| Revision as of 01:26, 20 March 2010 editRatel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users12,919 edits →Please refactor: rsp← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:24, 20 March 2010 edit undoLessHeard vanU (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users33,615 edits →re Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Ratel: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
| ::Sorry, I generally AGF editors, but when you deleted my well-sourced and on-topic edit with the comment "ill-advised", I could no longer assume good faith, and nothing you have done subsequently has changed that. Indeed, the impression has been reinforced. Your usepage shows you are interested in poetry. Perhaps this is the area you should edit within? Are you science trained? ] 01:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC) | ::Sorry, I generally AGF editors, but when you deleted my well-sourced and on-topic edit with the comment "ill-advised", I could no longer assume good faith, and nothing you have done subsequently has changed that. Indeed, the impression has been reinforced. Your usepage shows you are interested in poetry. Perhaps this is the area you should edit within? Are you science trained? ] 01:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == re Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Ratel == | |||
| The result of the above request was to decide to give you the following notice; | |||
| You are reminded of both ] and ] (regarding assuming good faith specifically), and are warned that further assumptions of bad faith will result in a prompt short block and a topic ban from Climate Change articles covered by the probation for a period to be decided. You are encouraged to respond positively to other editors requests for co-operation and discussion, and to report any instances of possible provocation to an uninvolved administrator rather than reverting/warring. | |||
| ] (]) 22:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:24, 20 March 2010
| Contents |
|---|
|
Your comments and my replies:
Please suggest changes in order to meet BLP standards
The Oil for Food Scandal was allowed. Can this be cleaned up to meet the proper standards?
Carbon Taxation Involvement
Jesse Ventura cited Maurice Strong as being a primary developer of global warming , with the goal of creating a global carbon credit taxation. Additionally, there are numerous claims that that the Edmund de Rothschild, a member of the well-known Rothschild family, was working with Strong as well. In essence, Strong has been promoting global warming since the 1980's with the long term goal of helping the United Nations create a carbon tax , potentially a trillion dollar business, mainly via carbon credit trading. In 1987, Strong, Rothschild, and presented the Brundtland Commission at the 4th World Wilderness Congress for a World Conservation Bank (or Global Environment Facility) which would provide a banking system for carbon taxation . The Global Environment Facility (or GEF) is an existing multi-billion dollar fund through which green projects are created in 3rd world countries (the largest of its kind), while keeping a portion of the funds for management and administrative fees. Additionally, it hopes to trade the world's debt for wilderness lands as collateral.
As of 2010, Strong is believed to be actively working with China on their government carbon credit trading, as well as with attempting to produce the Chinese owned Chery Automobile in/for the United States market.
- To insert this, you'd need proper sources. You have none so far. The sources given were false. Then there is the tone and content, implying Strong is involved in a conspiracy to create the concept of global warming, which is nonsense. Why should the opinions of the palooka Ventura be sprayed all over this man's biography? Bottom line: this material contravenes the policy of wp:BLP. Please read the policy carefully. Keep this discussion on the article's talk page please. ► RATEL ◄ 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Enforcement request
Ratel, please see the enforcement request I have opened here. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom review
I've requested an ArbCom review of one of the admins who has acted in the above enforcement request. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
SHBS
Trust me. He knows more about climate change than you and I combined. And he is up to the latests developments. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. I was not aware. ► RATEL ◄ 09:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Please refactor
Why don't you refactor the comments I object to in this statement? That diff has the links you'll need to see exactly what I'm talking about. Calling me "anti-science" and making false statements about me involve violations of WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF, which are referred to on the climate change probation page. If you refactor your comments, I'll remove my complaints about them. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I generally AGF editors, but when you deleted my well-sourced and on-topic edit with the comment "ill-advised", I could no longer assume good faith, and nothing you have done subsequently has changed that. Indeed, the impression has been reinforced. Your usepage shows you are interested in poetry. Perhaps this is the area you should edit within? Are you science trained? ► RATEL ◄ 01:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
re Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Ratel
The result of the above request was to decide to give you the following notice;
You are reminded of both Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith and Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation (regarding assuming good faith specifically), and are warned that further assumptions of bad faith will result in a prompt short block and a topic ban from Climate Change articles covered by the probation for a period to be decided. You are encouraged to respond positively to other editors requests for co-operation and discussion, and to report any instances of possible provocation to an uninvolved administrator rather than reverting/warring.