790:
Is this proper scientific process Curtis? Is this how you treat new people? Is this how you treat people who try to make a contribution to improve the article? How many little banners and quotes can I give you on
Knowledge that talk about how people like me are important to improve the quality of the website content? You are using these rules as a mask for your censorship on valid points. I was not using the discussion as a forum, I was using the discussion board to DISCUSS. Yes Curtis...to DISCUSS. But there is no discussion for you is there? If it doesn't comply with your presuppositions, then you shut it down...why did you do that? Again, I would like to bring up the valid point about falsification. But you will probably dismiss it. Its fine, hopefully you are a young man, (most wikipedians are under 30, white, and lean left. See: wikipedia bias). If that is true, (that you are under 30) then you will live long enough to see this theory play out.
366:"global warming (20th century)". My favourite solution wouldn't be to change the title but to change the content in a way it fits with the title. That could be done by adding a small (no undue weight) section about global warming in the past, with links to more specialized articles. In that way the title will cover the subject: problem solved. Anyway, I'm not going to change anything without you agreeing, although I'll be against keeping the FA status if it stays like this. The fact that English isn't my native tongue could be the reason for appearing verbose. In short, my point is that the word "global warming" includes other things beside the current content of the article.
310:
article is the source of ongoing vandalism, I rarely spend more than a day or two on any given subject. In that time, I do what I can to get information as up-to-date and objective as possible (and in the case of that article, almost all the data presented was 3-5 years old and extremely limited in scope). As far as I'm concerned, if (referenced and verifiable) data is provided by legitimate scientists and scholars in a subject's field, it is valid (though not necessarily accurate) input - regardless of efforts by anonymous posters in internet communities to question or discredit their credentials.
428:
350:, he's asking for an exception to WP:COMMONNAME when the exception itself is unjustified. Those are his errors, my were a misrepresentation of his arguments, which right now I'm not quite sure how it works beyond the fact that its conclusion is that the lead and title are inaccurate. I think your advice was beyond good. Stop replying. If you were me, how do you think I should handle this? You seem to be able to see big picture, thanks.
317:, presenting its data to highlight, and drawing conclusions from, a period of warming from 1980-2005 while completely disregarding a previous, identical period of warming from 1910-1945) - particularly given the volume of variables and possibilities that may exist . Reading the 'FAQ' on the talk page was even more alarming, as it relies heavily on unreliable sources (notably - blogs) to justify the article's weighted perspective.
593:
902:
having been prompted to do so many times since
January). This has been before the 3rrn, ANI, ORN, and RFEA notice boards, but is such a slow moving edit war that it has all but been ignored. I urge you to take a closer look at the text and sources, and at least enter into the debate, as I don't have the resources to commit to this SPA.
267:
with a small note at the top pointing out what happened. That was how it was created and that alone is a reason, not to delete the whole thing, but to revert the changes. Nevertheless, the strange version you found, is still in the edit history, in some kind of wiki-limbo as it could be reverted once
849:
published by actual scientists for the issue to have any relevance. But, your assertion that AGW "cannot be falsified" would quickly be shot down. It's blatantly obvious that AGW is easily falsifiable. If continued observation shows a long-term (30-year) decline in mean global surface temperature
789:
I proposed a valid question on the
Climate Change discussion forum: How is AGW falsifiable? And you threw a "not forum" banner on me and closed the discussion. Why is it Curtis, that when someone challenges a theory, that you have to hawk the article so tightly, that a valid question is stiffled?
