User talk:RichWoodward

Rich, I understand your reason for editing my addition of the Clean Air Conservancy to your post regarding Emissions Trading. I wanted to add the Clean Air Conservancy because it is recognized as the organization that developed the concept of "retiring" pollution credits. While lots of organizations are doing it now, the CAC was the first and actually helped shape the pollution markets for sulfur dioxide so that pollution rights could be retired. They played a similar role with the Chicago Climate Exchange when it developed its voluntary trading market for greenhouse gases and will undoubtedly be involved if/when Congress mandates greenhouse gas cap and trade markets. I'm still a novice at the land of Wikipedia and would welcome your thoughts on how best to highlight pioneering organizations like the CAC. Thanks, ChrisCarsonThompson


 * Chris, I hope you're watching this page. I too am a bit of a novice and clumsy, but am wary of self promotion in all the pages I watch.  When I looked at the pages on wikipedia spam, they recommend that you start a discussion on the talk page in which you recommend that the organization's role be highlighted.  To avoid bias, you avoid direct editing, just lay it out there for others to consider.  Then if others feel it should be included, they can do so.  I would guess that it would start a discussion of what other organizations, if any, should be highlighted there.  Remember, the purpose of Wikipedia is to lay out the facts, not promotion.  RichWoodward 14:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Feedback Rich. I will add some input to the discussion page and see where it leads. ChrisCarsonThompson

Rich, your revert of User:Wgors attempt to add a subsection on environmental accounting was a little hasty. You've been signed up for a few months and already two of your seven edits are reverts. Reverting is primarily intended to fight vandalism. I've made 300 edits since I joined up a few months ago and never reverted an article once. The last thing I want to do is start a revert war. It's better to take disagreements into the talk pages. Wikipedia etiquette is to avoid reverts and deletions as much as possible. We're all trying to work together.

It was a well intentioned contribution. She had asked me before making that edit whether to add it to the existing article on env. econ. or to start a new article. The topic environmental accounting already existed and was already a redirect to environmental economics.

I once stumbled across a policy page (which I can't find just now) that suggests that subordinate topics not worthy of a full article (or with no immediate prospects of being fleshed out as such) are better blended into existing articles as short subtopics. That was my reason for instructing Wgors to make her edits there.

As an example, I was editing a wikipedia article of my own at the time Wgors asked for me for my advice in handling this revert. I created the article BuildBot this evening, which barely justifies not being folding into a pre-existing article. I was almost feeling sheepish about it. What tipped the balance in my mind was the ability to incorporate the side box.

Along the way I interlinked to the topic cherry picking. Note how the subsection on software configuration management is buried in a collection of unrelated meanings, none of which justify a full article on their own. This is not uncommon practice.

If you feel strongly about it, Wgors can create a new topic dedicated to environmental accounting. Please respond by appending your thoughts here. I'll have Wgors activate a watch on your talk page so she will notice your comments if you add them. MaxEnt 07:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Use colons to indent.

I apologize for my clunky and quick response to the addition. I am a novice Wikipedia contributor and have not had the time to invest in figuring out how to do things right. But I do have a strong interest in making sure that the material on the environmental economics page is not misleading, and that was my reason for editing as I did.

Within this article the table of contents included only the following 4 categories: 1 Topics and concepts; 2 Solutions; 3 Alternative approaches to environmental economics; and 4 See also.

Although some reference to environmental accounting certainly makes sense, it doesn't fit as a major category. Pick up any text book on environmental economics and the topic may be mentioned, but is not a centerpiece of the discipline. A brief mention in the section on alternative approaches might have made sense, or including it in the links might have even been better.

I certainly should have been more thoughtful in my response and edited the addition in a way that would have been constructive. I apologize for not handling this in the manner consistent with Wikipedia etiquitte and standards. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

rtw


 * After reading your comments I will change the environmental accounting page from a redirect to environmental economics to it's own page. Will open the discussion page if people want to debate on if it can stand on it's own.  I appreciate your clarifications on classification. It is taking me a while to find my way around the wiki policies as well. If you revert something in the future you can add comments to the discussion page of the article to explain your reasons, can keep people from getting too excited.  If you haven't found it yet, if you sign your messages with the 4 squiggles it will automatically insert your user name link, date and time stamp. wagors 18:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I looked at the environmental accounting page and it looks great.   RichWoodward 12:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

school vandal
Re the IP school vandal you reported to AIV: also report at Long term abuse. Rlevse 03:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Emissions Trading
I merged them because most of the material in the carbon trading article was on general trading and thus did not justify its own article.--Jorfer 22:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But now we have an unbalanced treatment of the carbon market given treatment with major subsections on that market, the market trend, and business reaction. This is not appropriate in the current context, especially since there is already a section on major trading systems in which carbon is highlighted as one example.  It would have made a lot more sense to merge this material into the Carbon credit article.  Could you make those changes?  13:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)