User talk:Corwin8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Corwin8 Talk

[edit] Saying it over and over doesn't make it true

Corwin8 insists on adding information that is simple a re-hash of material already on the page (Hatsumi having Hayes' placard removed from the judan board) only through his assumption of just what that action meant; as well as patently false statement regarding selling an "instructional DVD set that would let someone become a black belt in Ninjutsu." I don't know he/she is intentionally lying, or honestly thinks that what the To-Shin Do DVD program is... but it doesn't matter, either way this person is wrong and their misinformation needs to stop.

I'm taking out the "interpretive" text (let's stick to the facts, and not our interpretation of what those facts might or might not mean - see Rustedshuriken's comments of 25 May) as well as the false information regarding the DVD "Black Belt Issue."

Finally - the diatribe here on the discussion page is little more than a rant against Mr. Hayes, filled with unverifiable information, speculation, and hearsay. Certainly this person is entitled to their opinion... but is this the forum to air it? --Jikaku 02:30, 20 June 2006 (date added by Corwin8)

Please, stop it with the personal attacks. You are accusing me of providing unverifiable information & speculation. Did you read the SKH talk page as I asked you to? Did you see me provide detailed dates, names, what was said and who said it? Are you calling it "unverifiable" only because you were not there? What standard do you apply? Just what do you want - wiretapped evidence, a hidden spy camera, what? Do I need to remind you that this is a COMMUNITY and that all may contribute? Or is any personal testimony that you do not want to hear automatically excluded from all Wiki articles? Look, you have reverted the article three times - that's blatant violation of Wiki policy that you seem to have purposely ignored. I have written from experience, and Wiki is here to allow those of us with that experience to shine upon it the light of day. I put 2 and 2 together and came up with 4 - you, on the other hand, seem to think that just because you don't like the information that you have personal license to toss insults at me. On Wiki, everyone may contribute based upon their own experience an evidence and I've provided you with detailed dates, times, and even names. If you want to provide me with contact information I can email or fax you the material that I have. Is that acceptable to you, or do you want to insult me again? What evidence will you accept? Or will you play more word games? --Corwin8 02:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trump University Spam

You can't just delete sections. You mayt request additional cites[1], and include the 'citation needed' tag, but you can't just delete it. --Corwin8 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, allegations without appropriate sources should be removed... Wikipedia:Citing sources says:
If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it shouldn't be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense.
So I put it on the talk page and it hasn't disappeared from view, and can be reinserted if properly sourced. I didn't want to annoy anyone... Feel free to check on this at and get the opinion of others at Wikipedia:Requests for comment - please do so before reinserting the improperly sourced material. --Singkong2005 · talk 00:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed your extra citation, which improves things (I'm not sure if that's a notable source, but definitely looks better than the other sources). See my comments on the talk page. --Singkong2005 · talk 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

Just to warn you re WP:3RR on TGGWS William M. Connolley 17:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing your reply on William's page, I just want to make sure that you understand that for WP:3RR "a revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors." It is not restricted to revering to any previous version. --Stephan Schulz 18:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language

What does I'm used to be an... intend to say? I used to be; or I'm used to being...? William M. Connolley 19:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images on user pages

Hello! I'm sorry, but fair use images on Wikipedia are not permitted to be used outside of the article namespace. As such, I've removed Image:Einstein tongue.jpg from your user page. Please don't take this as any sort of rebuke or disciplinary action. The use of free images is, of course, permitted and encouraged anywhere on the project. Happy editing! --Slowking Man 10:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I'm bummed that I can't have my Happy Albert pic on my user page (awww), but I understand! --Corwin8 18:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Request for Help at Global Warming Swindle Talk Page

Hi, Corwin8,

I apologize if I contributed to your frustration a few days back on TGGWS article. I was actually editing the article the same time you were, so whenever I made a post, I couldn't help but see what you put up. I thought that most of the time, you made good contributions. Like you I am also concerned about making the page clear, so I always aimed to build on your contributions. Admittedly there were a few suggestions you made that I didn't think added anything, so I am guilty of reverting two of your suggestions. I am a new Wikipedia contributor, so UBeR did send me a note to be careful with the reverts. Anyway the point of my note here is twofold: (1) to apologize, because the modifications to your edits were coming pretty fast (though hopefully not too furious :-), and (2) to provide some perspective on Durkin's documentary. I am not a climate scientist per se, but I am a student wrapping up an introductory course to climate science this term. Even at an introductory climate science level, I could see blatant factual misstatements in the documentary, and some suspicious presentations of factual material. A perfect example of what I mean by suspicious is his presentation of Carl Wunsch. Everything Wunsch said was right on the mark, but the context for the presentation of his statements bordered on misleading. Seeing this, it came as a small surprise to learn that Wunsch accuses Durkin of misleading him. Anyway that's my two cents for what it's worth. --VS 78 02:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

VS, thanks for your message! From reading above, I didn't realize that the article was being edited so dynamically. I firmly believe that the most important component of any issue is the nature of the debate, and the respect for accuracy. I'm an Engineering Journalist with experience in engineering as well as marketing. I myself have degrees in Engineering and Engineering Science, and my classes in Static & Dynamics as well as the Dynamics of Fluids have some bearing on Climate Science. My strength is in the Analysis of Systems, which to put it very simply is the analysis of the complex reactions of cause & effect on complex systems, which I apply directly to climate Science. What I hoped to do with the article is help to correct inaccurate information; however, what I discovered is that for zealots like William M. Connelly, anyone that is not for them, is against them. Again, I want to thank you for your courtesy. --Corwin8 23:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well you're right that Connelley is quite invested -- assuming he is the same WMC that writes for RealClimate, he's a climate modeler. Thinking about climate change is his job. Though I have degrees in Physics and Environmental Studies, I didn't know a whit about climate science until I took a course. What I am trying to say is that though my formal training in these two areas offered some foundation for understanding climate science, there is still quite a bit of information that is specific to the field. Nevertheless thanks for fixing some of the inaccuracies that were on the page. --VS 78 17:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to TGGWS

You are massively deleting material from The Great Global Warming Swindle. Carrying out such sweeping changes without discussing them with other editors on the article's talk page often is viewed as provocative, and is unhelpful to your purported goal of working together to improve the article. Raymond Arritt 03:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This was already discussed on the article's talk page. There is a discussion on the article's talk page that the TGGWS article is already too much about the issue and not enough about the film. My edits are in line with the discussion and announced intention to remove reduntant material, and bad references. And I am attempting to keep my edits sectionalized. Thank you for asking. --Corwin8 03:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with you deleting sourced material, Corwin8. Please reconsider your deletions and discuss it on the talk page. Thank you. ~ UBeR 03:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)