User talk:Rtol

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley 10:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

WP:COI
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, attribution, and autobiography.

For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. RJASE1 Talk  13:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While this is technically true, adding non-controversial material is not a problem usually William M. Connolley 21:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Frances Ruane
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Frances Ruane, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

John Fitz Gerald
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of John Fitz Gerald, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Frances Ruane
A tag has been placed on Frances Ruane requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Transcendence (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of John Fitz Gerald
A tag has been placed on John Fitz Gerald requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Transcendence (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Geary's C, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 22:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. emerson7 17:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

January 2009
Richard, you appear to have been edit warring on Energy economics. That your position may be correct would not prevent you from being blocked for edit warring. Please seek consensus, do not simply reassert prior text, but attempt to find compromise. If faced with intransigence, get help. As a minor issue, you seem not to be properly signing contributions. You should use four tildes at the end of your edit, which the software will automatically convert to links to your user name, your talk page, and a datestamp. That's " ~ ." Thanks for your participation in Wikipedia, it's appreciated. --Abd (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Abd. Richard Tol 13:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard Tol (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I now fixed my signature. There is extensive discussion on the energy economics talk page. I do tire of repetition, though.Richard Tol (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Richard. Don't consider yourself obligated to reinvent the wheel. Yes, it can be tiring. Don't worry, even if you did nothing more, what you've argued will be considered. Just do what's easy, trust the process and the other editors. And remember to have fun. Thanks for writing on the Disputes page. I edited it to make it impersonal. What I aim for on that page is something we can all say to, "Yes, these are the issues." Without other editors having to read reams of argument. I think you can mostly sit back and watch, kibbitz from time to time, and help us out as you see fit. --Abd (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-economists versus experts
Hello Professor Tol,

In the article The economics of global warming, and section 'Criticism of aggregate costs', I noticed that you changed the word 'experts' to 'non-economists':

'Some experts are critical of how economic studies aggregate costs of climate change damage.'

The papers I referred to in writing the above sentence included economists, so I think the distinction you made is incorrect.

Kind regards Enescot (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2009 (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) 20:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Experts
I've noticed that appeals to editors' credentials, or the lack thereof, provoke a strong negative response here at WP. "She has not identified herself as any authority in any field, nor is there an obvious link between Skip and an academic authority" is giving Skip ammunition. C RETOG 8(t/c) 12:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration 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—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, JQ (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Economics of global warming
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. --TS 13:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Significant coverage
Hmmm, the bars aren't being moved, at least not from my side. My focus has been on the weight of the issue, specifically when there is significant coverage.

My analysis goes a bit like this:
 * Monckton letter => fringe. ie. No one seems to have taken it seriously
 * Telegraph COI claims => has been copied in some other media and some opinion columns/blogs (including one by you), most notably the Australian.
 * Telegraph TERI story => may turn into something for the TERI article - but for now it is a story on accounting problems.

The story simply hasn't gained any real traction (yet?)--. For a story that potentially has this enormous news-value, i would have expected other large british media to have commented, as well as the US ones (German?), as well as something that i could read in the Danish news.. Though it may still gain that traction, after all the weekend just ended. Compare these news-bites with the coverage of Pachauri in general >3000 articles in last month alone, and it fades to almost nothing.

To be specific: For now it looks like the Telegraph has a thorn in the side of Pachauri (perhaps even for good reasons), but it hasn't evolved into significant coverage yet. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lomborg objections
While your objections to Lomborg's rankings were certainly discretion itself, I would nonetheless be grateful if you would point me in their direction so that I can add them to his page. Dduff442 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The objections you refer to relate to the design of the 2009 CC project.


 * It would be more proper to correct a statement that is at least partly correct rather than to simply delete it. You did participate in the 2009 CC project and that did result in emissions control being ranked last yet again, with Lomborg's faulty designs being central to that failure once more. Strangely, he spends all his energies on his lowest priority and never learns a thing in spite of rubbing shoulders with experts such as yourself.


 * What about the Lomborg/Yohe dispute in the pages of the Guardian in Aug-Sep 2008, when Yohe described Lomborg as "a persistent global warming naysayer"? Did you object to Lomborg's design at the time, or to his subsequent characterisation of your work? Did you counter Lomborg's media campaign? If not, I'm at a loss as to how to reference a non-occurrence. You're in the best position to correct the statement as originally written.Dduff442 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As already stated, the objections you refer to relate to the 2009 CC project. Your objections to the 2009 project design are noted (and will be added to Lomborg's page presently) but are not relevant to this discussion. In the interests of clarity, I ask that you clearly distinguish between the two from now on and I shall attempt to do the same.


 * Moving on to the 2008 project and the resulting media dispute between Yohe and Lomborg, Lomborg wrote in The Guardian on Aug 15, 2008 that your collaboration with Yohe produced "a survey of all the problems and all the benefits accruing from a temperature rise over this century of about approximately 4C. And yes, there will, of course, also be benefits: as temperatures rise, more people will die from heat, but fewer from cold; agricultural yields will decline in the tropics, but increase in the temperate zones, etc.". He elided these remarks with a reference to "costs running into tens of trillions of pounds", and claimed that R&D alone "will actually fix climate change in the medium term".


