This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
We are not here to re-trumpet Ouadfeul's complaints about how he-was-so-terribly-mistreated-and-see-how-those-climate-change-guys-gang-up-on-us-skeptics. If third party reliable sources comment on the issue, we can cover it. If not and its just more self-serving self published claims that we do not use or blabber from the blog-o-sphere, then we don't cover it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
We are here to tell the full story about this journal, not just part of it to favor somebody. The original post was very unbalanced in favor of Copernicus arguments for closing the journal. I added the official reply from Morner which has been published. The opinion of Jo Nova and Tallbloke are as reliable as those of Jeffrey Beall. You are censoring for political reasoning. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Intuitive2000 (
talk •
contribs) 16:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, to demonstrate that my premise is incorrect you need to do more than just stating "your premise is incorrect." It is evident that you do not want to write the full story by censoring the opinion of Morner and the opinions of other people that have studied the issue and concluded that Copernicus actions were a case of scientific censorship. If you think that their opinions and conclusions are wrong, add contrary arguments for other people that have properly analyzed the issue. You should not solve the issue by deleting what does not fit your prejudices to mislead the public. ( Intuitive2000 ( talk) 16:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, I read the pages you pointed. They do not apply against my action but against your actions. In a controversy there are always two bells to be hear. You cannot silent one bell by deleting what does not fit your opinion. Are you claiming that Morner opinion are not as valid as Rasmussen's one? Are you claiming that the opinion of Jo Nova and Tallbloke are as reliable as those of Jeffrey Beall? ( Intuitive2000 ( talk) 17:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, you are demonstrating intolerance against opinions and persons that you personal oppose. As I said we are here to provide a fair analysis of the issue. Both bells must be present in this issue. I did not add "rants" but opinions that were formed by the authors after a careful analysis of the facts. You are presuming to know more on this issue than Morner himself! Provide evidences that the things are in the way you think they are. The article needs to be balanced. Search and add contrary arguments if you have them. Do not delete what does not fit your prejudices. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Intuitive2000 (
talk •
contribs) 17:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, I am not violating any policy, you are violating them by applying inappropriate censorship. The article is not finished yet. It can be improved. You cannot add third party opinions without adding the two-bell opinions first. You presented the opinion of Copernicus. This requires the addition of Morner's official opinion that was published in a scientific journal (which you want to censor!). After Copernicus and Morner opinions the third party opinions come. I added a set of opinions from some authors that have investigated the issue in details. What you need to do is to search contrary opinions and add them to the article. Instead of doing your homework you are censoring the opinions of Morner and those of the other people simply because you do not have any contrary opinion to support your prejudices. Does it make sense to you?
As I said: "search contrary opinions and add them to the article" (
Intuitive2000 (
talk) 17:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
I am not violating any Wikipedia rules. There are an infinity of articles on Wikipedia where the two bells are properly presented. You are applying censorship against ideas and persons that you personally oppose, which is contrary Wikipedia rules. Let the article to develop properly. Add the content that you think appropriate without deleting just for prejudice and learn to be tolerant of others' contribution ( Intuitive2000 ( talk) 18:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
I do not think that I have violated the rules. You are doing that by deleting continuously the post to prevent a fair presentation of the issues. The
WP:3RR rule was first violated by you who continuously deleted entire paragraphs that I wrote without any justifications. I am not violating the
WP:UNDUE rule. You are doing it by continuously censoring the rebuttals of Copernicus's argument written and published by Morner. Therefore you are not fairly representing all significant viewpoints but want to promote only one viewpoint ofthe story. I have not violated the rule of
WP:RS because the article included already content from non reliable blogs such as by Castelvecchi, Stokstad and Beall. I did not violated the rule of
WP:CONSENSUS because I did not write my own comments but I have simply referenced comments from other sources that were properly referenced. (
Intuitive2000 (
talk) 18:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pattern Recognition in Physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I removed
Because although Q may have said this, I don't think it really happened William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
