User talk:Theaitetos
|
Welcome!
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, Amazeroth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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!
TNXMan 14:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to wikipedia. If you feel that a section of the Global warming article is not neutral, it would be best if you took the issue to the talk page of the article. Climate change is (as you are probably aware) a contentious topic both on and off wiki, and I don't believe that your recent edits will find consensus so I have reverted them. Here on wiki, we follow a process of bold editing, followed sometimes by reverting, and then discussing which version is better on the talk page. Welcome again to wikipedia. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- My edit was not about the content of the article, but about the attitude in that sentence: It showed a condescending attitude towards the public and political debate from the scientific point of view. That is why I cited "NPOV" as my reason to edit the way it was phrased. As it was not related to the content, but the article, there is no need to put it in that hotbed of discussion. --Amazeroth (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- As written in the last revision, the article was condescending towards scientists, implying that the public and politicians can judge the science better than experts in the field. I tried another edit on for size that hopefully avoids insulting any of those three groups. Also, an FYI, edits with a mere edit summary of "NPOV" in the CC area tend to be viewed suspiciously, as there is a banned user who frequently makes similar edits in the CC area. Cheers, Sailsbystars (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, now the content is screwed up. The first part of the sentence (that there is scientific consensus that global warming is occuring) is in not in any way related to the second part (that there is public debate about the economic impact). Why not just putting back in "..., the debate about the theory continues" with a possible "... and its implications continues"? --Amazeroth (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, there's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Global_warming#Validity_of_science_vs._cost_of_mitigation. Why don't we move this conversation over there? I'll try to address your concerns over there. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please, feel free to move it. --Amazeroth (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry, I think I miscommunicated. I meant change of venue rather that copy-stuff-over. Please have a look at my comments over on the talk page for the article and comment over there. You are welcome to copy any of your own comments from here as well, if you so wish. I'll leave a link to this discussion from the article talk page, though. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please, feel free to move it. --Amazeroth (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, there's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Global_warming#Validity_of_science_vs._cost_of_mitigation. Why don't we move this conversation over there? I'll try to address your concerns over there. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, now the content is screwed up. The first part of the sentence (that there is scientific consensus that global warming is occuring) is in not in any way related to the second part (that there is public debate about the economic impact). Why not just putting back in "..., the debate about the theory continues" with a possible "... and its implications continues"? --Amazeroth (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- As written in the last revision, the article was condescending towards scientists, implying that the public and politicians can judge the science better than experts in the field. I tried another edit on for size that hopefully avoids insulting any of those three groups. Also, an FYI, edits with a mere edit summary of "NPOV" in the CC area tend to be viewed suspiciously, as there is a banned user who frequently makes similar edits in the CC area. Cheers, Sailsbystars (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation. |
Disambiguation link notification for February 21
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Dark Eye: Blackguards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dwarf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Doing wrong.
[edit]You said "You are free to point out inaccuracies or anything wrong." Fine, let me be perfectly clear. You have done wrong.
- You have edit-warred. WP:EW
- You have ignored the Bold-Revert-Discuss process. WP:BRD
- You are inserting material into an article from a German tabloid (BILD) as if Wikipedia was a journalist's blog. WP:RECENT WP:NOTNEWS
- You have not attempted to explain why your edit should be in the article to achieve consensus WP:CONSENSUS
You say that you are not a new editor. There is a problem if you know what the the process is and the policies are and are simply ignoring them. I would suggest that you self-revert your edit. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Germany article
[edit]Hi Theaitetos, I like your suggestion here. Please do it like that, as I fear we won't ever reach consensus on this very sensible topic otherwise. While there's much more urgent issues we need to focus on, like updating the numbers and facts in the article and improving subs like Music of Germany that look like a mess. Thank you and cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks that you think it helped. :-) --Theaitetos (Δ•Θ) 12:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)