User talk:IHaveAMastersDegree: Difference between revisions
→Your Many Revisions about global-warming or climate-change "skeptics": ARBCC warning / notification |
|||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
:: Thank you for your comment. I'm certainly willing to revisit anything that one of these individuals considers to be false or pejorative. My intent is to conform with neutrality by avoiding a label and instead describe their position in the most accurate way (based on what has actually been written about an individual or what they have stated rather than assumption or synthesis). The term "climate skeptic" is a label, not a description of position. I expect that many individuals who have been defined by that term consider "climate skeptic" itself to be false and/or pejorative. If a label is to be used, I think it needs to have an unambiguous, mutually-agreed-upon definition. Unfortunately "climate skeptic" is not defined on Wikipedia. [[User:IHaveAMastersDegree|IHaveAMastersDegree]] ([[User talk:IHaveAMastersDegree#top|talk]]) 17:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC) |
:: Thank you for your comment. I'm certainly willing to revisit anything that one of these individuals considers to be false or pejorative. My intent is to conform with neutrality by avoiding a label and instead describe their position in the most accurate way (based on what has actually been written about an individual or what they have stated rather than assumption or synthesis). The term "climate skeptic" is a label, not a description of position. I expect that many individuals who have been defined by that term consider "climate skeptic" itself to be false and/or pejorative. If a label is to be used, I think it needs to have an unambiguous, mutually-agreed-upon definition. Unfortunately "climate skeptic" is not defined on Wikipedia. [[User:IHaveAMastersDegree|IHaveAMastersDegree]] ([[User talk:IHaveAMastersDegree#top|talk]]) 17:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
::: I tried to post this a few minutes ago but got a "edit conflict" message. It was written before I saw your last post. I think it is important to give people a chance to respond before making assumptions. [[User:IHaveAMastersDegree|IHaveAMastersDegree]] ([[User talk:IHaveAMastersDegree#top|talk]]) 17:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC) |
::: I tried to post this a few minutes ago but got a "edit conflict" message. It was written before I saw your last post. I think it is important to give people a chance to respond before making assumptions. [[User:IHaveAMastersDegree|IHaveAMastersDegree]] ([[User talk:IHaveAMastersDegree#top|talk]]) 17:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
=== Notification of arbitration committee sanctions on climate change articles === |
|||
Please be advised - you are editing somewhat contentiously in a topic area subject to special sanctions and scrutiny due to a prior arbitration committee case - see [[WP:ARBCC]] for full details. This notification puts you on notice of that decision, and that standard Discretionary Sanctions are in force across all articles on this topic matter. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 21:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC) |
|||
{{Uw-sanctions}} |
|||
Revision as of 21:27, 31 December 2013
Welcome!
Hello, IHaveAMastersDegree, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for American Geophysical Union. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Getting Started
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RockMagnetist (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Skeptic
Hi. Thanks for your work clarifying ambiguous uses of "skeptic". In this edit, though, you changed the meaning so that the AI supports the former PM's and colleagues' skepticism. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing out my mistake! I misunderstood the original meaning when I tried to fix the "skeptic" ambiguity. Is there a way to modify it to fix both points of confusion? IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- That looks fine to me. In ongoing threaded discussions here, begin each post with one more colon (:) than the previous post - that creates stepped (progressively deeper) indenting. Have fun. If you need any help just ask at my talk page.
--20:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- That looks fine to me. In ongoing threaded discussions here, begin each post with one more colon (:) than the previous post - that creates stepped (progressively deeper) indenting. Have fun. If you need any help just ask at my talk page.
- Thanks for the helpful tips! I've discovered that that a lot of folks just don't recognize the huge difference between scientific skepticism and global warming denial. I just created a user page to try to explain the reason that the term "climate skeptic" is ambiguous as well as lacking in neutrality. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Your Many Revisions about global-warming or climate-change "skeptics"
Hi! I have seen your many revisions that change the term "skeptics" to "those who reject the evidence", "contrarian activists", "anti-climate-science", etc. I've seen that your user page and your edit comments explain that you would like to reduce ambiguity, but I'm afraid that the actual effect is to change people's descriptions to something that they could regard as false or pejorative. Is there any chance that you will reconsider all your revisions, revert the ones about skepticism, and cease?Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Seeing that you did not reply, and instead did more editing in the same vein, I take it that the answer is: "no chance". I have taken my concerns to the Administrators Noticeboard, which can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:IHaveAMastersDegree Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. I'm certainly willing to revisit anything that one of these individuals considers to be false or pejorative. My intent is to conform with neutrality by avoiding a label and instead describe their position in the most accurate way (based on what has actually been written about an individual or what they have stated rather than assumption or synthesis). The term "climate skeptic" is a label, not a description of position. I expect that many individuals who have been defined by that term consider "climate skeptic" itself to be false and/or pejorative. If a label is to be used, I think it needs to have an unambiguous, mutually-agreed-upon definition. Unfortunately "climate skeptic" is not defined on Wikipedia. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- I tried to post this a few minutes ago but got a "edit conflict" message. It was written before I saw your last post. I think it is important to give people a chance to respond before making assumptions. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. I'm certainly willing to revisit anything that one of these individuals considers to be false or pejorative. My intent is to conform with neutrality by avoiding a label and instead describe their position in the most accurate way (based on what has actually been written about an individual or what they have stated rather than assumption or synthesis). The term "climate skeptic" is a label, not a description of position. I expect that many individuals who have been defined by that term consider "climate skeptic" itself to be false and/or pejorative. If a label is to be used, I think it needs to have an unambiguous, mutually-agreed-upon definition. Unfortunately "climate skeptic" is not defined on Wikipedia. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Notification of arbitration committee sanctions on climate change articles
Please be advised - you are editing somewhat contentiously in a topic area subject to special sanctions and scrutiny due to a prior arbitration committee case - see WP:ARBCC for full details. This notification puts you on notice of that decision, and that standard Discretionary Sanctions are in force across all articles on this topic matter. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Error: The code letters for the affected topic area in this contentious topics alert are not declared. topic= is missing; please check the documentation and try again.
Note that the ap and tpm topic codes are interchangeable. tpm is preferred.