→edits to fathers rights article and talk page: you misunderstand |
Michael H 34 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
:::Policies and guidelines form the basis to consensus. You have no policies or guidelines that people agree support your position, in addition to finding no-one who agrees with your assertions - despite several eternal opinions on various boards and from various other editors. I object to your edits, and don't think there is any source or policy-based reason, and all you can wave about is an editorial from a newspaper. That's insufficient. [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 22:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
:::Policies and guidelines form the basis to consensus. You have no policies or guidelines that people agree support your position, in addition to finding no-one who agrees with your assertions - despite several eternal opinions on various boards and from various other editors. I object to your edits, and don't think there is any source or policy-based reason, and all you can wave about is an editorial from a newspaper. That's insufficient. [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 22:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::Please don't mis-understand why I believe a topic ban might be warranted. I believe a topic ban may be warranted because you consistently, across every page I have interacted with you on, using sources that were less than optimal, and in the face of numerous, contrary sources, pushed a single set of views while ignoring the input from many other editors as well as the policies and guidelines that have been cited. This isn't a case of a single edit on a single page. This is a long-standing, systemic issue of ignoring external input and consensus when you didn't like what was being said. ''That'' is why I think a topic ban would appear to be a near-inevitable outcome. It's a consistent pattern that hasn't changed despite months, numerous other editors commenting, and many thousands of words spilt on the talk pages. Please don't portray it as if this were an isolated incident. I'll clarify on the relevant talk page. [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 00:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC) |
::::Please don't mis-understand why I believe a topic ban might be warranted. I believe a topic ban may be warranted because you consistently, across every page I have interacted with you on, using sources that were less than optimal, and in the face of numerous, contrary sources, pushed a single set of views while ignoring the input from many other editors as well as the policies and guidelines that have been cited. This isn't a case of a single edit on a single page. This is a long-standing, systemic issue of ignoring external input and consensus when you didn't like what was being said. ''That'' is why I think a topic ban would appear to be a near-inevitable outcome. It's a consistent pattern that hasn't changed despite months, numerous other editors commenting, and many thousands of words spilt on the talk pages. Please don't portray it as if this were an isolated incident. I'll clarify on the relevant talk page. [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 00:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
I will not comment on your pattern of editing. [[User:Michael H 34|Michael H 34]] ([[User talk:Michael H 34#top|talk]]) 01:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34 |
Revision as of 01:16, 13 January 2010
Harmonic Beat -- Global Warming
Nice find. Unfortunately, the Global Warming article is kept under very tight control by a small number of users and an admin who are vehemently opposed to the inclusion of anything that goes against the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Still, I'd hold onto that link if I were you. If you're able to find more sources to back it up, it might be possible to get it included in the article.
Here was my suggested addition:
Tidal forces contribute to ocean currents, which moderate global temperatures by transporting heat energy toward the poles. It has been suggested that harmonic beat variations in tidal forcing may contribute to variations in climate. [1]
Michael H 34 04:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34
Math links
Group (mathematics)
Lie sphere geometry
List of simple Lie groups
Classification of Clifford algebras
Physics links
Large extra dimension
Particle physics and representation theory
Loop quantum gravity
Shell model of the nucleus. Magic number (physics)
Coleman-Mandula theorem
Haag-Lopuszanski-Sohnius theorem
Supersymmetry
Supergroup (physics)
neutrino oscillation
Parastatistics
Spin-statistics theorem
Quantum Hall effect
Fractional quantum Hall effect
Dark energy star
Homotopy group
Dimension
Spin (physics)
Anyon
String Theory
Other links
Wardenclyffe Tower Fathers' rights movement The China Study No-fault divorce Parental alienation syndrome
edits to fathers rights article and talk page
Michael please read WP:Consensus your current editing practice at Father's rights is in breach of wikipedia editing policy. There is no consensus for the edits[2][3][4] you have put forward. In fact consensus is clearly against it. This kind of editing is tendentious and borders on a violation of WP:POINT. Please review these policies and guidelines, and then your edits in light of them. Also please consider using this page for dialogue with other editors. While it is your right to remove comments without engaging with them[5][6] this is a talk page and should be treated as such--Cailil talk 19:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Cailil, please note that consensus is not formed by counting votes. Furthermore, with respect to the edits in question, Slp1 was the only person engaged on the FRM talk page. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
- I'm sorry Michael but your assumption is wrong. First WLU and Franamax have commented there. Second I wasn't counting votes. Again I recommend a review the policies and guidelines listed above and reconsideration of the approach taken in the area of this dispute--Cailil talk 22:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to disagree with you Cailil, but in my view, I did not make an assumption. If you reread the comments, you may find that WLU jumped to a conclusion about my edit thinking that I was including information based on another source, and Franamax did not make any specific comment about the edit in question. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
This sandbox includes my personal feelings, and is not intended as a communication to other editors.
I ask anyone evaluating my behaviour to also evaluate other editors' behaviour on the articles and talk pages involved. In my view, WLU uses threats of sanction to impose his point of view on an article and to cut off debate after his views about the article in question are challenged. (I give him some credit though. After many words on the talk page of the Parental alienation syndrome article, WLU did agree to one of the changes for which I asked for comments. Sometimes it takes a lot of words, but WLU, who describes himself as bullish, seems to be complaining about my persistence and the number of words that were required on my part to achieve changes. In my view, the same thing is happening on the fathers' rights movement article. I achieved a change to remove (part of) the original research included in a particular edit, but I am now being threatened with sanction for my efforts.) Thank you, Michael H 34 (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34
wikipedia contributors are mostly male?
- I added the quote you requested in this edit. Please cease asking for a quote - it has been provided, both in the past and recently.
- Policies and guidelines form the basis to consensus. You have no policies or guidelines that people agree support your position, in addition to finding no-one who agrees with your assertions - despite several eternal opinions on various boards and from various other editors. I object to your edits, and don't think there is any source or policy-based reason, and all you can wave about is an editorial from a newspaper. That's insufficient. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't mis-understand why I believe a topic ban might be warranted. I believe a topic ban may be warranted because you consistently, across every page I have interacted with you on, using sources that were less than optimal, and in the face of numerous, contrary sources, pushed a single set of views while ignoring the input from many other editors as well as the policies and guidelines that have been cited. This isn't a case of a single edit on a single page. This is a long-standing, systemic issue of ignoring external input and consensus when you didn't like what was being said. That is why I think a topic ban would appear to be a near-inevitable outcome. It's a consistent pattern that hasn't changed despite months, numerous other editors commenting, and many thousands of words spilt on the talk pages. Please don't portray it as if this were an isolated incident. I'll clarify on the relevant talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I will not comment on your pattern of editing. Michael H 34 (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34