User talk:Lawrence Solomon

Welcome!

Hello, Lawrence Solomon, 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:

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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oreskes

Please take some time to examine the above links. Specifically about original research, verifiability, reliable sources and (i suspect) conflict of interest.

You may also want to read about the WP:3RR and edit-warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk • contribs)

Confusion

There seems to be some confusion between YOUR thoughts and experiences and ACTUAL VERIFIABLE facts. You obviously have problems seeing both sides of an issue and thus are the perfect person for your current job - fact manufacturing. I say manufacturing because no one gives a shit what you think. We care what can be proven asshole.

The above message, posted anonymously from IP 128.101.84.82 on 14:17, 21 April 2008, seems to me to be a clear violation of Wikipedia's civility policy. I'm sorry, Lawrence Solomon, that you've been treated this way, and I hope your future experience at Wikipedia is more in line with Wikipedia's ideals. Please don't hesitate to ask me (or other experienced users, or the help desk) if you have any more questions about how to edit Wikipedia. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Naomi Oreskes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - i suggest that you take it to the talk page, instead of Edit-warring. Its the contributers onus to convince other editors of the merit of their edits. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your piece

Hi I enjoyed your piece in the FP. How's it going with the article? I'm afraid I can't help with any of the science bits. West one girl (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your post

Hi. I believe you posted to the 3RR noticeboard. I hope you don't mind: because your post was rather long and taking up space, and not in the standard format, I put it in a collapse box, so it only shows as an orange bar; it can still be seen when you click "show". Anyway, the page you were talking about, Naomi Oreskes, has been protected from editing until April 26 to prevent edit warring. If you have any questions about the WP:3RR rule or anything else about how Wikipedia works, feel free to post a question on my talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a reply on my talk page to your questions there. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and some further replies, in the same place. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People who may be able to help

Dear Larry - as you see from my contributions I edit boring and uncontroversial things like Granny_Takes_a_Trip. But I wonder if my friend Guido can help you as he is a super-important administrator, and he owes me after deleting my talk page by accident. Also my friend the Major will be able to tell you about the 'troubles' which he and his group are involved with. The one thing to remember is this place is a bit politically correct so don't be too anarchic. Do take a look at the Major's user page while you are there. Love Kate xxx. West one girl (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an accident (!) but am happy to help. Leave me a message on my talk page (which you can reach through clicking on the little "T" in my signature if you want to leave me a message. _GB^T/C 19:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although your initial forays into Wikipedia do appear to have been bumpier than they need to have been, I don't think it's necessarily down to the way it is run, per se. The danger is that there are any number of policies and guidelines which govern the site (I could throw links like WP:COI, WP:N, WP:SPAM at you until I was blue in the face). Just to make things more confusing, those policies can be acryonymed, as there are there, or spelt out like Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest, Wikipedia:Vandalism. And to top it all off they can be hidden behind other words in links. To the newcomer, there are so many of them that they can seem daunting - if, indeed, they're aware of them at all.

The problem is that if you dive in and start editing an article, put a foot wrong and other editors will potentially start jumping up and down citing policies like WP:CITE or WP:NPOV. They're supposed to assume good faith, and in particular take care to be nice to newcomers, and not spank them just because they're new - there's even a policy on that (called WP:BITE).

When I first started editing my first page was a nonsense page about a made up mountain climber. It was well-written, illustrated and laid out using wiki-text, but was nonsense. It lasted about two minutes - someone deleted it and warned me about creating nonsense pages (considered to be a form of vandalism). It wasn't particularly Bitey, but it intrigued me to finding out more.

I think part of the cause of what you have experienced is because you've wandered into one of the more contentious areas on Wikipedia (well, in life generally, I guess), and haven't necessarily have been extended the same courtesy or leeway that another new-comer might have been extended had they dabbled in a less contentious area. Don't take it personally, but maybe take the time to have a read of some of the policies (I'd say start with WP:NPOV). Raise changes on talk pages of articles before making them - get some mileage under your belt, then go for it. Be WP:BOLD - yes, there's even a policy on that.

Oh, and take Major Bonker's suggestion to heart - if you're planning on sticking around using your real name may not be ideal. You can either start a new account (feel free to email me from my userpage to let me know your new "identity"), or go here and ask for your account to be renamed. As you haven't got a huge number of contributions, the former's probably easier.

Any problems or questions, you know where to find me. This account is my public account, by the way, which I use on shared computers so my other (admin) account can't be compromised. I'm the same person as User:Gb, though! _{The public face of GB}^T/C 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I've come here following an invitation from West one girl, who has left a message asking me to drop by.

