User talk:Wadeoski

Welcome!

 * }

March 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Tim Flannery has been reverted. Your edit here to Tim Flannery was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8hX9HXWzrI) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. 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. 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) 00:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edits you made to Tim Flannery, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Elekhh (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Elekhh,
 * Im not sure why youremoved my quotes by Tim (I understand the youtube link removal). In the article there are TV quotes from Tim on whales, quotes from Tim on nuclear power and quotes by Tim on geothermal power.


 * The quotes from Tims interview aren't "cherry picking", they are the major point of his interview on carbon tax which is a major issue in Australia. The post was not meant to be constructive it was meant to be informative to provide readers with Tim's views on carbon pollution (along with the existing quotes on whales, kangeroos, nuclear, geothermal etc). It seems that you have removed my post because you personally disagree with Tims comments rather than it being irrelevant. Thanks (Wadeoski (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)) p.s. i an new to wiki and haven't quite sorted the usertalk thing.
 * There might be other material which does not belong there, as it is a highly vandalised page, but that's not a reason to introduce more unencyclopedic material. A summary of his position on climate change belongs in the article, and should be improved. Yet your addition is no improvement. It is merely an out-of-context quotation of current climate science, which is not Flannery's personal opinion. Worldwide efforts to reduce carbon emissions aim to limit global warming, not to cause cooling. Therefore there is nothing extraordinary in the statement you quoted, and is not relevant for the article as is not his personal view. Once again the reasons I removed it were: (1) lack of relevance, (2) non-encyclopedic style, (3) potentially misleading (per intention of the non-neutral radio interviewer). I moved the quote to the talk page where other editors can comment on it and provide further feedback. Please discuss it there prior to re-adding it again. Thanks. --Elekhh (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

1)	Lack of relevance – It is totally relevant because most people believe that a carbon tax and reduced carbon emissions will result in reduced temperatures. Tim gave his position on this which most people would find interesting and relevant to the debate and therefore relevant to Tim. 2)	Non – encyclopaedic – This entry conveys his position on carbon tax/reduction which is more than relevant to the subject, his career and the debate. 3)	potentially misleading – The quotes are not out of context, if you take the time to listen or read the transcript you sill see that he said on at least 4 occasions that the temperature decrease would be very small and take hundreds even thousands of years. Tim was stating his position based on his professional expertise and knowledge as a scientist. He might have been pushed into a corner, and let slip more than he would have liked, but I guarantee he will not come out and say that this statement is incorrect or “potentially misleading” because it is correct and it is his position. Once again, I feel this entry is relevant and is important information in relation to Tim’s views and should be left in the article. The only reason you removed it (and not, say his comments on whales) is that it is correct but is not something you would like published. I don’t think you should be removing other people’s articles because you don’t agree with them. Thanks (Wadeoski (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)).
 * You still don't comprehend what he said. There is a difference between reducing temperatures in absolute terms (i.e. cooling of global temperatures) and limiting the warming trend (i.e. reducing relative to a business as usual scenario, or again with other words, avoiding a warming of 6 degrees or more, and limiting it to 2 degrees or less). I recommend you listen again to the interview. As for your personal accusations regarding my edits, I wholeheartedly reject as nonsense. --Elekhh (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)