User talk:Emperor Zhark

Carbon tax
Hi, I reverted your changes to Carbon tax because your additions were sourced to a WP:BLOG, which we generally do not accept. Also, modifiers such as "modest" reflect one's editorial point of view which is also something we don't accept. Pleasse try again, I would be happy to hear more about Canada's approach using neutral language and sourced to what wikipedia defines as reliable sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Carbon tax - again
Hi I again reverted your changes to carbon tax because this time (A) you again used a WP:BLOG, please read our rules on what wikipedia calls "reliable sources". (B) You also added a bunch of stuff on Command and control regulation (CACR). A tax is a tax. There's no limit to how much commerce you do, so be it a lot or a little the imposition of a tax does not, by itself, make it illegal. This article is about taxation. You might be find a place in the body of the article to add something about the interaction of different policy approaches where it would be appropriate to link to the CACR article. But putting a bunch of offtopic but related stuff in the first part of an article is not what we do. Please read Manual of Style/Lead section. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the section you want is Carbon_tax; But first be sure to read our rules about original research, because if you add stuff that smacks of OR it will probably be reverted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your last edit I do not find objective or even-handed, as you are denying a simple and clear reference to the language contained in Canadian law itself. Illustrating a point from a policy text cited in the previous sentence does not constitute "original research", merely the application of an already-cited distinction to existing acts and regulations. A fee is a fee, a tax is a tax, and those are the legal terms in Canadian law. They are entirely pertinent and fair to include in the section which you kindly suggested I move them to, and I obliged as I readily agree that the location is more appropriate. --Emperor Zhark (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Pursuant to the talk page guidelines a good place to discuss your desired changes would be at TALK:Carbon tax (click that) in a "new thread" (then click the new thread link on that page).  If you don't know, all climate related articles like this are subject to discretionary sanctions under a ruling at WP:ARBCC.  Shouldn't be a problem for you if we follow the talk page guidelines and WP:CONSENSUS related stuff like WP:3RR and WP:BRD.  Carbon taxes are not examples of "command and control" regulation.  I know that from (A) my own degree and (B) our article.  If you found a text you think says otherwise, you can certainly discuss it at the article talk page.  However, such a statement is a pretty generic sort of classification.  If it is really true, no doubt there are a gazillion other sources that say the same thing, and you can beef up your argument by citing some RSs that everyone can read.  The obscure textbook you found is not online so it is very hard for us to confirm that you are reading it in a way we can all agree is a fair and neutral manner.  It is probably fine in terms of being a reliable source but we just do not have easy WP:SOURCEACCESS.  If you really really really want to add this material, it helps everyone out to find easily available alternative sources we can all look at.  Anyway, just some thoughts to help move things along the WP:BRD process.  If you feel the need, there are a number of dispute resolution methods to call on for help.  See you at the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict; I see you have re-added the material without fixing the issues. Tsk tsk tsk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Carbon tax. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

 Thank you for starting a talk page thread! I haven't read it yet, just wanted to acknowledge the attempt to start discussion. I'll review and maybe comment later. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change
Please verify your edit and links. The link on the edit you made to Scientific opinion on climate change here was bad. Also, please make sure there are no extraneous characters? You enclosed the URL in brackets which is not needed within a. They showed up in the reflist. Also the proper name is Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. There is an article, so try to link to that. I did fix the citation. Please verify that I did not change something inappropriately? Please use the Preview button to check your edit. You can add a temporary to check the link. Be sure to remove it before saving! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks very much Jim1138 for the correction! Will try to use code you've posted next time. I filled in as much of the citation template as I could, and when I previewed it it looked okay, so I went ahead and made the change. Emperor Zhark (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Energy Probe
For your information: after trying to verify the Morgan Brown citation you (and an earlier editor also) added to the Energy Probe article, I've given up, and removed some POV text of yours according to WP:CITE policy: "Do not leave ... poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of ... existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page." (See explanation in Talk:Energy Probe.) I won't take it amiss if you revert me while revising your wording and fixing bad links, but if you do, we'll need multiple, relevant, reliable sources for assertions like those.--Egmonster (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)