Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 03:02, 16 February 2010 (==Talk:Richard Lindzen== {{subst:uw-probation|Richard Lindzen|Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation}} -- ~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I'm sorry but I deleted your addition to the global warming skeptics article. It was all independent research, which is violation of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. All of the sources were direct (not verifiable media citations) and worse, they were blogs. I'm sorry, but if you can get something together that is a little more encyclopedic and documented by an accountable news organization, it would be good to go. --relaxathon 01:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the note - seems to me that blogs are in a current gray area at WP. For now, I've reproduced the section just using news sources.Brian A Schmidt 22:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

GWC - Passive Smoking section

I wanted to get some idea from you how this particular section does not violate WP:SYN. Reliable sources may highlight the individual points, but it is outside our rights as editors to string these points together to build a case. This qualifies as original research, and being as the section impunges the credibility of living persons, its relevance must be directly established by a very strong source for its inclusion to be permissible. So far I have not seen this. In hopes to avoid an edit war, I would appreciate if you could clarify this for me. ~ S0CO 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Related Controversies" header paragraph spells out the relationship. And it's not OR, the relationship is in the cited works, especially Republican War on Science.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Meteorologist: Professional or Academic?

RE: Brian Sussman's wiki. I think I understand your preference for "former meteorologist". Mr. Sussman is no longer primarily a TV weatherman. But I believe he does have a Masters degree in Meteorology. Don't you think that makes him currently a meteorologist at least in terms of his academic background? Gouveia2 (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I googled usages of the term - I think either qualifications or employment is an accurate usage, but in this context I think people are more likely to be confused into thinking he's still working as meteorologist by not calling him "former" than they are to think he's been stripped of his academic qualifications. Not the most important issue in the world, I suppose. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought: employment status or academic are valid for the title. Maybe it would be more clear to say he's a "former TV meteorologist". Ya know, I don't have a RS for his degrees, anyway. Never got a copy of his transcripts, I guess. His bio sez he has taken MS-level coursework, but doesn't say he actually has a Masters, or BS for that matter. Gouveia2 (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I've changed it to "former television meteorologist". Brian A Schmidt (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just gonna do that today! Right on, Brian. More important things to do, I guess. Gouveia2 (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fred Singer, Violation of WP:3RR

You have committed four reversions within a few minutes to this article, a clear violation of the Misplaced Pages Three Revert Rule policy. Additionally, none of these reversions were discussed on the talk page. If you persist, this may result in a ban on your editing privileges. FellGleaming (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You have just performed a fifth revision after being warned. I am reporting this incident for further action.FellGleaming (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I used the undo function, but edited new content in several cases. I also didn't see your little warning, you seem to be pretty trigger happy here. Up to you to decide if you want to report.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The 3RR rule applies regardless. Additionally, you are making dubious edits without discussing them on the relevant sections of the talk page. Furthermore, some of the material you reinserted violates WP:BLP as its not supported by the associated reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs) 06:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your last sentence is untrue. I believe the first one is also. Your split edits appear to be set up to create this problem, so if you pursue this, then we'll see what the ruling is.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not issuing a block for the 3RR violation in this instance, but I am expressing a request for you to cease pointless edit warring at Fred Singer. Take any disputes to the talk page instead of reverting any edit that comes through. The last revert was at 02:51 and the 3RR warning was issued at 02:53, and no further reverts have been conducted, but if the pointless bickering continues, I'll dole out a block. Cheers, seicer | talk | contribs 06:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, I used the undo function but edited instead of simply reverted in two instances, and my first two edits were in sequence to deal with four sequential edits by FellGleaming. Regardless, I'll let others handle the issue now.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed edits

I checked the citations you reverted (Fred Singer BLP intro), and while NCPA cite seems good, others seemed to require "research" (by me, at least, but you can follow up here if you think I've missed something)--in the which case it seems the reader might as well categorize the views held in common. The GMI actually seems to hold views that go beyond those that Singer holds. Independent Institute had its own {citation needed} problems and is libertarian--not sure Singer would latch onto that label. Perhaps you might want to add page-specific cites to each organization as done with NCPA and see how that works. --John G. Miles (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"self evident"

Brian, BLPs and "self-evident" criticisms do not mix. If it's that obvious then it's probably sourced somewhere -- and in this case it was, two news articles called his views controversial. I added it back in to reflect that his strong views and harsh attitude that are controversial, and added 2 sources for that. But when I see a defining critical term like "controversial figure" in the article intro, with no source, it immediately raises red flags for me and I revert on sight. ATren (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Something that obvious to me needs no more of a citation than the question of whether Gray is male or female. I do appreciate your re-adding the term, though.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Not making a point

I'm not making a point, I am applying consistent standards across articles. In any case, if you really mean what you say about criticism, I invite you to help those of us on the RealClimate article who have been reverted adding well-sourced criticism to that article. ATren (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Seemed to me that you were making a point. Anyway, I agree with you about RealClimate and left a note on the Talk page.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Brian. I really don't care which way it goes, but I do care that it is consistent. I have spent a lot of time on GW skeptic BLPs where I think criticism was piled on too high, and I've accepted it (and occasionally supported it) because I've always been a fan of "if it's well sourced and not ridiculously fringe, include it". So when I came to RC and I saw that reasonable and sourced criticism was being withheld based on a pretty strict reading of weight, I felt like that weight policy should be uniformly applied to both sides of this contentious topic area. I still believe that, so if consensus on RC is no criticism, I may revisit the skeptic bios where I earlier supported inclusion of borderline-weight criticism.

Thanks again for chiming in on RC. ATren (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Lindzen edit warring.

Just FYI in case you were unaware, people were explicitly warned by 2/0 to stop editing waring over this. You can decide for yourself if you want to roll the dice or self-revert. --GoRight (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Two of the preceding 100 edits are mine, and one of them was unrelated. I don't feel like I'm edit warring.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Richard Lindzen

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Richard Lindzen, 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. -- TS 03:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)