User talk:GregJackP

Please add new posts at the bottom of the page.

RfC Teeninvestor

Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nature

With regards to [1]: Nature is a (perhaps even "the") leading scientific journal, and every scientist would say the same. Nature has the highest PageRank+ISI Impact Factor number out of any scientific journal, just barely beating out Science. () NW (Talk) 19:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

'Tis a bit silly to dispute the fact that Nature is a "leading" science journal. It falls under the category of things that could be sourced, but really shouldn't have to be thanks to common sense. On the other hand, since Nature is widely recognized as a leading science journal, perhaps the adjective is unnecessary and redundant in the first place... MastCell ^Talk 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My main issue is with calling a brand new editor a Scibaby sock on their first edit, after the ArbCom PD came out. Absolutely no change in behavior. I don't have an issue with Nature - I attempted to use it to source some info on WMC, but was told by an admim that it was not a reliable source, even though the same cite was used on the Wikipedia article. BTW, it is unnecessary and redundant to label it as leading, but I'm not so concerned as to edit-war over it. GregJackP Boomer! 21:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ex parte Crow Dog

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Partisan sources

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

Please note that contributors should not be voting here. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your !vote (and reword if appropriate). What we are looking for is constructive criticism (such as alternate wordings or alternate remedies) . If you aren't around I may remove your !vote myself, and you might want to then modify your comment. If you need to respond, please respond on my talk page. Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please remove completely all your Support or Oppose comments. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had to go ahead and do this as others have started to add them. Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Ping ....Minor4th 23:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your account

Hi. Could you explain why the logs show that you created this account at 02:29, 22 November 2006, yet didn't make your first edit until 14:36, 27 January 2010? I assume you were using another account during that time, correct? Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I was a lurker. Is there a reason for the question? I've already been through an SPI and cleared by checkuser, but based on the history in the CC area, I'm a little suspicious of your question. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)