|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Tim Flannery has been reverted.
Your edit
here to
Tim Flannery was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8hX9HXWzrI) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
media file (e.g. a
sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
00:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edits you made to Tim Flannery, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Elekhh ( talk) 02:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
1) Lack of relevance – It is totally relevant because most people believe that a carbon tax and reduced carbon emissions will result in reduced temperatures. Tim gave his position on this which most people would find interesting and relevant to the debate and therefore relevant to Tim. 2) Non – encyclopaedic – This entry conveys his position on carbon tax/reduction which is more than relevant to the subject, his career and the debate. 3) potentially misleading – The quotes are not out of context, if you take the time to listen or read the transcript you sill see that he said on at least 4 occasions that the temperature decrease would be very small and take hundreds even thousands of years. Tim was stating his position based on his professional expertise and knowledge as a scientist. He might have been pushed into a corner, and let slip more than he would have liked, but I guarantee he will not come out and say that this statement is incorrect or “potentially misleading” because it is correct and it is his position. Once again, I feel this entry is relevant and is important information in relation to Tim’s views and should be left in the article. The only reason you removed it (and not, say his comments on whales) is that it is correct but is not something you would like published. I don’t think you should be removing other people’s articles because you don’t agree with them. Thanks ( Wadeoski ( talk) 07:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)).
|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Tim Flannery has been reverted.
Your edit
here to
Tim Flannery was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8hX9HXWzrI) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
media file (e.g. a
sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
00:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edits you made to Tim Flannery, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Elekhh ( talk) 02:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
1) Lack of relevance – It is totally relevant because most people believe that a carbon tax and reduced carbon emissions will result in reduced temperatures. Tim gave his position on this which most people would find interesting and relevant to the debate and therefore relevant to Tim. 2) Non – encyclopaedic – This entry conveys his position on carbon tax/reduction which is more than relevant to the subject, his career and the debate. 3) potentially misleading – The quotes are not out of context, if you take the time to listen or read the transcript you sill see that he said on at least 4 occasions that the temperature decrease would be very small and take hundreds even thousands of years. Tim was stating his position based on his professional expertise and knowledge as a scientist. He might have been pushed into a corner, and let slip more than he would have liked, but I guarantee he will not come out and say that this statement is incorrect or “potentially misleading” because it is correct and it is his position. Once again, I feel this entry is relevant and is important information in relation to Tim’s views and should be left in the article. The only reason you removed it (and not, say his comments on whales) is that it is correct but is not something you would like published. I don’t think you should be removing other people’s articles because you don’t agree with them. Thanks ( Wadeoski ( talk) 07:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)).