User talk:LucAleria

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=FR&hl=fr&v=b1kf_axslfk, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpmXY0R7RLQ (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles in the topic area of climate change are under general sanctions due to continued disruptive editing
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation.

Please discuss your additions at Talk:Global warming first. It looks like you are editing in good faith to improve our coverage rather than to push a particular point of view, so I am sorry you are getting caught by the heated atmosphere that currently prevails at those articles. There are a great number of editors watching Global warming, so it should be a relatively simple matter to discuss the points and sources you raise and form a consensus for any edits. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

From Luc Aleria
I have written the paragraph extending the section on debate and skepticism. I do not understand why some have reported it was not neutral. The minimum of politeness would to explain otherwise I do not undestand what the collaborative spirit of wikipedia is really about.

I wrote that the current communication on climate change with pictures showing polar bears swimming in melted ice as a proof of climate change was not relevant because: - there is still some skepticism by people who do not experience sucha changes as polar bears do (the vast majority of human beiings - there was not a consensus at COP 15, showing the lack of common spirit and common understanding

I show another example of possible communication on climate change, by Robert Kandel, an IPCC expert. I put all links so that readers make their own minds.

So, what is not neutral? What is wrong with that? What religion have I not respected?