Cybersaur
IP addresses used by this user
editThis user frequently edits without logging in, from a dynamically allocated IP address; his edits (and occasional feedback) are scattered amongst the following addresses. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- 72.80.196.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 72.80.200.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 72.80.201.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 72.80.201.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 72.80.202.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 72.80.203.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Replied at User talk:72.80.201.216. Guettarda (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I saw through your edits and I found them to be really good and constructive to the encyclopedia. What the other editor wants to say is that the article is about Global Warming, something which almost everyone, including scientists have accepted to be true. To add a minority view to it will be to give undue bias to the other line of view, whether it be correct or not.
(See it as adding the Flat Earth theory to the article on Earth. Almost everyone believes the Earth to be round, and yet some believe it is not. But we cannot let that flat earth concept be there on our article, or the reader will think there is a good possiblity of the other concept being true.)
On a more similar note, it will be better if you mention your other point of view in a smaller context, and not as if the accepted point of view is totally unjustified. With a small section on the controvery (with statements only by "respected people in that field" - Tomorrow if Cobe Bryant says that there is no global warming; we cannot really believe him)
But dont be afraid and be bold in your editing. If you want to add everything back, dont be afraid and do so. I shall try to see to it that your edits are appropriately altered to be placed in the article, if they are of any good.
Cheers,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
ARBCC
editHi, you've begun editing in a rather contentious area. Please note carefully the WP:ARBCC decision and sanctions which can be applied under WP:ARBCC#General remedies. In short, everyone has to behave well, avoid edit warring, and discuss any proposals fully on the article talk pages. While WP:FRINGE views can feature where appropriate, we must not give them undue WP:WEIGHT or give a false impression of the balance of expert opinion in this topic area. Hope you find these links helpful, dave souza, talk 21:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Climate change. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. Continued misconduct on pages relating to this topic may result in sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision. A few of your various IP accounts have also been notified as follows:
- 72.80.189.192 (talk · contribs) - notified here
- 72.80.192.180 (talk · contribs) - notified here
- 72.80.196.141 (talk · contribs) - notified here
- 72.80.198.233 (talk · contribs) - notified here
- 72.80.200.132 (talk · contribs) - notified here
- 72.80.201.216 (talk · contribs) - notified here
- 72.80.201.252 (talk · contribs) - notified here
- 72.80.202.235 (talk · contribs) - notified here
- 72.80.203.156 (talk · contribs) - notified here
- 72.80.203.214 (talk · contribs) - notified here
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, a question has arisen whether I acted properly in adding your name to the ARBCC notice list. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I have redacted my posting of your name from the ARBCC notice list, per recent developments in this proceeding. I apologize that my good faith understanding of the text was not what the drafters intended, and for any upset the resulting clash may have caused you. Hopefully we can get the text revised to to prevent such misunderstandings in the future. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)