Personally, I can't see anything to worry about in what you've been up to; I've been editing for a couple of years now, so it might be helpful if I give you a couple of pointers based on my own experience.

When I started, I rather idly began by editing the article on Bobby Sands, which had been written more as a hagiography than an objective article. Incidentally, when you edit a contentious article like that one, it's a good idea to explain your edits in the article's 'Discussion' page (click on the tag in the top left corner of the page). Wikipedia works best with the technical, scientific articles, which are objective, rather than articles which can be distorted through nationalism or other weirdoes who might take a diametrically opposing view.

This actually leads me to my second point, which is that you appear to be editing under your real name. I have to say, based on my own experience that this could be a mistake; it's relatively easy for a computer's address to be traced to a geographical location and Google can start filling out the gaps. I've seen rival editors come out with 'I know where you live'-type comments and worse. Whilst most of us are rational, sensible people, there are also people out there who are complete nutcases. Not that I want to put you off!

You're welcome to come round and have a chat on my talk page if you would like. I find that Wikipedia works best if you take a rather sceptical view of it and don't let the sometimes casual rudeness or alteration of your edits put you off. It's all part of life's rich pageant. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instapundit

I've just read your column via a link from Instapundit. Looking at your contribution log I see that you got a rough time of it when you first started editing. Although the 3 revert rule may seem like a very arbitrary thing it is there for a very good reason. If you think that the article you have edited is controversial, try looking at the edit history of George W. Bush's article! Edit warring causes no end of headaches on Wikipedia, and is one of the biggest problems that we have to deal with (along with trolls posting things and people just plain vandalising articles).

The best advice that I can give you when it comes to dealing with controversial subjects is to cite authorities and stick to verifiable facts. That way if someone does revert you for no good reason you can then point that out in any later dispute resolution process. Wikipedia is, unfortunately, big enough and has been around long enough for it to acquire its own jargon, bureaucracy, ways of doing things and foibles. This makes it much less friendly to the newcomer than it should be. However much of that comes with the territory of being a top 10 website.

Good luck in your future editing. David Newton (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here after reading the article too. Essentially, you have confused Wikipedia's "verifiability" policy with Wikipedia having a "pro-climate change" policy. For reference, Wikipedia has a Neutral point of view policy. The reason your edits were reverted is because "he told me so" isn't verifiable at all. Ironically, now that your column has been published, it may be verifiable (I say "may" because it doesn't have a direct quote from Peiser). As someone said on another site, Wikipedia has lots of intricate rules, policies and guidelines, but when you have a million people editing the same thing you need to have them to maintain order. -- Chuq (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For assisting in bringing to light the censorship and supression of knowledge that is endemic to Wikipedia

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		message 64.222.149.167 (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[eyes rolling] Sockpuppetry at its best, apparently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.118.78 (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Please review WP:COI. As you declared yourself with: "LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of 'The Deniers' (Richard Vigilante Books). www.energyprobe.org" in your National Post article, you might then reflect on the fact that some editors would regard that using WP for your advocacy job is placing you in a conflict position. You could of course choose to make a statement on your user page explaining why you consider that it does not do so. LeadSongDog (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a conflict of interest, as do some who write about me. By sticking to facts rather than opinion, and by identifying myself, I would hope to avoid unfair characterizations of my making. Lawrence Solomon (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing climate change kerfuffle

You might like to review this discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard/ Incidents. This area of Wikipedia is where the complaints of the disgruntled are aired; I advise you strongly, as a new editor, not to add to the discussion yourself.

As it happens, I think that you have alighted on the fundamental achilles heel of Wikipedia, which is that it actually militates against expertise; the most obvious example of this is that, via Wikipedia's 'consensus' approach to editing, Bevis and Butthead can out-vote Stephen Hawking. For this reason, Wikipedia falls down in areas of nationalist (in my case) or scientific (in your case) controversy; the winners, who are then able to impose their consensus of reality via the article, are those who either have enough adherents to keep reverting the edits made by their opponents, or who are able to spend enough time at the computer to achieve the same end. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above misunderstands WP:CONCENSUS. It isn't a vote. B&B might shout down SH, but there's no way they'll outthink him.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I misunderstand it, it's the practical way in which it is applied. It's pretty undeniable that Wikipedia does not work well with contentious subjects or those under dispute. For this reason, WP is better on the scientific/ technical articles - after all, nobody but a fool is going to argue against the laws of thermodynamics - than it is where opposing opinions collide - the Raj, the IRA, scientology, climate change - there's a new one every day on WP:AN/I. Anyway, LS might also be interested in this newspaper column. --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've also managed to excite the interest of the savants of Wikipedia Review here: [1]. --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for keeping me apprised of goings on. Lawrence Solomon (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Major Bonkers: I deny that Wikipedia does not work well with contentious subjects or those under dispute; in other words, I claim that it does work well with those subjects. Of course, it does not work perfectly, and there are major problems; but in some ways, there is currently as far as I know no other website or other source that does it better while providing information over a wide range of subjects. From time to time I read a Wikipedia article to get an overview of a subject, see the article presenting more than one side of an issue in what seems to me to be a typical Wikipedian manner, and think "Good for Wikipedia!" ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP page

