The "license" refers not to a simple verbal or written agreement (which would be classified as a contract, already mentioned). Within property law, a license is an agreement attached not to the parties but to the land itself, and is part of the documents associated with that piece of land. As such, some licenses are revocable (contractual ones) but most are part of the deeds; similar to a right of access, say. Ironholds ( talk) 21:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes I do not think it makes much difference either way. I was going with "Foods high in simple sugars should be avoided" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The article XFOIL has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Weaponbb7 (
talk) 00:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think what you wrote is correct, see discussion at Talk:Julian calendar#Fence post error? -- Chris Bennett ( talk) 17:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems from your last 500 contribs that you're not particularly interested in football(!), but given the all-round contributions of this man to Norwich, I thought that you might be interested in joining the small group of us trying to push the biography of Bryan Gunn to Featured status. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for picking up the misunderstanding about the bracing effects on ozone, interesting news. As a non-expert I've tried to help with tweaking the news item, hope all's reasonably ok now. Or at least as much as can be expected. . . dave souza, talk 20:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, I was not aware of that convention, this move also fixed a bunch of red links. TimL ( talk) 02:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ling.Nut, I agree with you that the link is valuable - there might be a place for that in the lede still I'll see if I can get that in. The reason I changed the sentence is that it was *so* defensive. What we have now is a plain statement of fact. For someone coming to this topic for the first time I think that is better than leading the to the controversy first. The lede should be simple straightforward. I know no one has a monoploy on the truth, indeed no one can know the truth on anything - the world's to complex and all interconnected but if we aren't about striving towards the unachevable goal (of having wikipedia reflect the truth) then what are we doing here?-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 08:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You are in favour of
teaching the controversy then?--
IanOfNorwich (
talk) 08:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Why do we want a verifiable encyclopedia(I agree we do)?--
IanOfNorwich (
talk) 08:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I love the 5 pillars and agree that content should be verifiable. I have not (and don't intend to) add unverifiable content.--
IanOfNorwich (
talk) 09:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
My point re
teaching the controversy is that that is is major tactic of pro fossil fuel PR with regard to global warming - keep people wondering if it is true then they won't demand action.--
IanOfNorwich (
talk) 09:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that we should not be in camps! However the outside world does have an influence on wikipedia and it's important to understand why there is such a polarization of views which leads to many of the problems with the global warming article. There has been a tenancy there to shut out certain contributors on GW rather than engage positively with them that encourages anti-social behavior. What is AGF, btw? I agree that wikipedia's purpose isn't to resolve controversies. The lede of the Global warming article should be a succinct intro to that topic. Look at the article on gravity it doesn't say that it is the scientific consensus etc. it just states the verifiable facts (as should the GW lede). I DO NOT want to suppress the fact that some people dispute the existence of GW, because they (verifyably) do or that there is an opposing scientific consensus. I just don't think that it is of sufficient weight to go in the lede twice. I have been around here a few years and I have read WP:LEDE a couple of times (and practically live life by NPOV) and from what I remember of WP:LEDE I try to follow it. You may have noticed that I've returned the link to the GW lede in the second sentence. Basically we have just that pointing out the scientific consensus rather than it being said twice in the first paragraph. Hope that is OK.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 09:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Well they might do but I'd fall back on verifiable facts same as I would with the gravity deniers (Newton was wrong of course). The link is back in (third sentence " not rejected"). Ah, AFG (you should have said :-) Again one I try to live by. -- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 09:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You've been around long enough. Mark your reverts as such. [1] Thanks. - Atmoz ( talk) 21:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Ian, just wanted to thank your for your obvious skills in remaining constructive when consensus seems slow to arrive NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 09:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for helping me out on the Global warming page -- as I am still getting the hang of Wikipedia, I appreciate you taking a look to provide solutions instead of just deleting edits. MrsEcoGreen ( talk) 19:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Ian, Thanks for your interest in the climate graphic I posted recently. FYI, the license for that graphic (Creative Commons 3.0) requires attribution to the original author, so if you want to go with your revised image, which is fine with me, I think it should say something like "Modified from (my version of the cite) and based on research by (Doran paper)." Or if you don't want to use the full cite I originally posted it at least needs to say John Cook and Skeptical Science. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ian,
thanks for the offer of empirical evidence. As you may be aware the discussion got pulled - if you aren't aware this always happens to any discussion where the sceptics have a valid point. But as I'm seriously looking for any warmist papers with empirical evidence, let's just say I'll be happy to hear what you have to say.
