Oiler99
Todo list edit
Please don't use a todo list as your personal soap box, as you did here. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The article Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/to do has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Inappropriately-created subpage of an article that is being used as a soap box.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
January 2010 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/to do, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Appropriate analogies edit
Er, could you maybe choose a different analogy here? It is a bit tasteless, at best, and not really necessary to your point. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for being unable to think of a more acceptable analogy. I realize it may be perhaps too vibrant for the general, but I think adults can see the analogy. I would welcome a suggestion to make the same analogy more sedately. Mt point of course is that not every allegation of crime is true, and not every self-described victim is blameless. A trivial point, but it seems to have been neglected. What would you suggest? Oiler99 (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- You could just state that in your opinion (if I take your meaning correctly) the UEA might think that their public image would be better served if they are perceived as the victims of a malicious hacker than if they are perceived as negligent of their information security, or something along those lines. No hyperbole that could be seen as offensive necessary. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- That would be satisfactorily bland, but incomplete, leaving out the implication that the bounder who has whipped off the sheets is to be punished.
Please Remove this edit
[1] That is a bit below the belt, accusing someone of racism is flat out wrong mate, would you please delete it? Thanks mark nutley (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was above the belt. I didn't accuse him of racism, merely of stooping to ad hominem rather than effective reply. I thought - rightly or wrongly - that he needed a reminder that the status, gender, race, political affiliation, or philosophical stance of a person was not a satisfactory reason to reject his opinion. Disagree? Oiler99 (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)