percent heritability figure for adults by age 50 as compared to a 50 percent heritability for children. One possible reason for the rise in heritability is that although the genetic variation remains the same, environmental variation decreases with age. Children have very different environments; some parents don't speak to their children, others are ever verbally probing and jousting. Adults in industrialized countries, by contrast, are to a greater degree immersed in the same culture (e.g., the same TV programs). With more uniform environments, the heritability goes up.[http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html]</blockquote> It's not so much about the adult environment affecting "intelligence", it's about how much of the proportion of variation in intelligence is attributable to environment as opposed to genes. Heritability is a measure of the proportion of variation that is attributable to genes. Generally the proportion of variation in IQ that is attributable to the environment is greater in children than in adults, i.e. the heritability of IQ increases with age, this means that the proportion of variation that is attributable to the environment has decreased, without knowing the exact contribution of the environment to the variation or genes to the variation then it is impossible to know whether the higher heritability of IQ in adults is due to an absolutely greater genetic effect on IQ with age, or a decrease in the environmental effect with age. Block postulates that the increase in the heritability of IQ with age is due to adults being more in control of their environments, with a concominant decrease in the relative contribution of environments to the variation in the IQ of adults. This might mean that we would expect the total variation in IQ to be greater in children than in adults, but I've not personally seen any data regarding differences in the scale of total variation between childhood IQ and adult IQ. Ned Block explains this much better than I could, it's well worth reading his essay because he explains the concept of heritability very well. The most important thing about heritability though is that it does not measure the contribution of genes or environment to a character (such as IQ or intelligence). It doesn't tell us how much genes contribute to intelligence or how much environment contributes to intelligence, it tells us what proportion of the variation (ie the differences between the best and worst scores) is attributable to genes and what proportion is attributable to environment. Heritability is itself a ''very'' controversial concept, with many, if not most population geneticists very sceptical that it tells us anything important at all.[http://www.zeww.uni-hannover.de/Oftedal.pdf] The other thing to take into account about heritability is that it is very context specific, if for example the heritability of IQ is 80% in affluent western populations, this may just be a measure of the environmental homogeneity of these populations, some research suggests that in populations where people are poor, the heritability of IQ is much reduced, possibly indicating a greater environmental heterogeneity within these populations.[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14629696] Hope this is of some help. Cheers. [[User:Wobble|Alun]] ([[User talk:Wobble|talk]]) 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I responded in your talk. [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]]) 18:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Politics of GW == |
|||
Hey, I think the re-structuring of the article was a good way to solve the problem of singling out Bush in the original sections. Good job. [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi|talk]]) 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks! I think it's important to avoid blaming the entire US government for the actions of the White House. I also tried to give the WH the benefit of the doubt if it was a department head that was appointed by Bush who did the misdeed, or something similar. In this case I left the paragraph in the "Federal Gov't" section. -[[User:Demosfoni|Demosfoni]] ([[User talk:Demosfoni|talk]]) 18:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Your repeated violations of WP policy == |
|||
:You have reverted my edits on [[Global cooling]] without discussing on the Talk page. You stated in the revert comment "See talk", but you did not leave any explanation on the Talk page. I did leave an explanation of my edits on the Talk page. |
|||
:The statement in the article that you repeatedly insert has no references, as has been pointed out to you at least three times; this is a violation of [[WP:Verify]], as you are presumably aware. |
|||
:[[User:AlfBit|AlfBit]] ([[User talk:AlfBit|talk]]) 17:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I did leave an explanation. The first stime I said "See talk" was because an other editor left an explanation, the second time I left such note was because I left an explanation. Finally, it is very tendentious to just remove a statement that does not violate any policy. The first step is to tag it as I explained to you in the talk. The only cases where tagging is not correct is when the statement is obviously wrong or when there are [[WP:BLP]] concerns. Ciao, [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]]) 17:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Thanks == |
|||
Thank you for correcting me. |
|||
- [[User:Pop6|Pop6]] ([[User talk:Pop6|talk]]) 16:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Mediterranean Sea == |
|||
Note my answer to your question at [[Talk:Mediterranean_Sea]]. - [[User:Shaheenjim|Shaheenjim]] ([[User talk:Shaheenjim|talk]]) 03:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: Thanks. I guess its no longer a problem since it was deleted. [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]]) 07:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Be weary of your TW == |
|||