PS. I do have a signon to Wikipedia but by way of protest at the censorship on global warming I am refusing to use it ... (which is another way of saying I've learnt from bitter experience that I haven't a hope in hell of ever getting any edits in climate articles so I've decided "I don't want to play") 88.104.207.14 ( talk) 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, specific article improvements are what's needed to avoid thread collapse but I fear the IP contributor would still, generally, end up disappointed if he made such suggestions the way things are. So either he or Wikipedia must change (in fact inevitably both, at least subtly).--
IanOfNorwich (
talk) 13:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
PS I'm a actually a sockpuppet of St Francis - you've blown my cover.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 13:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
From the gist of what is being said, I take it you are just fine with the lack of NPOV on Wikipedia. People are not stupid, we all read stuff from politicians and everyone has their bullshit detector and can sense when they are not being told the truth. The best indicator that a source is trustworthy is that it covers all the issues in a none partisan way. What will trigger the bullshit detector is:
No one needs a PhD in the subject to know when the wool is being pulled over them - and as every lecturer says to every group of students: "don't trust what you read on the internet". As they say, you can take a horse to water, but you can't force a Wikipedia editor to change their POV.
But don't worry, I'll be back, because I fully anticipate a need to totally rewrite the article by the end of next year!!! 88.104.194.119 ( talk) 19:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
[ [6]] NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Ian, I've been looking into this Svensmark/CERN solar link, and I've totally changed my mind. I found there to be plenty of compelling evidence. This is no longer an academic dispute. As far as I can see this is actually a case of outright fraud by some editors on Wikipedia repressing good science for purely political (not scientific) reasons. This is not some victimless crime! I am sick to death of hearing the phrase "it is so difficult to get anything published" from decent academics whose only crime is to find evidence that contradicts the overwhelming political POV of these pages. And having seen the evidence yes I know what fraud is, and yes I do think people on Wikipedia have been criminally fraudulent and criminally denying the public the vast amount of evidence contradicting the totally unscientific assertions about CO2 (notably the unsubstantiated positive feedbacks). I want to have nothing to do with WIKIPEDIA. GOODBYE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.194.119 ( talk) 13:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Your suspicions noted here appear to be unfounded, may I suggest that it would be tactful if you could delete your comment? As an aside from looking over the above, satellite temperature measurements does indeed still have problems, as do the Spencer and Christy bios. I'll maybe try to fix the obvious in the main article, but some good third party sourcing is needed. This may be of interest, and I'm rather pleased to have found a reliable third party source but don't have time to edit much at present. Think you could incorporate this? . . dave souza, talk 17:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you are right that a pie chart would be better. I just think the graph with the 100 little people looks silly and distracts from the greater purpose of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0093 ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. 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
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, IanOfNorwich. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The "license" refers not to a simple verbal or written agreement (which would be classified as a contract, already mentioned). Within property law, a license is an agreement attached not to the parties but to the land itself, and is part of the documents associated with that piece of land. As such, some licenses are revocable (contractual ones) but most are part of the deeds; similar to a right of access, say. Ironholds ( talk) 21:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes I do not think it makes much difference either way. I was going with "Foods high in simple sugars should be avoided" Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The article XFOIL has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Weaponbb7 (
talk) 00:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think what you wrote is correct, see discussion at Talk:Julian calendar#Fence post error? -- Chris Bennett ( talk) 17:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems from your last 500 contribs that you're not particularly interested in football(!), but given the all-round contributions of this man to Norwich, I thought that you might be interested in joining the small group of us trying to push the biography of Bryan Gunn to Featured status. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for picking up the misunderstanding about the bracing effects on ozone, interesting news. As a non-expert I've tried to help with tweaking the news item, hope all's reasonably ok now. Or at least as much as can be expected. . . dave souza, talk 20:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, I was not aware of that convention, this move also fixed a bunch of red links. TimL ( talk) 02:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ling.Nut, I agree with you that the link is valuable - there might be a place for that in the lede still I'll see if I can get that in. The reason I changed the sentence is that it was *so* defensive. What we have now is a plain statement of fact. For someone coming to this topic for the first time I think that is better than leading the to the controversy first. The lede should be simple straightforward. I know no one has a monoploy on the truth, indeed no one can know the truth on anything - the world's to complex and all interconnected but if we aren't about striving towards the unachevable goal (of having wikipedia reflect the truth) then what are we doing here?-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 08:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You are in favour of
teaching the controversy then?--
IanOfNorwich (
talk) 08:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Why do we want a verifiable encyclopedia(I agree we do)?--
IanOfNorwich (
talk) 08:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I love the 5 pillars and agree that content should be verifiable. I have not (and don't intend to) add unverifiable content.--
IanOfNorwich (
talk) 09:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
My point re
teaching the controversy is that that is is major tactic of pro fossil fuel PR with regard to global warming - keep people wondering if it is true then they won't demand action.--
IanOfNorwich (
