User talk:Soir

Hi Soir, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are a few helpful links to start you off: Avoiding common mistakes, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, Policies and guidelines, Help, Merging pages.

If you need help or are curious about something, feel free to ask on my talk page or the village pump. You can sign your name and a date stamp on comments using four tildes (~~~~). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, and I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian! Andre (talk) 03:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. This is a boilerplate message, except for this part. But, good that you finally registered!

Hurricane Katrina

Before you change any of the Katrina articles back to saying that there is some claim that Katrina specifically caused by global warming, I'd like to challenge you to provide a clear and credible citation which is actually claiming that. For example, an often cited credible source [1] discussing Katrina and global warming, once in the headline and once in the omnious closing statement. I think it's pretty clear there that the only real relation the article has to Katrina is the publication date. No credable scientist (or reporter, for that matter) would report that Katrina specifically was caused by global-warming simply because global-warming is a gradual long term trend and cyclone activity is a very noisy signal [2]. This matter is already reasonably covered in our article on Tropical cyclones. I do realize that there is currently a fairly high degree of misconception in the public that there is some specific relationship between Katrina and global warming, but it is Wikipedia's duty as a reference to clear up this sort of confusion, not pander to it and make it worse. --24.165.233.150 21:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Reply left on user's talk page: ([3])

Ah, I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to engage you in an argument over Global Warming being a cause or not (I really don't know that there is any argument to be had there), but rather that no one notable is actually claiming Katrina was specifically caused or intensified by global warming (which is why I provide the times link on global warming to show that although Katrina was mentioned it was not mentionted to claim a relation, but rather to attract readers). As a result global warming doesn't really merit mention in either the article on Katrina or in the article on causes of Katrina, since the article on causes of Katrina is only attempting to discuss peoples claims related to specific causes of this storm and not the causes of all tropical cyclones, which is why there is a pointer to tropical cyclone in the causes page. Occassionally someone sticks some (usually inaccurate) blurb on warming into the Hurricane Katrina article but it's usually removed pretty quickly. In any case, I wasn't throwing out blame... just trying to avoid an editwar. :) --24.165.233.150 22:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Reply left on user's talk page: ([4])

Star Trek The Beginning

You beat me to it. I was about to start the VFD (or I guess it's called AFD now) process on the Star Trek The Beginning article under the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball rationale. I added the page to my watchlist and will start VFD/AFD if anyone reverts your redirect. Cheers! 23skidoo 01:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oops - too late! Looks like the anon didn't take the hint. Head here if you want to participate in the VFD. 23skidoo 01:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• This is not a biggie, but I think it might be against the rules to removed a VFD/AFD notice once it is in place. As I say I don't care one way or the other, but someone might take umbrage since there is an active vote under way. I also expect the anon to revert it back pretty quickly anyway. Cheers! 23skidoo 01:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It is, yes. WP:IAR, WP:BOLD. It doesn't seem worth an AFD, and copyvio says I have to remove half the page anyway. -- Soir (say hi) 01:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No worries. What should be done about the AFD nomination? I'm not sure how to withdraw it. 23skidoo 02:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• I see the revert war has begun. Leave me a note when you approach 3RR territory and I'll jump in and pick up the ball. 23skidoo 05:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I admit it's an unusual "revert war" (and it doesn't really become one till 3RR comes into effect). The anon (who will probably not see the warning you left since anons generally don't get message notification) will break the 3RR with the next revert anyway, at which point the person can be blocked by an admin if you want to press the matter. 23skidoo 06:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm actually on 3RR right now, purely by the fact I've made the same edit three times. I asked on IRC about whether there was any point giving testN to anon users, and received the answer 'of course, that's their main usage'. I'm going to sleep now anyway, so you're welcome to pick up the tab if the need arises, but I still have the page on watch, so I guess tomorrow we shall see. -- Soir (say hi) 06:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Framers

Could someone not also be typing in framers hoping to go to Framer? Could there also be other countries that refer to their founders as framers than just the US? CambridgeBayWeather 05:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

So far I cant seem to find any other country than the US that uses the term in that sense? CambridgeBayWeather 05:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Avatāra

I am sure you mean well, but please do not revert my redirects - - what I do is in fact phonetically and grammatically correct; anyone who is able to read Sanskrit will tell you so. Also, I am going to improve the article, and unnecessary reverts will be a nuisence. Thank you. - 128.205.237.140 (Talk) 19:04, 7 September 2005

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)