♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On your user page, you say you are "also editing with a dynamic account in the *86 range." . I suppose that any ip edit coming from that range (which is, I believe the millions of people on Virgin Media) to a discussion you have also contributed to would have to be considered worth investigating as a duplicate sockpuppet. Are you sure you want to expose yourself to the possibility of confusion? DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably clarify. 86.** IP (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a good idea. At this stage I don't think the closure is going to stand and the discussion has only got one day left. Hut 8.5 19:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from stating your own opinions as facts, as you did here [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently voted in an AfD discussion for the Tom Segalstad article. Since your vote, I have significantly changed the article. Can you please take another look and reword or change your vote, if necessary? Thank you. Silverseren^C 04:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been well over two weeks now, and I'd love to get this closed. Could you revisit Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates and add your final recommendation to the discussion? Thanks. Waitak (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a quick note to remember that all climate change pages are subject to ArbCom general sanctions; you reverted the List article three times in a short period at the weekend. Three times is obviously not four, but a zealous administrator could decide that you were edit warring in an area subject to discretionary sanctions. Personally I try to avoid reverting more than once in a 24 hour period; if necessary wait a bit and gather support from like-minded editors on the talk page.
Incidentally, I've been curious for some time; you do understand that William M. Connolley was sanctioned because of what ArbCom felt was his excessive zeal in fighting climate change deniers, do you? In other words he is arguably the most high-profile climate change believer currently editing Wikipedia. See Conservapedia for example: [2] for how he's viewed by climate change sceptics. (I should say that article is clearly very biased and arguably libellous, but it certainly makes it clear that he's a believer. William M. Connolley also has a rather less biased Wikipedia entry.) Just because someone believes the "List" article should stay does not make them a climate change denier; rather the reverse in many cases. --Merlinme (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like it says:

This page is currently the subject of a deletion review. Those interested may participate in the discussion. While the discussion is in progress, this page may be edited, but do not blank or redirect this page, or remove this notice from the page

William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion ended today, please check your facts. 86.** IP (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this notification because you have made a number of edits within the Climate Change topic area. This notification does not necessarily imply that there is any problem with your edits.

Just as the topic of Climate Change is highly disputed in the wider world, the Wikipedia articles on the subject have also a been the source of many difficulties. Consequently, the arbitration committee has authorised administrators to impose sanctions at their own discretion. The purpose of this message is to ensure that you are aware of the additional authority accorded to administrators within this topic area. The full decision can be viewed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change; subsection 23.3.1 gives full details of the discretionary sanctions arrangements.

CIreland (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here are some stats and my comments about those stats regarding your edits. It is apparent you wish to combat climate change denialism, and I certainly can not fault you for that. However, I honestly believe your approach is counter productive. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Christopher Bird, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Rand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 86, I apologize for being snarky about the formatting for the talk page section name feature of the POV template yesterday on the GW controversy page. I thought it should use an = sign too, but I tried it and failed. Taking the = out yesterday worked fine by which I mean my formatting yesterday took me to that subsection. Today both ways just takes me to the top of the talk page overall. I can not explain it and believe the POV template coding for that option might be broken. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I see you put the POV tag back on Global warming conspiracy theory with an edit summary suggesting no TALK thread is required for such a tag. Please read Template:POV and see line 2 in the usage box, which stated "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor."

Also, since we have a dispute over the most effective way to write a consensus based encyclopedia, and since that dispute centers on my reading of two wiki policies, I have requested some feedback (not disciplinary action) from the wikiettiquette assistance board. If you are interested, the question is posted Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Feedback_needed..._is_this_an_.28admittedly_minor.29_example_of_overtagging_or_forum_shopping.3F here.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and OOPS! Whether you believe I made an honest mistake or not, wikietiquette was not the proper place to seek some outside feedback whether simultaneous POV and AFD tags to advance the same argument about the same article is considered appropriate, or is an example of disruptive editing as described by WP:OVERTAGGING and/or WP:FORUMSHOP.

Is it either your understanding or your desire that the ANI thread you started against me will result in such feedback?

If you answer "NO", do you have any preference as to how I next seek such outside feedback?

If you answer "YEs", please by advised that the the ANI thread you started against me has been archived without being marked "RESOLVED" by an administrator. Would you have any objections if I move the thread out of the archives back to the current discussion page? FYI, the archive/restore process is described in the "how to use this page" box on the ANI noticeboard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the boomerangs you have thrown at ANI and would like to kindly ask you tone back your ANI threadmaking a bit... I was once doing a similar thing (Using ANI as a first option instead of a last resort) and had the community crying for an indef block after almost no time. I only escaped being blocked due to voluntarily undertaking quite severe editing restrictions as you can see on my user and talk pages. I would hate to see more editors put under the restrictions I am under or indeffed when they don't realize how their misbehavior is affecting Wikipedia. Speaking from experience, Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 02:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]