This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 13 April 2010 (→BLP violation: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:58, 13 April 2010 by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs) (→BLP violation: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) 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)
Fred Singer
You know that Fred Singer is under the Climate Change probation. You clearly believe your position, which I can see is good faith. But in my view you have gone a little too far on essentially reverting the same thing (slightly paraphrased) three times in 24 hours and then once again 3 hours after the time period had elapsed. I am therefore politely suggesting you drop it for a bit, and stick to proposing text on talk (say for another 48 hours on this article). In respect of Climate Change I have said I am not completely uninvolved on BLPs because I am prepared to edit BLP articles which lack respect for their participants. But I am not prepared to sit by and watch them deteriorate into edit wars. You are free to ignore this advice and just interprete it as a warning if you wish. --BozMo talk 06:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. Just to explain "Robert Samuelson, contributing editor at Newsweek, later apologized for the publication's "fundamentally misleading" story.". First addition if it hasn't been in the article before (which I assumed it had when counting but I could be wrong) revert second partial revert third revert of same comment (but 24 hours had passed). I don't disagree about BLP concerns on the article. But I wouldn't advise as many reverts on an article on probation. --BozMo talk 13:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, you're counting the original text -- it wasn't already in the article when I began. In any case, I agree with your advice and intend to let the article sit for a bit before taking it up again. FellGleaming (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Reported
I have reported this edit to Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#FellGleaming because contrary to what you stated in your edit summary, and what you changed the article to, does not contain the word leaked, but does contain the word hacked. I'm certainly interested in your explanation for your edit. Please provide it! Hipocrite (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
BLP violation
is a clearcut BLP violation. You cannot use opinion sources for personal (or factual) information on a BLP subject. That is simply not allowed.
There are potentials for libel here - you are basically saying (or Lindzen is) that Tennekes was sacked. And that is a very personal and potentially contentious information. I'm going to revert again . Please do not insert again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)