I don't think it's a good idea for you to contribute to your own WP page. I do recommend clarifying your resume on its talk page. I also recommend uploading to WP your recent picture - I can include it on your page then. Please understand that I am giving a friendly advise as someone who created and wrote much of the content of your WP page. Mhym (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I'm not clear on what kind of clarification for my resume I should provide. How will accurate information make it to the public page, and how can a mean-spirited tone be excised?Lawrence Solomon (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are two ways, really. Say, when it comes to your work for Carter you can either give a reference in the form "In the book [the name] by [such and such expert/historian/administration official] on p.?? the following description of my work is given... That would need to be posted on the talk page of the Lawrence Solomon page. Alternatively, you can scan a bunch of official documents providing the proof/description of your work, post it on your own website, and then post on the Lawrence Solomon talk page the links with brief descriptions (hopefully the documents are self-explanatory). Somebody who tracks your WP page will then be able to make appropriate correction to your page. Hope this helps. Mhym (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Who's Who, published by University of Toronto Press, has a little bio of me that refers to the Global 2000 report and various other details that you or others have questioned. Is it adequate for me to cite details from this book on this talk page?

Did you decide to start a page for me? If yes, may I ask why? Lawrence Solomon (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually the way Who is Who operates is by sending questionnaires and printing whatever info you send them. Thus, in view of the wikipedia community this is not really a reliable source. And yes, I started your page (any wikipedian can do this, although if one doesn't know what he/she is doing the page is likely to be deleted). I saw you on CSPAN and wanted to look up some info on you on WP to see if you are serious journalist with credentials or a speculator riding a contrarian wave. Since there was no article on you and in my opinion you merited inclusion, I started the page. Now other people who look you up can make their own judgment. I have started pages for other people/subjects as well (see User:Mhym), not as much as many others, but enough not be dismissed out of hand. Good luck! Mhym (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Wikipedians have a peculiar way of doing research. I doubt there are many senior journalists in Canada who don't know me, either as a journalist or as the head of Energy Probe, which has high visibility in Canada. Your US-centric Internet reality is other-worldly. Because Green Beanery has a website, this fundraising project becomes highly significant to you Wikipedians while items most people in the real world would find more relevant are ignored.Lawrence Solomon (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point is: noone here is allowed to do any research (see WP:NOR). If some info is available in a reliable source, it can be included. Otherwise, how else can WP reference the info? As for the internet - true, but after all WP is a web encyclopedia. That's why it's so popular. People look up what they are interested in, and if the want more details - they go to the references. Being open to editing for everyone already makes everyone suspicious if much or anything here is true. Not having references would make it worthless. This also partly explains the paranoia of experienced editors when the see claims unsubstantiated by the (preferably, many) internet sites - too many people tried to game the system here (sort of like they did it with "Who is Who" you mentioned - see [2]). Hope this helps explain the reasoning behind the rules here. Mhym (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia criteria seems to involve ease and rules of thumb rather than an interest in accuracy or a rigor of any kind. The Who's Who article you referred me to is a case in point. What does that article have to do with Canadian Who's Who? I know of no one who paid for a listing in the University of Toronto Press editions and neither do you because no one ever has. Neither do you have any reason to think its editorial standards are different than that of any other University of Toronto Press publication. The Who's Who brand appears to have been cheapened in the US. Why assume the rest of the world is like the US? Lawrence Solomon (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it again, and there is only a few ways I can explain it. As far as WP is concerned, my opinion (or yours or your friend's) counts for fairly little. If there are articles in NYTimes or WSJ or Britannica, or even Chattanooga Times Free Press saying that "Who is Who Canada" is serious and does a solid independent research rather than sends out questionnaires, we will probably use it as a reliable source. Until then, there is nothing to argue about.

