| Revision as of 21:17, 13 April 2010 editThepisky (talk | contribs)92 edits →Please: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:24, 13 April 2010 edit undoFellGleaming (talk | contribs)3,690 edits →PleaseNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| I'm sure I'm just misreading your intentions, but please look at this from my perspective. 1. I start editing ] last night. 2. Before I even finish fixing up the article (you put back "suspicious of claims of global warming", a very loaded statement), you start throwing away my changes. 3. You show up out of the blue at ] and start accusing me of intentional misrepresentation of a source and not being connected to reality. Please tell me I am being overly sensitive, as I really don't know what I could have done to offend you.<br />I left you a reply at ], hopefully the new version will meet with your approval.<br />] (]) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC) | I'm sure I'm just misreading your intentions, but please look at this from my perspective. 1. I start editing ] last night. 2. Before I even finish fixing up the article (you put back "suspicious of claims of global warming", a very loaded statement), you start throwing away my changes. 3. You show up out of the blue at ] and start accusing me of intentional misrepresentation of a source and not being connected to reality. Please tell me I am being overly sensitive, as I really don't know what I could have done to offend you.<br />I left you a reply at ], hopefully the new version will meet with your approval.<br />] (]) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| : You haven't offended me at all; I think your new changes to the Mead article are fine. Regarding FoS, I believe your new language is not extremely neutral, and uses more words to convey less information. Do you not believe that FoS is verifiably suspicious of AGW claims? ] (]) 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:24, 13 April 2010
I routinely clean out my talk page, consistent with WP policy.If you wish to keep a copy of something you post here, please copy it to your own page.
About Me
I am a U.S. citizen, though I have lived in Europe and Asia, and at present (April 08) have visited over 50 different countries. I am also a regular pelagic sailor, though I recently sold my 40' Ketch and am now again on dry land.
I am (was?) an avid spelunker, though its been a few years since I engaged regularly.
James Lovelock
Hi there. I'm afraid I've reverted your edits at James Lovelock. I heard the interview on the radio when it was originally broadcast, and while Lovelock may well doubt specific forecasts of climate change (as would most scientists, since they make prosaic assumptions about future human behaviour), he is not doubting the science of climate change. However, this is what your edits to the article implied. At least, implied to me. Anyway, I just wanted to give you a heads-up. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Result of your 3RR complaint
I have replaced the report at WP:AN3#User:Drac2000 reported by User:FellGleaming (Result: No action) and closed it with no action, since the two of you seem to be negotiating. Generally 3RR reports should not be removed from the board if any comments have been made on them or if any admin has begun investigating. If your negotiations with Drac2000 don't pan out, we want to keep a record of any previous discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Vincent R. Gray
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Vincent R. Gray, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages: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.) 14:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
New article
I thought you'd be interested in the stub article Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions Simesa (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
What?
What on Earth are you talking about in the edit-comment here("not what source says.") - the commentaryhttp://www.viewmag.com/viewstory.php?storyid=4924 uses the word Astroturf(ing) about FS (and the NRSC) a total of 8 times in 808 words - this is not counting the headline. Let me quote just one passage:
- Long a menace in the States, the trend towards Astroturfs is building in Canada. Perhaps the most notable phony groundswell of independent thought is the oil lobby front group Friends of Science
In the other article it is also made clear that DeSmogBlog and others are labelling the Stewardship program and the Friends as Astroturfers - and i do think that it is accurate to describe DeSmogBlog as critics. (and a notable view here because the article cites them) May i please ask you to revert yourself here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- I read the story in TheStar; it never directly called FoS an astroturf group. The blog entry of Veale's does (I just read it now). I'm ok with reinserting it, but given it is commentary, I believe we need to label just who is levelling the accusation, rather than a "critics" weasel-word. OK with you? FellGleaming (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Please
I'm sure I'm just misreading your intentions, but please look at this from my perspective. 1. I start editing Friends of Science last night. 2. Before I even finish fixing up the article (you put back "suspicious of claims of global warming", a very loaded statement), you start throwing away my changes. 3. You show up out of the blue at Lake Mead and start accusing me of intentional misrepresentation of a source and not being connected to reality. Please tell me I am being overly sensitive, as I really don't know what I could have done to offend you.
I left you a reply at Talk:Lake Mead, hopefully the new version will meet with your approval.
Thepisky (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- You haven't offended me at all; I think your new changes to the Mead article are fine. Regarding FoS, I believe your new language is not extremely neutral, and uses more words to convey less information. Do you not believe that FoS is verifiably suspicious of AGW claims? FellGleaming (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)