| Revision as of 10:01, 2 January 2010 editGoRight (talk | contribs)6,435 edits →Arbitration Request Notification← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:20, 26 February 2010 edit undoDave souza (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators48,697 edits →Unjustified revert on climate change: thanks, have edited to suitNext edit → | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> | Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> | ||
| --] (]) 10:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | --] (]) 10:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ==Unjustified revert on climate change== | |||
| ] Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed{{#if:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change|, ],}} is on ]. {{#if:Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation|A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at ].|}} {{#if:|{{{3}}}|Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.<br><br>''The above is a ]. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.''}}<!-- Template:uw-probation --> | |||
| Your revert to ] was to material fully covered in the cited source, and removed a valid source. Note that the probation prohibits edit warring on these articles, any further removal of valid cited content will be regarded as vandalism. . ], ] 14:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Dave, the problem was not with the cited source, but with the POV tone of your text. Your content was not valid, my reversion was, and was made in good faith. Good faith edits are not to be regarded as vandalism, and an administrator treating them as if they were would be a serious breach of duty. ] (]) 14:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for raising this and discussing it amicably. I'd have had no difficulty with you editing the tone while following the source and reflecting the clear majority view, but I don't think simple reversion removing properly cited information is acceptable, though you did give detail in your edit summary. On reviewing it, the NAS findings are more significant than ]'s investigative journalism, and I've modified it accordingly. Hope that meets your concerns, ], ] 17:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:20, 26 February 2010
Hello, DGaw, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
- Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments. You can sign your post like I did by using 4 tildes (~~~~), which will leave your username and time you posted the comment.
- The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Simplified Ruleset
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial, which can be very useful later.
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Misplaced Pages Glossary
- Check out Redwolf24's Bootcamp! Redwolf is a very friendly user, and this page might prove useful to you.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes at some point, here is what Misplaced Pages is not, which might help you out. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me. The Community Portal can also be very useful.
Happy editing! Mysekurity 01:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Env. record
Hi, I've reverted "crit." to "record," in order to make the edit consistent with the Environmental Record Task Force. We want to keep this consistent across the encyclopedia.Benzocane 03:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I understand your concern. The goal of the TF is not only to add criticism--if you want to add "positive" information about the relevant entry, and such information exists, please do so. Not all the records are critical--they just contain the most relevant information. If the task force adopts the language you suggest, then there will be an NPOV risk; as is, the language invites editors to add all relevant information no matter if it constitutes criticism or praise. Please think beyond this particular entry--the ERTF is well established and involves tens of editors. Administratively, we need consistency across headings. Again, I understand your concern and share it--I just think "record" is less of an advocacy risk than criticism. I appreciate your engagement and I'm happy, of course, to discuss this further. Perhaps we should move our conversation to the ERTF page? Thanks! Benzocane 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Terri-Rae Elmer
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Terri-Rae Elmer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rtphokie (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Sources?
If you have reliable sources which indicate that the files were not stolen (ie, that they were released with the permission of UEA or the owners of the files), then you need to share the sources. I'd be very interested in seeing these reliable sources. Guettarda (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
your note
I added my agreement to your suggestion on tony sidway's page. the issue seems to still be coming up. could you please examine the page history at talk:Global warming? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Soon & Baliunas controversy
Good call on tagging this one for POV. I was just looking for a balancing opinion in a RS. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration
Please comment only within your own section. Thank you, Tiptoety 02:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
CC Probation
I have recorded my objections on the AN subpage as well as on Ryan's talk page. Depending on his response I intend to enter a new arbitration request regarding his premature closing and implementation of these sanctions. Since you have expressed a similar set of concerns would you be interested in being a named party to such a request? --GoRight (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration Request Notification
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change Probation and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, --GoRight (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Unjustified revert on climate change
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 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.
Your revert to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was to material fully covered in the cited source, and removed a valid source. Note that the probation prohibits edit warring on these articles, any further removal of valid cited content will be regarded as vandalism. . dave souza, talk 14:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Dave, the problem was not with the cited source, but with the POV tone of your text. Your content was not valid, my reversion was, and was made in good faith. Good faith edits are not to be regarded as vandalism, and an administrator treating them as if they were would be a serious breach of duty. DGaw (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for raising this and discussing it amicably. I'd have had no difficulty with you editing the tone while following the source and reflecting the clear majority view, but I don't think simple reversion removing properly cited information is acceptable, though you did give detail in your edit summary. On reviewing it, the NAS findings are more significant than Fred Pearce's investigative journalism, and I've modified it accordingly. Hope that meets your concerns, dave souza, talk 17:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)