talk) 09:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that we should not be in camps! However the outside world does have an influence on wikipedia and it's important to understand why there is such a polarization of views which leads to many of the problems with the global warming article. There has been a tenancy there to shut out certain contributors on GW rather than engage positively with them that encourages anti-social behavior. What is AGF, btw? I agree that wikipedia's purpose isn't to resolve controversies. The lede of the Global warming article should be a succinct intro to that topic. Look at the article on gravity it doesn't say that it is the scientific consensus etc. it just states the verifiable facts (as should the GW lede). I DO NOT want to suppress the fact that some people dispute the existence of GW, because they (verifyably) do or that there is an opposing scientific consensus. I just don't think that it is of sufficient weight to go in the lede twice. I have been around here a few years and I have read WP:LEDE a couple of times (and practically live life by NPOV) and from what I remember of WP:LEDE I try to follow it. You may have noticed that I've returned the link to the GW lede in the second sentence. Basically we have just that pointing out the scientific consensus rather than it being said twice in the first paragraph. Hope that is OK.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 09:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Well they might do but I'd fall back on verifiable facts same as I would with the gravity deniers (Newton was wrong of course). The link is back in (third sentence " not rejected"). Ah, AFG (you should have said :-) Again one I try to live by. -- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 09:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
You've been around long enough. Mark your reverts as such. [1] Thanks. - Atmoz ( talk) 21:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Ian, just wanted to thank your for your obvious skills in remaining constructive when consensus seems slow to arrive NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 09:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for helping me out on the Global warming page -- as I am still getting the hang of Wikipedia, I appreciate you taking a look to provide solutions instead of just deleting edits. MrsEcoGreen ( talk) 19:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Ian, Thanks for your interest in the climate graphic I posted recently. FYI, the license for that graphic (Creative Commons 3.0) requires attribution to the original author, so if you want to go with your revised image, which is fine with me, I think it should say something like "Modified from (my version of the cite) and based on research by (Doran paper)." Or if you don't want to use the full cite I originally posted it at least needs to say John Cook and Skeptical Science. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ian,
thanks for the offer of empirical evidence. As you may be aware the discussion got pulled - if you aren't aware this always happens to any discussion where the sceptics have a valid point. But as I'm seriously looking for any warmist papers with empirical evidence, let's just say I'll be happy to hear what you have to say.
PS. I do have a signon to Wikipedia but by way of protest at the censorship on global warming I am refusing to use it ... (which is another way of saying I've learnt from bitter experience that I haven't a hope in hell of ever getting any edits in climate articles so I've decided "I don't want to play") 88.104.207.14 ( talk) 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, specific article improvements are what's needed to avoid thread collapse but I fear the IP contributor would still, generally, end up disappointed if he made such suggestions the way things are. So either he or Wikipedia must change (in fact inevitably both, at least subtly).--
IanOfNorwich (
talk) 13:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
PS I'm a actually a sockpuppet of St Francis - you've blown my cover.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 13:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
From the gist of what is being said, I take it you are just fine with the lack of NPOV on Wikipedia. People are not stupid, we all read stuff from politicians and everyone has their bullshit detector and can sense when they are not being told the truth. The best indicator that a source is trustworthy is that it covers all the issues in a none partisan way. What will trigger the bullshit detector is:
No one needs a PhD in the subject to know when the wool is being pulled over them - and as every lecturer says to every group of students: "don't trust what you read on the internet". As they say, you can take a horse to water, but you can't force a Wikipedia editor to change their POV.
But don't worry, I'll be back, because I fully anticipate a need to totally rewrite the article by the end of next year!!! 88.104.194.119 ( talk) 19:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
[ [6]] NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Ian, I've been looking into this Svensmark/CERN solar link, and I've totally changed my mind. I found there to be plenty of compelling evidence. This is no longer an academic dispute. As far as I can see this is actually a case of outright fraud by some editors on Wikipedia repressing good science for purely political (not scientific) reasons. This is not some victimless crime! I am sick to death of hearing the phrase "it is so difficult to get anything published" from decent academics whose only crime is to find evidence that contradicts the overwhelming political POV of these pages. And having seen the evidence yes I know what fraud is, and yes I do think people on Wikipedia have been criminally fraudulent and criminally denying the public the vast amount of evidence contradicting the totally unscientific assertions about CO2 (notably the unsubstantiated positive feedbacks). I want to have nothing to do with WIKIPEDIA. GOODBYE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.194.119 ( talk) 13:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Your suspicions noted here appear to be unfounded, may I suggest that it would be tactful if you could delete your comment? As an aside from looking over the above, satellite temperature measurements does indeed still have problems, as do the Spencer and Christy bios. I'll maybe try to fix the obvious in the main article, but some good third party sourcing is needed. This may be of interest, and I'm rather pleased to have found a reliable third party source but don't have time to edit much at present. Think you could incorporate this? . . dave souza, talk 17:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you are right that a pie chart would be better. I just think the graph with the 100 little people looks silly and distracts from the greater purpose of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0093 ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. 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
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, IanOfNorwich. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)