User talk:The Noosphere

Eternal gratitude to a hero, peacemaker, and martyr MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY JANUARY 2008

Template:User Wikipedians against monarchy

I have removed the tag. Please can I suggest you read this page - users do not have to be administrators to place speedy deletion tags - any editor may do so. That the placing of the tag affected your user page is because you didn't substitute the template - that meant that any subsequent change to the template would automatically be reflected on your userpage. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle

You removed the entire content, including discussion that was only a day old, with a deceptive edit summary about removing old discussion. Don't do that again. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:AlGorerecent.JPG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:AlGorerecent.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - Philippe | Talk 20:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:AlGorerecent.JPG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:AlGorerecent.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - Philippe | Talk 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User category

I removed the category "global warming skeptics" from your user page. It was causing your user page to show up in the category listing. This category is more useful when it's part of the encyclopedia proper and isn't populated by user pages. Friday (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that. Thank you for bringing the problem to my attention. regards, The Noosphere (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way..

You certainly are being disruptive with your reverting. Saying so is not an attack. Wikipedia requires collaboration, not simply brute-force reverting of whatever you disagree with. Friday (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but why did you just block me??? Perhaps I could have been more persuasive on talk pages so that I never had any reason to revert edits to restore my good-intentioned contributions to Wikipedia. But I never violated the three revert rule. And I am no one's "sockpuppet." Do an IP check. (I had some knowledge of the inner-workings from word of mouth and the media before I started editing.) Please unblock my account. An impartial analysis of my contributions might reveal a few well-intentioned mistakes, but nothing worthy of sanctions. The Noosphere (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The Noosphere (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am a new user. A chance to discuss this will allow me to clear myself from these false accusations.

Decline reason:

The continued discussion at WP:ANI does not make this block appear to be unfounded. You may appeal this block to the Arbitration Committee. — Sandstein (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Take another look! This is a terrible misunderstanding. The resembalance is just a coincidence. We just have the same political views because, I gather, he/she is appears to be a supporter of the American economist Lyndon LaRouche, as I am. The Noosphere (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This matter is being discussed at WP:ANI#User:The Noosphere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please discuss this matter here. I can't seem to edit anywhere else because I am blocked. I am not a sockpuppet. This block is a terrible misunderstanding or mistake. The Noosphere (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on that page, Since I was familiar with Cognition it was obvious to me who the puppet master is. You're wrong! Please discuss and reason with people before making unfounded accusations and repressing them! From checking that user's history, I can see I share some of the same political opinions. Maybe that's the source of the accusation? But I cannot understand how any fair-minded person can conclude I have the same temperament as the person who used that account! In just a few days, I have articulated a sincere respect for the website's civility guidelines, assuming good faith, and the spirit of cooperative group editing. That person, however, strikes me as so rude and bad-tempered I'd support banning him/her, despite my agreement with the political views that user seemed to be endorsing. The Noosphere (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote [1] Like I said, that person has a lot of the same political views. But that's not me. By the way, I hope there's more than one person on Wikipedia who likes Martin Luther King. :) The Noosphere (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions on Correa's page

There is no reason to move a whole section to a criticism page. If you want to be constructive, suggest different wording; but please stop deleting a section that has contributions of many editors. Bakersville (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The Noosphere (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock my account. I am a new contributor. I am willing to compromise on my proposed changes to climate change articles.

Decline reason:

reason —That's not the only reason you were blocked, the other reason was violating WP:SOCK. Limit yourself to one account. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.