User talk:QBeam

Welcome!

Hello, QBeam, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Jkelly 23:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bots and content policies[edit]

I don't see anything in your contributions that was reverted by a bot; I suspect you might be confusing a real-life, but uncommunicative, editor for a bot. As far as contributing content goes, you need to take a couple of minutes to review our content policies. These are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Don't just assume you know what they mean by the titles! I'd certainly say that An Inconvenient Truth does need some serious attention, which is why I removed its "good article" status a few days ago; I'd also say that it isn't the place to hash out arguments about global warming. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, per Wikipedia:No original research, we shouldn't be introducing new arguments into articles. Now, if a reliable source, such as a climatologist or other specialist, wrote an op-ed saying "Gore is wrong about this because..." that would belong in the article -- we wouldn't be the ones making the connection between a disputed point in global warming and Gore's documentary. I hope that explains what is likely the primary concern with your contribution. Jkelly 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've got the Wikipedia:No original research policy more or less exactly right, you just don't seem to believe that we could possibly operate that way. As an example, in our article about Ernst Zündel, we don't describe his positions and then go over point by point why he's wrong. We just report what he's said, and what other people have said about him. It's not our job to engage with the subject of the article, even if we know that the subject is absolutely wrong. Returning to the article at hand, I note that we have the sourced statement "The Associated Press contacted more than 100 top climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. Because this was at the time before the film's general release many of those surveyed had neither seen the movie nor read the book, but all 19 climate scientists who had done so said that Gore conveyed the science correctly." -- those nineteen climate scientists might all be wrong, we may even have better reason to think that they're wrong than the AP reporter does to think that they were right, but it just isn't our call to make. You may well be a great climatologist, but, if you take some time to consider it, I'm sure you'll realise why we can't actually take our contributors credentials or assertions of expertise into account, and, as an extension, why we have the policy we do. Jkelly 00:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GW controversy[edit]

Just to make sure you know, someone has been adding comments using your name at Global warming controversy here. Hope its you, Brusegadi 19:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]