Did you even read anything on the talk page of state of fear before you just reverted for no apparent reason? (i.e. the issue is being activally debated and you have no right making unilaterial decisions) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Aryeh M. Friedman|Aryeh M. Friedman]] ([[User talk:Aryeh M. Friedman|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aryeh M. Friedman|contribs]]) 06:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: I dont understand some of the words in your message and I have no time to look them up. Sorry about any confusion. [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]]) 06:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: ''Hola amigo, de nuevo nos encontramos editando en el mismo artículo''. Given your contributions on SoF and your experience, I would like to invite to review the proposal I made and give us your opinion in the Talk page to try to end the edit war/stalemate, and move on with more constructive edits. Please drop by whenever you have time. ''A gente se ve lá''! --[[User:Mariordo|Mariordo]] ([[User talk:Mariordo|talk]]) 04:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Combinations == |
|||
Hello. Is there a way to find r choose n but the set (n) has i identical elements? Sort of like choosing combination of three letters from the word CANADA. I know how to do it for a given problem, but I wonder if there is something general. Thx [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi|talk]]) 06:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:If you want non-identical elements, you just have to remove the duplicates from the set and then choose from that, so instead of rCn it's (r-a)Cn where a is the # of elements removed. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 12:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::So in the example above, if I want to choose three, I will do 4 choose three, which is 4. But, I can come up with more than that: AAA, AAC, AAN, AAD, CND... The real problem are cases like AAN, which I would count twice if I took out one A and inserted another A. Did I miss something obvious? [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi|talk]]) 06:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Since you are concerned about identical elements in combinations, don't you mean that you would '''not''' count AAN twice? Since if you do count AAN multiple times, once for each pair of distinct A's that could be chosen, you end up with the standard combination count <math>\binom{6}{3}=20</math>. [[Special:Contributions/84.239.160.166|84.239.160.166]] ([[User talk:84.239.160.166|talk]]) 09:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::There is a formula for exactly what you want, but I can't remember it. I think it's the usual choose formula but with an extra factor in the denominator. I'll try and find it/work it out. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 17:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Check out the [[Multinomial theorem #Interpretations|multinomial theorem]]. [[Special:Contributions/84.239.160.166|84.239.160.166]] ([[User talk:84.239.160.166|talk]]) 20:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Note, that is talking about permutations rather than combinations, so doesn't exactly answer the OP's question. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 21:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for your help. I also remember seeing a formula somewhere, and it is killing me! I will try to remember during the weekend, since I am preoccupied with work :) [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi|talk]]) 06:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Ok, sorry about the confusion. Given that there are specific numbers of identical elements, the number of combinations can be counted as follows. Suppose there are elements of <math>k</math> types, with the number of elements of each type given by <math>n_1,\dots,n_k</math>, and you want to count combinations of <math>m</math> elements. In the CANADA example we have <math>k=4</math> types of elements, <math>n_1=3</math> for the letter A and <math>n_2=n_3=n_4=1</math> for the letters C, N and D. |
|||
Each combination of <math>m</math> elements can be identified with a vector of non-negative integers <math>i_1,\dots,i_k</math> such that <math>\sum_{j=1}^k i_j=m</math> and <math>i_j \le n_j</math> for all <math>j=1,\dots,k</math>. Denoting the number of such combinations by <math>C(m;n_1,\dots,n_k)</math>, and by considering the effect of removing all elements of type <math>k</math> we get the recursion |
|||
:<math>C(m;n_1,\dots,n_k)=\sum_{i=0}^{\min(n_k, m)} C(m-i;n_1,\dots,n_{k-1})</math> |
|||
with the base cases <math>C(m;n_1)=1</math> for <math>m \le n_1</math> and <math>C(m;n_1)=0</math> for <math>m > n_1</math>. |
|||
The recursion formula isn't as simple as one might hope for, but it is relatively easy to implement on a computer. In the CANADA example even computation by hand is feasible: |
|||
:<math>C(3;3,1,1,1)=C(3;3,1,1)+C(2;3,1,1)</math> |
|||
::<math>=C(3;3,1)+2C(2;3,1)+C(1;3,1)</math> |
|||
::<math>=C(3;3)+3C(2;3)+3C(1;3)+C(0;3)</math> |
|||
::<math>=1+3 * 1 + 3 * 1 + 1 = 8</math> |
|||
The 8 different combinations are AAA, AAC, AAN, AAD, ACN, ACD AND CND. In this particular case, the fact that <math>n_2=n_3=n_4=1</math> makes the first three steps resemble a binomial expansion, and the fourth step follows directly from the base case of the recursion. In fact, this gives a hint about a less general formula that would directly address the original question... but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. [[Special:Contributions/84.239.160.166|84.239.160.166]] ([[User talk:84.239.160.166|talk]]) 09:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks. This problem was bothering me one night because I was convince there was a simple plug and chug out there. But it seems like the summation is as general as it gets. Thanks for generalizing it, by the way. You were very helpful. Good day, [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi|talk]]) 07:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Aleman == |
|||
