User talk:Lucy Skywalker

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Lucy Skywalker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! IZAK 15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing the ground after three years' absence

Deleted a load of junk, mainly from now-banned PeteK (contributor at anthroposophical pages)

Thanks for the invite

I'm not sure if I will contribute, but I did look at your other website [1] with a decent degree of detail and was quite impressed - I can definitely see the Asperger's at work. Here is an essay that I wrote for GoRight's blog, it may not be your cup of tea due to the religious angle, but I tried not to be terribly offensive when writing it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Booker

Thanks for the question.

The synopsis was removed twice -- the first time I reverted it but then another editor appeared soon after and removed it again, in its entirety, again without any prior discussion. At this point I gave up. I would like to reinstate the whole thing at the site you indicated, but the trouble is that none of the internal links work – perhaps you can help? It’s a fair and thorough description of the book's contents. But I’ve since learned that one is fighting a losing battle here when it comes to GW issues, and after uncovering various extremely disturbing reports in the press[2] [3][4] [5], as well as my own experience of WP:CABAL and WP:GANG here, I'm concerned that Wikipedia may have become corrupted vis-à-vis the issue of climate change. Best,Jprw (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link -- you're doing too much work on your own -- how come no outside help? Jprw (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Bravo! ShowTimeAgain (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Leroux

I've been editing in your sandbox version of the Marcel Leroux article, adding nine references from major French newspapers. They weren't showing up in google searches because they are paywalled and don't allow searches. You might want to follow the discussions on my and wilyD's talk pages.--Africangenesis (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Lucy Skywalker/Marcel Leroux

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Lucy Skywalker/Marcel Leroux, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Lucy Skywalker/Marcel Leroux

User:Lucy Skywalker/Marcel Leroux, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucy Skywalker/Marcel Leroux and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Lucy Skywalker/Marcel Leroux during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In many ways I am unfamiliar with WP

In many ways I am unfamiliar with WP [6]. Indeed, in this you are entirely correct. I'd answer you there, but of course the obvious problem prevents that. You want to find someone here to ask for advice on how the place works. Not me, obviously, or indeed any of the people in the current debate. You might wish to try Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user instead William M. Connolley (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will save my WP sandbox pages as textfiles in case of deletion - you may also find http://www.webcitation.org/ useful. Its what I use for all those blog postings that you can't trust the blog owner not to shift underneath you William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thank you. But before taking these up, I need to get my breath back! Hopefully I will now have a chance to breathe. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm#MWP

I found your "IPCC 1990 and 1995 had this picture...". You must know that isn't true. The picture is from IPCC '90, not '95. See Description of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in IPCC reports. Its even wrongly labelled "source: IPCC 1995". Did you make that mistake, or copy it from someone else? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you are a good details man. Drawing my attention was great on this occasion because it also enabled me to add references to Steve McIntyre's recent posts which you no doubt have been following like myself.

I haven't touched that piece for a while, but if you feel like going through it and picking up any other inaccuracies, that would be much appreciated, and if the corrections are helpful I will give you credit there. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've corrected it, partially. You still have two problems. The first is that your figure isn't sourced from IPCC '90 (see http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf for the real thing, and http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/08/more-use-and-abuse-of-ipcc-1990-fig-7-1c/ for why yours isn't it), although it should be clear enough to you once you see the original.