We are not here to re-trumpet Ouadfeul's complaints about how he-was-so-terribly-mistreated-and-see-how-those-climate-change-guys-gang-up-on-us-skeptics. If third party reliable sources comment on the issue, we can cover it. If not and its just more self-serving self published claims that we do not use or blabber from the blog-o-sphere, then we don't cover it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
We are here to tell the full story about this journal, not just part of it to favor somebody. The original post was very unbalanced in favor of Copernicus arguments for closing the journal. I added the official reply from Morner which has been published. The opinion of Jo Nova and Tallbloke are as reliable as those of Jeffrey Beall. You are censoring for political reasoning. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Intuitive2000 (
talk •
contribs) 16:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, to demonstrate that my premise is incorrect you need to do more than just stating "your premise is incorrect." It is evident that you do not want to write the full story by censoring the opinion of Morner and the opinions of other people that have studied the issue and concluded that Copernicus actions were a case of scientific censorship. If you think that their opinions and conclusions are wrong, add contrary arguments for other people that have properly analyzed the issue. You should not solve the issue by deleting what does not fit your prejudices to mislead the public. ( Intuitive2000 ( talk) 16:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, I read the pages you pointed. They do not apply against my action but against your actions. In a controversy there are always two bells to be hear. You cannot silent one bell by deleting what does not fit your opinion. Are you claiming that Morner opinion are not as valid as Rasmussen's one? Are you claiming that the opinion of Jo Nova and Tallbloke are as reliable as those of Jeffrey Beall? ( Intuitive2000 ( talk) 17:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, you are demonstrating intolerance against opinions and persons that you personal oppose. As I said we are here to provide a fair analysis of the issue. Both bells must be present in this issue. I did not add "rants" but opinions that were formed by the authors after a careful analysis of the facts. You are presuming to know more on this issue than Morner himself! Provide evidences that the things are in the way you think they are. The article needs to be balanced. Search and add contrary arguments if you have them. Do not delete what does not fit your prejudices. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Intuitive2000 (
talk •
contribs) 17:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, I am not violating any policy, you are violating them by applying inappropriate censorship. The article is not finished yet. It can be improved. You cannot add third party opinions without adding the two-bell opinions first. You presented the opinion of Copernicus. This requires the addition of Morner's official opinion that was published in a scientific journal (which you want to censor!). After Copernicus and Morner opinions the third party opinions come. I added a set of opinions from some authors that have investigated the issue in details. What you need to do is to search contrary opinions and add them to the article. Instead of doing your homework you are censoring the opinions of Morner and those of the other people simply because you do not have any contrary opinion to support your prejudices. Does it make sense to you?
As I said: "search contrary opinions and add them to the article" (
Intuitive2000 (
talk) 17:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
I am not violating any Wikipedia rules. There are an infinity of articles on Wikipedia where the two bells are properly presented. You are applying censorship against ideas and persons that you personally oppose, which is contrary Wikipedia rules. Let the article to develop properly. Add the content that you think appropriate without deleting just for prejudice and learn to be tolerant of others' contribution ( Intuitive2000 ( talk) 18:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
I do not think that I have violated the rules. You are doing that by deleting continuously the post to prevent a fair presentation of the issues. The
WP:3RR rule was first violated by you who continuously deleted entire paragraphs that I wrote without any justifications. I am not violating the
WP:UNDUE rule. You are doing it by continuously censoring the rebuttals of Copernicus's argument written and published by Morner. Therefore you are not fairly representing all significant viewpoints but want to promote only one viewpoint ofthe story. I have not violated the rule of
WP:RS because the article included already content from non reliable blogs such as by Castelvecchi, Stokstad and Beall. I did not violated the rule of
WP:CONSENSUS because I did not write my own comments but I have simply referenced comments from other sources that were properly referenced. (
Intuitive2000 (
talk) 18:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pattern Recognition in Physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I removed
Because although Q may have said this, I don't think it really happened William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)