Revision as of 16:41, 4 December 2009 edit William M. Connolley (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 65,765 edits Undid revision 329687464 by ZuluPapa5 (talk) stop being a waste of time ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:41, 4 December 2009 edit undo William M. Connolley (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 65,765 edits in fact, rv the lot. no useful contribution at all Next edit →
Line 636: * Random note: I've struck out my reference to ZuluPapa5, as it was unintentionally taken out of context. [[User:Tedder\|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder\|talk]]) * The issue is covered on my talk page. It is difficult for me to dispute intentional statements. I know what I felt and talked. [[User:ZuluPapa5\|Zulu Papa 5 ☆]] ([[User talk:ZuluPapa5\|talk]]) 16:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC) == NPOV issues with the hat notes == Line 680 ⟶ 679: :::::It is ''not'' a threat, it simply means ''lack of interest'', as I have been kindly ignoring what I perceive borderline behavior from you for some time now (have been chalking it up to the nature of these talk pages), and I really really dislike unproductive talk page discussion. Asking for statements of COI from everyone who diagrees with you is also borderline IMO... seems like an investigation due to mistrust of the motives of everyone who disagrees with you. But if that is the way you want to go about this, you should state your potential COI ''now'', not ''in due time'', because it is honorable to hold yourself to the same standards you request of others. And after that, let's move on to content, [[User:Awickert\|Awickert]] ([[User talk:Awickert\|talk]]) 16:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC) ~~'''COI and Policy Issues First''': I would like to move onto content. I have at least 3 content proposals in mind to present. However, I know there are two issues to be discussed first:~~ # I've reviewed all the talk here and archives, there is significant evidence that Reliable Sources are being deigned a home in Wikipedia. Moreover, the NPOV arbitration process has not adequately severed the sources by negotiating an attribution to a valid article on Wikipedia. The presents a significant conflict of interest to Wikipedia principals. # The [[Wikipedia:OC#OPINION]] and [[Wikipedia:Stay_on_topic#Stay_on_topic]] guidance appears to be most relevant in properly addressing the hat notes. [[User:ZuluPapa5\|Zulu Papa 5 ☆]] ([[User talk:ZuluPapa5\|talk]]) 16:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC) == NPOV issues with this article. == Line 736 ⟶ 731: A user added a link to this guy, obviously on topic and [[William M. Connolley]] came along and just deleted it saying "we don't need it." Isn't this against policy? Shouldn't it be discussed first? It seems kind of rude. I reverted, but please explain or does this page have some special rules of which I'm unaware?. [[User:Lexlex\|Lexlex]] ([[User talk:Lexlex\|talk]]) 01:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC) :See the hat note: "[This article] does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories". It is simply neither practicable nor useful to put in links to every scientist, or even every notable scientist working in the field. --[[User:Stephan Schulz\|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz\|talk]]) 01:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC) ~~:: Mr Stephan Schulz, why are you enforcing these hat notes? [[User:ZuluPapa5\|Zulu Papa 5 ☆]] ([[User talk:ZuluPapa5\|talk]]) 16:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)~~

Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change: Difference between revisions