More importantly, your story no longer makes sense. You've jumped straight from 1990 to 2001, omitting '92 and '95. Your idea that IPCC 2001 removed the MWP is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been making comments a number of attacks against me in several locations, including accusing me of harassment. Stop it. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it sure feels like being hounded, if I cannot even say what I feel. I come here, not knowing the ropes very well, plus I've not been well this last week, and the way I experience it, you're jumping on me mighty fast, threatening my sandbox with deletion, then you're saying I'm breaking rules I don't know, all because I wanted to save the article somewhere, just somewhere, and when I asked Collect I found the attribution issue was not as you said and was easy to correct. You wanted the original article banned when the problem of bias could have been solved with editing and discussion. You have been the biggest voice in the attack on the appeal. You see "serious canvassing" when all climate skeptics want is the truth, wherever it falls - and with breathing space to allow the truths to emerge, not just be deleted whack in seven days. You make accusations of sockpuppetry that Rossani pulled you up for doing. You get Africangenesis banned yet he has done serious hard work on the material, unlike anyone else. You need his input to get the article improved. Now you threaten me too. I get the feeling that you want to have all traces of the Leroux article, and any serious supporters, buried forever and stamped on. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but in that case you need to learn how to handle people unfamiliar with working in WP a heck of a lot better. Give us as much time as we need, don't just come in with actions that are bound to feel like attacks (the deletion notice) and give us space to clear misunderstandings. I know you are wrong about Leroux, though I actually agree with WMC's assessment that the article was biassed - but I don't have the energy to battle it out here. Today I was working on my alternative wiki (until I found your message). You've made me feel, rightly or wrongly, that Wikipedia is still toxic in the Climate Science area, still touting serious misrepresentations, and still impossible, humanly speaking, to debate fairly. Yes, I feel hounded. I've explained why I felt hounded, so if you've understood why it was unavoidable for me to feel hounded by you, perhaps we can call a truce, you can stop taking precipitate actions that others are bound to experience as attacks, and I can take back my words about you in whatever places you indicate. Then I can go back to my wiki to work on the Leroux material quietly. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made no accusations of sockpuppetry by linking to an SPI case. It contained links to the canvassing (I suggest re-reading my comments carefully rather than assuming what someone has said to be the case). Read the SPI I pointed to. Ag was topic banned because he consistently made attacks on other editors and because of the battlefield mentality. On a side note, I don't even edit much in the area of climate change, and it's not something I think or particularly care about; I hadn't even heard of Leroux till he was mentioned at FTN. I don't discuss this topic in forums, or on blogs or anywhere because I'm not a climate scientist and have no interest. The leroux article was deleted because the keep voters resorted to weak arguments (because GNG and ACADEMIC were not met) and attacks. I have been civil throughout. If you think I have not been civil, I would be interested in specific diffs showing incivility. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed mentions of you that I made at Africangenesis' talk page. That made sense, that I should sort it out with you direct rather than vent about you elsewhere. And really, I said all I can say to you, above. I FELT hounded. I cannot quantify that with diffs. You were not technically uncivil. I tried to explain exactly WHY I was bound to end up feeling hounded. You have not given me any sign that you understand or accept what I say. If you cannot understand at all, this simply heightens my experience (along with that of many others) that Wikipedia is impossibly toxic in the area of Climate Science, and that it is impossible to correct serious errors here. In other situations, people have understood, and we have been able to resolve the issues. But here, as I said to AG, some of the parameters (WP:NOR and WP:N) that were set up with the best of intentions, fail with regard to Climate Science, because of the effects of Climate Science having become corrupted. I don't expect you to understand or agree with this. But it's what I know. If there is any place other than AG's talk page where you feel I was wrongly "attacking" other editors here, please let me know and I'll see if I can in all honesty amend the wording to make it work for you without having to compromise myself. At present, all I want is OUT from here, so I can go back to work peacefully on the Leroux pages at my alternative wiki, but I want to try and reach sufficient courtesy and agreements here first. What more can I do? Lucy Skywalker (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not threaten you with a ban. I am required to give the above warning before making any complaint. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That really makes my point, that I am not familiar enough with WP usage not to feel threatened by your use of language and tactics. However, I still wish to remove or alter any material that is in your opinion wrongly "attacking"... please let me know if there is more, if you don't tell me I shall assume it's now ok Lucy Skywalker (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you removed the last material you took a shot at me again. How about this, if I'm not involved in a discussion, don't talk about me. Simple. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apoligies. I serioiusly thought you were threatening me with a ban, and my intention was just simple reporting, what I thought was a simple fact. I felt I needed to explain why I did what I did. I also conceded that it was not correct on my part to grouse about you behind your back. My intention was NOT to "take a shot at you again". I have revisited the page and find that the whole thing has been removed anyway. I hope that satisfies you now, if not please let me know and I will continue until you are satisfied. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is impossible to correct serious errors here - have you made any attempt to do so? [Incidentally, I think your assertions of hounding, etc, have no merit but I doubt attempting to discuss them has any chance of success]. Your contributions show nothing that looks like any such attempt William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before I leap in I try very hard, always, to reconnoitre the ground and to get to know my subject. If I cannot find an atmosphere of collegiality to work, I cannot even begin. Here, for instance, I actually ordered both Leroux' classic textbook and his "Global Warming: Myth or Reality" as in this case I felt that what was online eg at Amazon was not enough to be certain to do justice to the matter. I cannot rush through an opinion in the short time allowed here for review. So what I've done now is to take the article to my own wiki where I and others can work on it a bit more peacefully. I actually think there was merit in your criticism, that the article was too lopsided towards Leroux' anti-AGW stance. It needs more backing to show why Leroux had arrived at the position of "notability" in the true sense, whereby he had earned both the right and the duty to speak out against the corruption he saw happening in the field. I only deplore the route taken here, of deletion rather than editing. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said it is impossible to correct serious errors here. I don't think you've tried. I was hoping you'd be able to reply, pointing out something I'd missed. But it seems not. You really are just flinging out accusations - like it is impossible to correct serious errors here - without making any serious attempt to fix anything. I'd ask you for examples of the "serious errors" except I know it would be pointless - I'd just get wurble in reply William M. Connolley (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wurble. That sounds nice. Can we just agree to differ please? Lucy Skywalker (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're throwing out statements that make no sense. If that's agreeing to differ, then fine. But I also can't see any point talking here, so I'll stop doing so William M. Connolley (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Still, thanks for your help, that is not forgotten, I still love the original WP vision and I may yet apprentice myself to someone as you suggested. I shall not work here in Climate Science, however. I do have other interests - bees included. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such a skewed original research article will have no place on wikipedia. You say that the article was too skewed but then you say you want to write about how "he had earned both the right and the duty to speak out against the corruption he saw happening in the field". Your continual soapboxing filled with misconceptions and half truths shows you are impossible to deal with. So I will stop commenting here for now as it has little benefit. You are unwilling to listen to what anyone says and prefer to soapbox. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said the article was too lopsided. I did not say it was too skewed to fix. I still think that keep and edit is the correct route. You say I am unwilling to listen and prefer to soapbox. That is simply not true! I spend most of my time listening and will continue to do so. My need to spend a lot of time listening is precisely why I felt harried by you, trying to cope with having threats of deletions, bans, copyright violations etc thrust on me. It was because I felt harried that I was pushed into what you call "soapboxing". It is not my normal style. I am a writer who needs hundreds of edits before my writing turns out well enough. More often than not, what I first write is rubbish and totally unlike what I end up with. I cannot work at your pace. I am sure you are doing your best here but it is exhausting for me to be continually misunderstood and, as I see it, misrepresented - as still happens here to all of us "deniers", to use your language. Therefore it is better for now that I continue work quietly at my own wiki site. I've shown you that I can recognize at least some criticism from your "side" as fair. I shall continue to listen, with the intention of accepting fair criticism, and finding better ways to show you, if I consider the criticisms not to be fair. I can only deal with a bit at a time. The issues go deep. Therefore in WP I have to be simply a listener for now, rather than a contributor. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leroux again