Are the references cited at this page http://www.utpress.utoronto.ca/cww/ of any relevance in establishing that Who's Who in Canada is a credible source from a credible academic publisher? Apart from University of Toronto's own claims, two external sources are provided. Lawrence Solomon (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, WP is made so that using it and contributing to it is easy. This has advantages and disadvantages. Requirement of easy fact verification is both. There are other encyclopedias which rely on experts, research, etc. including Britannica and infamous Nupedia, many of which are online (see Category:Online encyclopedias). Some of them are more successful than others, but it's hardly fair to criticize WP for sticking to its rules and gaining world wide recognition. Again, WP doesn't claim to to be correct or have all the facts. It is not a substitute to serious independent research. There is a lengthy article describing numerous criticism of Wikipedia. None of this is knew. We know and essentially don't care. Why change a model if it seems to work? People who are unhappy can (and sometimes do) use other websites/encyclopedias and start one they like better.

Anyhow, to me it all sounds like a complaint that QWERTY keyboard is really bad and slow. Yes, I know, but I am still using it. There are other keyboards on the market. In Germany it takes me two minutes to slowly type my password because some letters are switched. Even if you have a QWERTY, you can use a software to remap it. Yet, every so often I see a long article explaining how we should all switch to Dvorak or whatever... Mhym (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There is absolutely noting US-centric about WP. In fact, it is available in over a 100 languages with contributors from all over the globe, including users you wrote about User:William M. Connolley and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen who live in Europe (or at least claim to). Mhym (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are in agreement as to Wikipedia's limitations. I'm not suggesting that you change your ways by accepting Canadian Who's Who as a source. I am suggesting some of your premises are not valid. Lawrence Solomon (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of putting unsubstantiated claims about yourself into your own page, please do the world a favor, and substantiate those claims on the talk page. Thanks. Smptq (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. My usefulness in this process is unclear so I will bow out now, aside from periodically checking to correct errors that offend me. I will leave it to others to correct the errors that don't offend me. Feel free to remove any claim you like, or the stub in its entirety. Lawrence Solomon (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence, feel free to contact me with any concerns you might have about the editing on your page and I will try to provide assistance as best I can. You are well within your rights to remove objectionable material from your page per WP:BLP, and in fact you can use WP:SPS on your own behalf to exonerate yourself. I would assume that noting your objections or making any statements that you want included on the talk page would be sufficient notice and then simply reference the talk page edit as a WP:SPS. Alternatively you can create a peronal blog if you are so inclined and then put the material you want included there as a WP:SPS.

As you are obviously aware, your critics here will attempt to intimidate you. Don't allow them to. WP:BLP puts heavy weight on their re-adding negative material that you find questionable unless they have a valid WP:RS. --GoRight (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for offering to help. I am not concerned about the errors on my page, as they are mostly trivial. The page creates an entirely distorted view of me. I am not best known for my global warming position or for my Wikipedia articles, except perhaps to readers of Wikipedia. I am not known at all for Green Beanery, except to a handful of people. In Canada, I am mostly known as an anti-nuclear pro-solar, pro-conservation environmentalist. I am also known as a writer, although this is secondary and a by-product of my environmental work.

If my page could be removed, that would do me the best service. No one with clean hands is served by the distorted impression it conveys. Lawrence Solomon (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abd/Solomon on Oreskes

I thought I'd call your attention to this. I came across WP:Requests for comment/GoRight which I assisted for technical, process reasons, and then, to my chagrin, made the mistake of reading it, leading to days lost in research on what the hell had happened. I am not a critic of global warming and consider that there is a very real danger that we must address -- and should this be incorrect, what is at risk is nevertheless so significant that very serious and careful attention is warranted. However, I'm also a firm believer in the importance of the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view, for if we are to solve the problems which we face, we need unbiased information; I've seen a number of cases where some idea became a "consensus" with what was, in fact, inadequate debate, and "urgency" was used as an excuse to sidestep that debate. And it can take many years to unravel the damage.

In my view, Wikipedia needs all points of view to be represented, particularly when they are notable, i.e., when significant numbers of people hold them. It's a complex issue, but there is no doubt that GW skepticism is notable, and GW skepticism should not, therefore, be rejected as "fringe opinion" even if it is "fringe science." Wikipedia is about more than "science," which generally means the consensus of those in a particular field, which can sometimes be narrow. In any case, finding NPOV is a process that requires patience and civility; when these are present in sufficiency, consensus can often be found and article text will reflect, fairly, all significant points of view, in balance. Incivility makes that process very difficult.