901:
because it is mostly OR with very poor sourcing. The editor responsible for these sections only logs on every two weeks to remove CN and other tags or reinsert poor sources (wikis, discussion forums, refs which don't support the text, etc), but has yet to enter into any form of discussion (despite
401:
What's lost in brevity, Curtis, is that I think your proposal is probably the best one so far. Despite this, there are three points I want addressed. I'm not worried about you, but I hope I actually get answered. Woodwalker, thanks, although apparently the discussion has left us behind. Again. And
365:
Hi both, and sorry for interrupting (this talk page was on my watchlist, donno why). A personal note: I think all of this is not worth the fuzz anyway. I just passed by, saw a problem when comparing title and content, checked the literature and wanted to tell. Personally, I don't like titles like
102:
The
Climategate article talks of a "hacker" who "stole" emails and other data from the CRU. However, at UK law there is legislation permitting whistleblowers to release information that discloses criminality, as - prima facie - the Climategate emails do. The bias against the whistleblower that is
309:
I appreciate your concern regarding my morale after attempting to improve the global warming article. I assure you, I am not discouraged by the reaction to my input. I'm sure, at some point, I'll return to address any concerns and arguments raised about the information I offered, but unless an
868:
It looks like you enjoy fallacies Curtis. "Actual scientists?" Sounds like a no true scottsman fallacy. There are MANY scientists and papers published by them that challenge the falsification of AWG. But I wont Google them for you, I have a feeling you are smart enough to do that yourself.
312:
As someone having drawn no conclusions (and thoroughly indifferent on the matter) of global warming, I read the article hoping to learn about the various theories as to what might be prompting it. I was surprised to see that it addressed such a narrow frame-of-reference and presented data and
952:
happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own
Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon!
793:
It would be nice if, in the spirit of the purpose of this website, you showed a little more grace and leniency to new people who simply want to make a contribution to the quality of the content, rather than exercise your power to silence opposition.
319:
All that being said, however, you're right, muddling through the data is daunting and perplexing. Particularly because it's largely presented by sources that, although academically reliable, often have a great deal to gain by adhering to a specific
823:
Secondly, your post was not an invitation to dialogue. All you did was post a bunch of unsubstantiated, inflammatory assertions: "...must be classified as pseudo-science....prophets of climate doom....wikipedia is a leftist website....propaganda
506:
The article already links to the list of opposing scientists from the closing sentence in the text. In general we don't put links already mentioned into see also do we? I didn't revert it but thought I would check if there was a special reason.
654:
I thought the word "inappropriate" in my edit summary was explanation enough. I don't see the topic as worthy of a talk page discussion. But, if some other editor wants to get the reputation as the one who said, "Hey, let's put
341:
I really don't know how to reply to this one. It's not that I don't have anything to say, it's that
Woodwalker comment is so long I don't know how to start a reply and how to end it. If I may, I see two errors: (1)
988:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
673:
Removing material against consensus generally requires more rationale than you believe the statement is "inappropriate". What particular word do you find objectionable? "Dog"? Or "mess"Â ?
157:
please check pages before you add this link. Most climate-related articles already have at least one and often two links (one in the main text and one in an infobox) to this article.
605:
563:
840:, as it's just an anonymous editorial on a non-science website. But, I was wondering if the issue of falsifiability is something that this article should address.
722:
I realize that it was my mistake to have accidentally inserted four tildas into the header, but I don't see how that equates to a wholesale revert for the comment.
543:
Thank you very much for the page link to the article that you posted on my talk page, I read over the article, and it was just what I had been looking for. --
635:
removes material added by two separate editors and was done without discussion on the article's talk page. Can you eloborate on your rationale for this?
445:
596:
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed,
833:
827:
That's not exactly the best way to start a discussion or ask a question. A more productive approach would have been to post something this:
240:
for more information. A good catch, though: I've restored the original redirect. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.
1013:
876:
770:
726:
690:
597:
585:
148:
130:
110:
801:
755:
926:
903:
949:
26:
224:
Hello CurtisSwain, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of
751:
369:
As for special pleading, I didn't do that. I don't want to see exceptions to WP:COMMONNAME. I believe it doesn't apply. Cheers,
1009:
680:
Gulf of Mexico Oil
Disaster should be at the Top, not Buried at the Bottom, of the section on BP Accidents (in the BP article)
295:
48:
43:
1000:
describes the
Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
687:
Just curious, are you being paid by BP (or any company indirectly contracting for BP) in a Public
Relations capacity?
616:. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.
1005:
601:
346:, his arguments is so long and interlocked that it can't be effectively deduced logically, (2) this is for you, its
816:
First of all, I did not close down the thread you started. That was done by another editor as you can easily see
608:. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
268:
again. Try to click on above link, find the hatnote, click once more on the name and then check the history tab.--
548:
291:
53:
730:
694:
477:
407:
355:
165:
114:
880:
774:
958:
930:
907:
805:
759:
489:
850:
coupled with a continued increase, or even plateauing, of GHGs, then the AGW theory will be proven false.--
619:
33:
22:
954:
60:
872:
797:
573:
544:
520:
I was just trying to throw the skeptics a bone so they'd stop complaining about "POV", "bias", etc.--
106:
64:
1001:
403:
384:
374:
351:
207:
161:
138:
88:
76:
68:
613:
485:
343:
327:
273:
260:
256:
245:
225:
218:
199:
38:
29:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
480:
because they are not allowed. Can you remove them so they do not show in article namespace. See
75:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
977:
968:
836:
on investors.com that talked about AGW not being falsifible. I realise it can't be used as a
636:
481:
997:
981:
851:
846:
660:
521:
388:
347:
184:
996:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
568:
511:
459:
434:
427:
264:
993:
985:
370:
203:
134:
84:
989:
922:
918:
709:
323:
269:
241:
237:
231:
837:
314:
180:
917:
I would appreciate your input regarding this issue on the Peak oil talk page (
508:
452:
604:. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at
79:, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place
1017:
962:
934:
911:
884:
859:
809:
778:
763:
734:
712:
698:
668:
648:
622:
579:
552:
529:
514:
493:
466:
441:
411:
396:
378:
359:
331:
299:
277:
249:
211:
188:
169:
142:
118:
92:
656:
592:
313:
conclusions that largely support one perspective (ie. a chart like
72:
984:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Knowledge
263:, that is anybody clicking or typing it will directly be sent to
103:
evident in the current draft of the article is unacceptable.
198:
Thanks for the award. Actually, I probably learned more from
448:
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
426:
684:
It is by far more serious, more current and more topical.
750:
I think this is rather unusual for removing a sentence in
899:
845:
Of course, you would eventually need to have an actual
817:
748:
745:
723:
633:
385:
Talk:Global warming# Lede is (deliberately?) misleading
289:
476:
I commented out the category's and interwiki links on
259:
still exists but it is currently not an article but a
606:
Knowledge:General sanctions/Climate change probation
976:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
747:and my discussion thread reverted by 69.31.68.51.
659:in this article"...well, that's their business.--
769:I was thinking the same thing, thanks Curtis.
433:Hello, CurtisSwain. You have new messages at
383:Feedback is always welcome. Replying back on
8:
948:I just wanted to give you a heads-up about
255:Well, it is rather the opposite. The name
59:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
941:San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters
98:Neutrality of Knowledge climate articles
179:For fixing up my typos today. Â :-) --
83:before the question. Again, welcome!
7:
598:Scientific opinion on climate change
586:Scientific opinion on climate change
149:Scientific opinion on climate change
131:Scientific opinion on climate change
14:
1002:review the candidates' statements
708:see my contribs for news update•
752:Public opinion on climate change
591:
230:The reason given is not a valid
704:see my contribs for news update
228:- a page you tagged - because:
1008:. For the Election committee,
978:Arbitration Committee election
969:ArbCom elections are now open!