Hi Brucegadi, good to talk to you again. I've been continuing to edit the Nicaraguan politics articles occasionally over the last couple years, but not as often. However, I am still interested, and I definitely see the problem with the Aleman article. I will do what I can to make sure that the sources describing the controversy about his acquittal are restored. I also want to tell you that I am going to do some clean-up on the rest of the section. I don't expect to be changing any of the facts or sources, but will be changing the order of some things so it reads better. [[User:Academic Challenger|Academic Challenger]] ([[User talk:Academic Challenger|talk]]) 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I really appreciate your help. I was beginning to get into a gridlock, so the more editors the better, specially one as experienced as your self. Until later, [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]]) 06:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Do you have any idea what his problem is with the formatting? Do you know how to fix it, if there is indeed a problem? I have very little vision, so I have trouble with formatting sometimes, but this does not change the fact that the other version had all kinds of problems in that section, and your addition of the New York Times article is worth keeping. I'll probably be busy with real life tomorrow, but I hope to get back to this in the next day or two if necessary. [[User:Academic Challenger|Academic Challenger]] ([[User talk:Academic Challenger|talk]]) 10:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I have no idea what his problem is. Sometimes what he cites as a reason for doing something sort of contradicts what he is doing. Even in the sources that he supposedly put up, his language is not supported and they discuss the controversy that he does not want to include. He is very one sided, which is a bit sad given that he seems to know Aleman as a person, so it would not surprise me if he were able to write some good stuff on the early years and find some good bio sources. But all he wants to say is that the man never made mistakes. [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]]) 09:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks for that information. So the edit war continues. I'm going to have to get some other administrators involved, but I am trying to figure out exactly what Dispute Resolution page is right for this situation. Perhaps it's almost time for a [[WP:RFC]] on Spartanid, although I will try talking to him once more. [[User:Academic Challenger|Academic Challenger]] ([[User talk:Academic Challenger|talk]]) 03:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah, it does not hurt to try once more. He is a SPA, and I doubt he cares about wiki more than spreading his POV, but I wonder if he has a COI. He takes all this very personal, but some people can become fans of politicians, so I guess he might just be one of them. Thanks for your help, and having more admins involved would be good. Thanks, and have a good weekend, [[User:Brusegadi|Brusegadi]] ([[User talk:Brusegadi#top|talk]]) 03:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::How do you know that I am a "he" and what makes you think the Aleman section is "personal" to me? It seems you might be transposing your own emotions onto me! :-) [[User:Spartanad|Spartanad]] ([[User talk:Spartanad|talk]]) 04:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== RE: AN3 == |
|||
In response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=268287774&oldid=268283567 this]; sure thing! I'll be glad to help however I can. Cheers, [[User:Master of Puppets|<span style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:move;">'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D]] 22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Ecopass== |
|||
Hola Brusegadi, veo que ahora estás llevando un ritmo más tranquilo en Wiki. I would like to ask for your help with a never ending discussion going on in the [[Talk:Ecopass]]. The same kind of editorial disruption has also occurred with the same user in the series of articles regarding [[congestion pricing]] and [[road pricing]]. Just peek the [[Talk:Congestion pricing]] to have a taste of this nonsense controversy. I request your participation because of your experience, deep knowledge of wiki policies, and as someone used to deal with OR and non NPOV in the climate change articles. Your orientation will be welcome, so please, drop by whenever you have some time.--[[User:Mariordo|Mariordo]] ([[User talk:Mariordo|talk]]) 19:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies == |
|||
Hi. I have emailed you 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 email me [[User:Encyclopaedia21|Encyclopaedia21]] ([[User talk:Encyclopaedia21|talk]]) 15:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AfD]] nomination of [[List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming]] == |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|left|48px|]]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|deletion]]. The nominated article is [[List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming]]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and "[[WP:NOT|What Wikipedia is not]]"). |
|||
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination)]]. Please be sure to [[WP:SIG|sign your comments]] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). |
|||
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the [[WP:AfD|articles for deletion]] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. |
|||
'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a [[WP:BOT|bot]]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --[[User:Erwin85Bot|Erwin85Bot]] ([[User talk:Erwin85Bot|talk]]) 01:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AfD]] nomination of [[Petrodollar warfare]] == |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|left|48px|]]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|deletion]]. The nominated article is [[Petrodollar warfare]]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and "[[WP:NOT|What Wikipedia is not]]"). |
|||
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petrodollar warfare (3rd nomination)]]. Please be sure to [[WP:SIG|sign your comments]] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). |
|||
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the [[WP:AfD|articles for deletion]] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. |
|||
'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a [[WP:BOT|bot]]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --[[User:Erwin85Bot|Erwin85Bot]] ([[User talk:Erwin85Bot|talk]]) 01:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 21:07, 3 December 2017
Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.
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) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Brusegadi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Brusegadi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)