Contents 1 Messages 2 Barnstars 3 MUA Sock 4 The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009 5 The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009 6 Re: Pullister 7 Unsigned 8 Global Warming conspiracy 9 Dusty laws...

[edit] Messages

Please put messages at foot. I will delete them when I have read them. If you are replying to a message I left I don't mind where you reply but try to keep conversations together. If you are offering to help with the Schools DVD I would be very glad to hear from you. There is loads to do at present and we are working through the new subject index:

Art Business Studies Citizenship Countries Design and Technology Everyday life Geography History IT Language and literature Mathematics Music People Religion Science

The new selection of articles is about two weeks away. We are still hand checking version numbers (yawn) and still aiming for about 5500 articles to fit on a DVD. Just to update the selection of articles has just moved off wiki to allow a quicker automated run but it will come back. --BozMo talk 06:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars

Thank you for the appreciation which I have moved off as they clutter the page. --BozMo talk 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MUA Sock

I'm pretty sure this page is him judging by the username and writing style--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

[edit] Re: Pullister

Hi. FYI.. I know who Scibaby is. You see, I was blocked on September 25, 2007 for reverting his edits three-times to James Hansen when he was editing as User:Obedium. The administrator who blocked me, User:Madman, claimed that I violated the 3rr, and then decided to bloat up my block log by making three separate entries. So, not only was I falsely blocked, but my block log was given three separate entries for this incident. So, you can understand, I haven't forgotten him. As for the bit, thanks, but no thanks. My original purpose here was simply to write, and I try not to stray from it. As you can see, I'm getting distracted. :( Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned

Hey, no probs :) GiantSnowman 12:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming conspiracy

The article which you say makes no reference to the IPCC says:

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Phil Jones, a prominent IPCC contributor, clearly expressed intent to conspire censorship of opposing views. This is evidence of a conspiracy.

I changed the wording to describe the prominent members conspiring to satisfy your whimsy, but it is sourced, and relevant to the credibility of the organization's findings. Macai (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If citing the IPCC is not only acceptable, but pointing out the IPCC's blatant bias is unacceptable, then why can't I cite Fox News in the opening sentence on global warming saying it's not false, and their blatant can't be pointed out, either? Do you really not see how one sided this logic is? Macai (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

But by this logic, the IPCC isn't really a scientific source in itself so much as it is a bureaucratic one, with ordained officials by government sites. The potential for political maneuvering is so great that taking it at complete face value is not only questionable, but outright foolish. These hacked emails have appeared everywhere, and Phil Jones even admitted to sending them. His research unit is a leading source for the IPCC - all of this really, truly, calls the IPCC's conclusions into such question that it's debatable if citing the IPCC should even be allowed due to NPOV. Macai (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dusty laws...

Re. [1]: Either I was unclear, or you live a sheltered life. As a Steve, I have to keep abreast of the latest in science. Here are two of the things I have learned: First, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics says "everything always gets worse", but humans are better than protozoans, a white-bearded old man made the Earth and humans 6013 years ago, and he does not want you to have any sex. Secondly, we know that its been exactly 6013 years, because otherwise Neil Armstrong would have drowned in dust [2]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)