189:11:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
1:
1018:13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
898:I undid your edit to Peak oil
779:23:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
764:21:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
580:19:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
553:02:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
530:00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
515:10:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
332:23:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
300:13:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
278:20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
250:11:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
212:04:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
119:04:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
34:The five pillars of Knowledge
860:23:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
810:12:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
735:19:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
623:20:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
558:Thanks for the encouragement
494:06:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
467:11:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
442:11:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
412:05:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
397:09:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
379:08:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
360:07:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
238:criteria for speedy deletion
49:How to write a great article
25:to Knowledge! Thank you for
1004:and submit your choices on
963:19:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
919:Talk:Peak oil#Platinumshore
129:Thank you for your work on
1033:
1010:MediaWiki message delivery
669:00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
649:02:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
217:Speedy deletion declined:
143:06:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
93:06:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
935:21:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
820:in the talk page history.
632:Hi, this revert of yours
232:speedy deletion criterion
912:19:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
855:
713:22:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
699:19:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
664:
525:
478:User:CurtisSwain/Sandbox
472:User:CurtisSwain/Sandbox
392:
170:11:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
160:Good work, otherwise! --
133:. Thats good research.
21:Hello, CurtisSwain, and
885:17:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
744:I've got a legal threat
842:
431:
305:Better Late Than Never
982:Arbitration Committee
923:Talk:Peak oil#Dubious
830:
785:Please explain Curtis
430:
950:the next wiki-meetup
921:and related section
402:for the third time.
292:William M. Connolley
986:arbitration process
718:Talk:Greenhouse gas
77:Knowledge:Questions
998:arbitration policy
446:remove this notice
432:
257:Scientific society
236:Please review the
226:Scientific society
219:Scientific society
44:How to edit a page
27:your contributions
875:comment added by
800:comment added by
740:Something Unusual
614:templated message
602:article probation
435:A8UDI's talk page
344:fallacy verbosity
109:comment added by
67:your messages on
1024:
945:Hi CurtisSwain,
925:). Thank you.
887:
847:scientific paper
834:this little post
812:
646:
595:
578:
576:
571:
464:
457:
449:
348:special pleading
121:
82:
69:discussion pages
1032:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1006:the voting page
972:
943:
896:
870:
838:reliable source
795:
787:
742:
720:
706:
682:
637:
630:
612:The above is a
589:
574:
569:
567:
560:
545:Imadeausername!
541:
504:
474:
460:
453:
450:
439:
424:
339:
307:
286:
265:learned society
222:
202:than Damorbel.
200:that discussion
196:
177:
152:
127:
104:
100:
80:
54:Manual of Style
12:
11:
5:
1030:
1028:
975:
971:
966:
942:
939:
938:
937:
895:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
877:24.176.175.246
863:
862:
829:
828:
825:
821:
786:
783:
782:
781:
771:155.99.230.249
741:
738:
727:174.52.224.148
719:
716:
705:
702:
691:69.171.160.118
681:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
629:
626:
610:
609:
588:
583:
559:
556:
540:
537:
535:
533:
532:
503:
502:Global Warming
500:
498:
473:
470:
440:Message added
438:
425:
423:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
404:ChyranandChloe
367:
352:ChyranandChloe
338:
337:Global warming
335:
321:
318:
311:
306:
303:
285:
282:
281:
280:
221:
215:
195:
192:
176:
173:
162:Stephan Schulz
151:
146:
126:
123:
111:90.197.196.104
99:
96:
57:
56:
51:
46:
41:
36:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1029:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
970:
967:
965:
964:
960:
956:
955:Maryana (WMF)
951:
946:
940:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
915:
914:
913:
909:
905:
900:
894:Peak oil edit
893:
886:
882:
878:
874:
867:
866:
865:
864:
861:
857:
853:
848:
844:
843:
841:
839:
835:
826:
822:
819:
815:
814:
813:
811:
807:
803:
802:67.183.191.86
799:
791:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
767:
766:
765:
761:
757:
756:155.99.230.57
753:
749:
746:
739:
737:
736:
732:
728:
724:
717:
715:
714:
711:
703:
701:
700:
696:
692:
688:
685:
679:
672:
671:
670:
666:
662:
658:
653:
652:
651:
650:
647:
644:
640:
634:
628:Recent Revert
627:
625:
624:
621:
617:
615:
607:
603:
599:
594:
587:
584:
582:
581:
577:
572:
565:
557:
555:
554:
550:
546:
538:
536:
531:
527:
523:
519:
518:
517:
516:
513:
510:
501:
499:
496:
495:
491:
487:
486:Alan Liefting
484:. Cheers. --
483:
479:
471:
469:
468:
465:
463:
458:
456:
447:
443:
436:
429:
421:
413:
409:
405:
400:
399:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:
362:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
336:
334:
333:
329:
325:
316:
304:
302:
301:
297:
293:
290:
283:
279:
275:
271:
266:
262:
258:
254:
253:
252:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
233:
227:
220:
216:
214:
213:
209:
205:
201:
193:
191:
190:
186:
182:
174:
172:
171:
167:
163:
158:
155:
150:
147:
145:
144:
140:
136:
132:
124:
122:
120:
116:
112:
108:
97:
95:
94:
90:
86:
78:
74:
70:
66:
62:
55:
52:
50:
47:
45:
42:
40:
37:
35:
32:
31:
30:
28:
24:
19:
18:
973:
947:
944:
927:206.188.32.1
904:206.188.32.1
897:
832:I just read
831:
792:
788:
743:
721:
707:
689:
686:
683:
642:
638:
631:
611:
590:
561:
542:
534:
505:
497:
475:
461:
454:
451:
340:
308:
287:
229:
223:
197:
178:
159:
156:
153:
128:
101:
58:
20:
16:
15:
871:—Preceding
852:CurtisSwain
796:—Preceding
661:CurtisSwain
522:CurtisSwain
389:CurtisSwain
154:Hi Curtis,
105:—Preceding
71:using four
994:topic bans
570:SPhilbrick
482:WP:BADCATS
444:. You can
371:Woodwalker
81:{{helpme}}
61:Wikipedian
990:site bans
824:article."
320:ideology.
204:Q Science
135:Brusegadi
85:Brusegadi
63:! Please
873:unsigned
798:unsigned
754:. --CaC
710:Ling.Nut
657:DOG MESS
600:, is on
564:Timeline
422:Talkback
324:K10wnsta
270:Tikiwont
261:redirect
242:Tikiwont
107:unsigned
39:Tutorial
17:Welcome!
645:leaming
562:of the
539:Thanks!
125:Thanks!
23:welcome
980:. The
725:--CaC
284:Thanks
194:Thanks
181:Jaymax
175:Cheers
73:tildes
509:BozMo
1014:talk
959:talk
931:talk
908:talk
881:talk
856:talk
818:here
806:talk
775:talk
760:talk
731:talk
695:talk
665:talk
641:ell
549:talk
526:talk
512:talk
492:) -
490:talk
408:talk
393:talk
375:talk
356:talk
328:talk
315:this
296:talk
288:For
274:talk
246:talk
208:talk
185:talk
166:talk
139:talk
115:talk
89:talk
65:sign
974:Hi,
618:--
462:UDI
1016:)
992:,
961:)
933:)
910:)
883:)
858:)
808:)
777:)
762:)
733:)
697:)
667:)
620:TS
566:--
551:)
528:)
507:--
455:A8
410:)
395:)
387:--
377:)
358:)
330:)
322:--
298:)
276:)
248:)
210:)
187:)
168:)
141:)
117:)
91:)
1012:(
957:(
929:(
906:(
879:(
854:(
804:(
773:(
758:(
729:(
693:(
663:(
643:G
639:F
575:T
547:(
524:(
488:(
437:.
406:(
391:(
373:(
354:(
326:(
294:(
272:(
244:(
234:.
206:(
183:(
164:(
137:(
113:(
87:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.