 * Is it not correct to state that no complaint from you appeared in any media outlet about what I acknowledge was a mis-characterisation of your study, a study that was itself subject to numerous criticisms from Fog, Markandya, Green and others? Is it not furthermore correct to state that you had opportunity to advance your point of view in the media prior to starting the 2009 project? I'd like to reiterate that I'd be very interested in any such objections for the purpose of adding them to Lomborg's page.Dduff442 (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We appear to have reached an impasse, then. I'm going to make a few closing remarks for the sake of completeness.


 * You say that I "have no evidence for your opinion on CC08, so I cannot say whether you're for or against or indifferent". The reason this is true, however, is that you haven't been entirely forthcoming. I believe it is a fact that you never spoke out against Lomborg's "misrepresentation of your findings" but you don't need me to tell you about the logical difficulties involved in referencing events that never occurred. You may be discouraged from editing your own wikipedia page, but this has not stopped you in the past.


 * I will have to content myself with adding a reference to your most recent comment on my talk page to Lomborg's wikipedia entry. Dduff442 (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You just left me a message stating "No journalist has ever asked me whether Lomborg correctly cites me. He rarely does, but he does it so often that I could spend all my time writing letters to the editor". While this statement cannot be categorically associated with the 2008 CC project, it is a fairly emphatic statement nonetheless. It is in fact a much more general statement than I had sought.(edit: Though I'm certain it is of no interest to you, I'm going to mention that my name is Adrian Kelleher of Kanturk, Co. Cork. I do not wish it to be said that you were disadvantaged by engaging openly while I enjoyed anonymity) Dduff442 (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

COI
I think you will need to lower your profile on the Rajendra K. Pachauri article, you are very close to becoming a party in the current debacle, and thus should disengage at least from that part of it. The case that you are adding yourself to people who want him to resign, and have been quoted and written Op-ed's about it, makes it rather suspect. For what it is worth, i do not think that you've overstepped, but you have become involved. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Especially the last Der Spiegel opinion, by you, Pielke Jr. and von Storch, make it clear that you now are part of the debacle. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm getting slightly concerned that you are using wikipedia to act as a WP:SOAPBOX (#2,#3) here, to push your views on Pachauri. It is good that you've excused yourself from the subject, but it isn't good that you are using MN as what could be seen as a meatpuppet. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The meatpuppet charges are ludicrous, but I do agree you should tread very carefully on the articles where you have external involvement. Talk page engagement is fine, but I would refrain from direct article edits on Pachauri or anyone else you directly confront in your external writings. ATren (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Kim that is ludicrous, and i would like you to retract that statement please. mark nutley (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark i formulated my words quite carefully, please read it again. What is more concerning is that Richard isn't backing away, but is still pushing for inclusion, despite his assurance of the opposite. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hang on a minute kim, adding links is not the same as debating for inclusion is it? I asked him to add new links if he found any. He stated he would take no further part in debating about it, and he has`nt has he mark nutley (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And that was (imho) bad advice, but never the less, the last comments on weight of specifics, isn't just "adding links". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard, as long as you don't cross the line into soapboxing, feel free to add relevant links and arguments to the talk page. There is absolutely nothing wrong with good faith discussion article content, no matter who you are. ATren (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest report
Please see Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. I have asked that you be topic banned from Rajendra K. Pachauri. Hipocrite (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WG II?
Apparently you say it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been. Is that everyone else, or does that include you? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Richard was one of the ar4 authors was he? --mark nutley (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Pachauri
Hi, I see that you recently edited the Wikipedia biography of a person whom you have very publicly called on to resign. Do you think that's appropriate or ethical? --TS 09:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony i believe he was just tidying up the ref`s in the new text i inserted. Noting unethical about that is there? mark nutley (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your recent comment on TERI and Pachauri's finances. Unfortunately, TERI has never published accounts, and Pachauri has lied repeatedly about his financial relationship with TERI (he is paid a low salary by them, officially) so the truth right now is hard to find. The only reason the financial anomalies mentioned are related to TERI Europe and not TERI (based in India) is because in Europe (unlike India) you are required to publish your accounts. Conveniently though, TERI Europe has earned just under the amount where you have to officially publish your accounts for the last few years, so they have not published accounts either. --Angstriddenyouth (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics census
Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.

Speedy deletion nomination of Familypedia
A tag has been placed on Familypedia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  ttonyb (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Familypedia&action=history. Robin Patterson (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Environment
Hello Dr. Tol. If you have the time, could you perhaps take a look at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Thank you, NW ( Talk ) 14:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Familypedia
Template:Familypedia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yoenit (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * see template:familypedia, now an inline template. hopefully this is acceptable. Frietjes (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * now re-nominated at WP:TFD. Frietjes (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Richard Layte for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Layte is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Richard Layte until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Familypedia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Familypedia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Familypedia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)