In case you hadn't noticed, look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SamuelTheGhost/Marcel Leroux. best wishes. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, IRWolfie thinks I shouldn't have said that. Be afraid, be very afraid. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Lucy Skywalker/Timothy Ball

User:Lucy Skywalker/Timothy Ball, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucy Skywalker/Timothy Ball and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Lucy Skywalker/Timothy Ball during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Hi Lucy. By curiosity, I found this copy of a Wikipedia talk page on your ClimateWiki. While Wikipedia content can be reused under certain conditions, you do need to to comply with its license, the CC-BY-SA 3.0. The two most important constraints are that you must give proper credit for where you got something, and that you must make the work you incorporate it into available under the same license. I cannot find either a clear attribution statement nor any license at ClimateWiki - certainly not on the copied page. I would suggest that you remedy this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan: I'm reasonably certain you are mistaken. Please see Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, in particular the attribution section, and WP:MERCILESS for the license WP users grant for all their contributions. Credit to Wikipedia suffices for the attribution requirement, IB: "By contributing to Wikipedia, you grant the Wikimedia Foundation a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, right and license to publish your submission..." Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that attribution to Wikipedia, or at least to a particular Wikipedia page, is probably sufficient. But, as far as I can tell, there is is no attribution to Wikipedia on the page in question. As a side note: WP:MERCILESS is a redirect to Wikipedia:Submission_Standards, which is a draft and was marked inactive and historical back in 2005. This is not a good source of authority for current editing. As a second aside, while we grant the right to publish, we do not grant the right to relicense it under a different license. This was a major hassle when we moved from GFDL to Creative Commons and was made possible in the end by the FSF amending the GFDL (which typically is used, and in this case was used, with a "or any later version" clause) to allow this. This means that even the Wikimedia foundation cannot redistribute content without proper attribution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction, and the new information. I'm also a supporter of proper licensing, attribution and author's rights -- and it sounds like you are more experienced, and more knowledgeable, on these topics than I am.

I think Lucy's draft is covered under the blanket boilerplate "reusing Wikipedia content" notice, but if you would care to suggest wording for a separate notice, I'll add it to my working draft (and hers). Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ball copyright credits?

Hi, Lucy: At Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Lucy_Skywalker/Timothy_Ball#Mooting_this_AfD_proposal you will see a pointless, wikilawlerly discussion of whether you (and I) have violated the WP CC-SA license by keeping a copy of the old TB wiki-bio. You won't be surprised to hear that Stephan Schulz brought this up. But now I can't find the earlier discussion you had about this. Do you remember where it was? And isn't this a productive way to spend WP volunteer time? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moses de León, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avila. 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) 09:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moses de León

I have removed some of the content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Zohar.html, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]