In any case, the user page referenced in the section header is my compilation of evidence on the events you detail in an opinion piece of yours, using Wikipedia diffs and quotations to show the edit history evidence behind what you wrote. While there were aspects of the opposition to your edits that had some basis, the substance, however, was in the other direction, and you were being stubbornly reverted in order to restore text that blatantly violated Wikipedia standards, presenting original research and synthesis in a manner that misrepresented what little source there was. As to the RfC I mention, my purpose here is not to solicit your participation there, and, indeed, I'd highly recommend against it. It could possibly harm GoRight if, as I might expect, you were to attempt to support him with commentary that did not sufficiently understand the special wikipedia issues involved. As you will see on the page User:Abd/Solomon on Oreskes, you were unclear about various aspects of Wikipedia usage and practice, such as thinking that the user Tabletop had anything to do with reverting you. This error will be a big red flag for experienced Wikipedia users reading your opinions, which may unfortunately lead them to discard the substance. Absolutely, your private communication with Peiser can't be used as a source for article text. But that isn't what you were doing. You were taking out text based on such communication, and that should have established a presumption that there was a problem, and therefore very careful examination of the so-called reliable source for the claim that Peiser had "conceded," and that Oreskes was therefore "vindicated." That "vindicated" comment, unless reliably sourced, was pure original research.... I've also commented recently in the Talk:Naomi Oreskes on this. --Abd (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Deniers

Hi there. I thought you might be interested in following the discussion going on on Talk:The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud. Guess who started quite a confusion there. Mariordo (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Thank you for pointing this out, and for your posts. Lawrence Solomon (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. I had already suffered with some "Wiki Zealots", as you call them, even when you are not trying to advance any position or agenda, sometimes if feels like censorship, but after one year of experience and avoiding controversial articles, I learned that bringing the facts and patience are key to edit more NPOV articles. As the writer Gregory Benford said "Passion (in any argument) is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available". And congratulations for your book, I really enjoy it, though I do not agree with several issues, but you took a different approach, bringing the science into discussion. I particularly liked Chapter 8. Mariordo (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment on my book. I hope you succeed in obtaining an NPOV article here but I am not optimistic. Although most editors clearly haven't read my book, that does not put them at a disadvantage -- it only means more work for you. Some of them may also have more incentive than you to stay with this article -- people who harbor resentments and grievances often have great drive. Lawrence Solomon (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Evidence That Wikipedia Administrators Completely Ignore the Rules

Lawrence, I thought you might be interested in what happened when a Wikipedia editor tried to get William Connolley to follow the same rules he so forcefully wields against any who dare to try to add some balance to the Global Warming articles[3].

As you can see WMC completely disregarded and even mocked someone who had the temerity to (very politely) ask him to hold himself to the same set of rules which he enforces as an Administrator. The section was soon deleted on WMC's talkpage so I have copied it below for easy reference. This is part of a long standing abusive pattern of behaviour by WMC, which I and many other editors, who have tried to bring balance to Wikipedia's GW sections, have been systematically silenced by. However we still keep on trying to make Wikipedia work. Although I fully agree with your articles that it is impossible to edit the GW related articles unless you are in agreement with the alarmist side of the debate.

Sadly Wikipedia now most resembles George Orwell's Animal Farm with those in charge redefining, bending or selectively applying the rules to take control and selfish advantage of what was supposed to be a shared equal system. ~~ Rameses (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Suggestion re Lawrence Solomon

William, just my opinion - since Lawrence Solomon is complaining about you in the press, I don't think you are a suitable person to be editing his Wikipedia article - you have an obvious conflict of interest. There are many other editors on Wikipedia, I respectfully request you leave it to them. This will help preserve our reputation for neutrality (such as it is). With respect - Kelly ^hi! 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, and reject your advice, well intentioned though I'm sure it was William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you have no conflict of interest here? Kelly ^hi! 22:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIN Kel. Viridae ^Talk 23:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be the next step, but I was hoping WMC could see the obvious before that. Kelly ^hi! 23:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, please make up your mind: you're either being friendly, and just offering your opinion: or you're making threats if I don't do what you say. Judging from your subsequent posts here, its the second. Either way, my answer stands William M. Connolley (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I wanted to tell you that you're violating site policy, but I prefer to do such things in a civil way. Anyway, since you continued to edit the Solomon article after I asked you nicely to stop, I filed a report here. Please do not further edit the Solomon article until that is resolved, thank you. Kelly ^hi! 23:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've made up your mind. As I said, my answer stands William M. Connolley (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I moved the conversation here because I think your attitude could cause damage to our reputation. Kelly ^hi! 23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have decsended into absurdity with We don't need overt battles with the press over ownership of critics' articles by the Wikipedians they are criticizing, and Stephan has noted that William M. Connolley (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming this went nowhere, if [4] is where it went. Anybody say otherwise? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
- "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
- "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
- "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
- "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Foster (journalist) (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has no references.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Peter Foster (journalist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Peter Foster (journalist), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Lawrence Solomon, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]