Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FellGleaming (talk | contribs) at 15:25, 15 April 2010 (→Personal attacks.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 language was not extremely neutral, and uses more words to convey less information. Do you not believe that FoS is verifiably suspicious of AGW claims?

BTW, I have a discussion going on the lede changes at FoS, and would appreciate any input you may have. Thanks. FellGleaming (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In use

It's rather impolite to ignore an {{inuse}} template. Guettarda (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the lesson in civility, the author in question has already thanked me for the rewording. Fell Gleaming 21:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of the template is to let people finish to avoid messing up complex edits. You can always fix things after they're done. Guettarda (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. Having just come into contact with you as an editor I have enjoyed our debates. If we both stick to your ideals on sourcing standards then that should make for better articles. I have appreciated your neutralisation of the language in several cases but I certainly think you have gone over the top with some of the sourcing debates. Just because you don't like a source should not be a reason to remove it, however, better sourcing is always a bonus. Polargeo (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words (and also for the criticism; it helps me to improve as well. ) I hope you agree the new version of the article is much improved. Whether or not a claim is true, if a reader clicks through to the source and sees something that appears unreliable, they're not going to accept the text. Fell Gleaming 08:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Partial restoration of text

Hi, I restored the important part of some text you deleted in Nuclear reactor technology. I agree that the last half of it had no place in the article. Please review? Simesa (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I just don't feel that union composition and workforce makeup are aspects of the reactor technology. This information belongs more in an article on nuclear plant operation. Fell Gleaming 12:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks.

This is unacceptable. You will file either an enforcement case - or a user RfC, if you feel this way - article talk-space is not the place. For now i will politely ask you to remove the personal attack (i have warned you once already) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if you interpreted the remark in that manner, but I don't see this as a personal attack at all. I'm saying your position is inconsistent, and given the evidence, I believe my question to you is in good faith. You are taking both sides of the same argument. I don't see how this question breaches civility at all. Could you possibly quote the relevant portion you feel I'm violating?

Also, I do note that WP:Civil does say editors are expected to respond to good faith questions. Thanks. Fell Gleaming 15:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: I softened the language as a personal favor to you. I hope you will not find the new version offensive, and respond to it in the good faith that it is presented. Fell Gleaming 15:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)