Misplaced Pages

3 August 2009

• curprev 17:5717:57, 3 August 2009 J.delanoy talk contribs m 37,448 bytes 0 Protected Fred Singer: Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 17:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)) (expires 17:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC))) undo
• curprev 15:0315:03, 3 August 2009 Nishkid64 talk contribs 37,448 bytes −403 rv; what relevance does UCS's politics have here? There's absolutely no context for this statement and it will lead the reader to confusion rather than clarity. undo
• curprev 14:5114:51, 3 August 2009 GoRight talk contribs 37,851 bytes −2 →Views: - Described is better than referred to. undo
• curprev 14:5014:50, 3 August 2009 GoRight talk contribs 37,853 bytes +405 rv: No let's give the reader the pertinent facts on who is making the charge. Remove the second reference since it seems to be confusing some people. undo
• curprev 08:1408:14, 3 August 2009 Johnuniq talk contribs 37,448 bytes −703 rv: let reader judge source without editorial guidance undo
• curprev 07:5207:52, 3 August 2009 GoRight talk contribs 38,151 bytes +703 rv: There's no WP:OR there. The phrasing is directly out of the first source. It's not even a paraphrase. undo
• curprev 07:2307:23, 3 August 2009 KimDabelsteinPetersen talk contribs 37,448 bytes −703 Reverted to revision 305756971 by Stephan Schulz; rv Per discussions. This is your original research (ie. you don't like what they say, so you think it should be stated. Since many others say so it is not give undo
• curprev 05:3505:35, 3 August 2009 GoRight talk contribs 38,151 bytes +703 →Views: - Thanks, Stephan, your request lead me to an even better quote from an even better source. I included a second corroborating source as well. undo
• curprev 04:4404:44, 3 August 2009 Stephan Schulz talk contribs 37,448 bytes −257 Undid revision 305755176 by Kut or Bait Fish (talk) As before, irrelevant and not RS. Also likely SOCK undo
• curprev 04:2604:26, 3 August 2009 Kut or Bait Fish talk contribs 37,705 bytes +257 Restored passage that properly meets WP:RS criteria undo
• curprev 01:4001:40, 3 August 2009 Stephan Schulz talk contribs 37,448 bytes −257 Undid revision 305733243 by GoRight (talk) Let's not, especially not with such a crappy "source" undo
• curprev 01:3401:34, 3 August 2009 GoRight talk contribs 37,705 bytes +257 →Views: - Let's point out where the group's funding comes from. undo

2 August 2009

• curprev 17:0217:02, 2 August 2009 John G. Miles talk contribs 37,448 bytes +1 →Consulting: Even with references, we should still go to talk as requested if s.o. wants to reinsert for other reasons previously cited in reverts (repetitive,etc) undo
• curprev 16:4716:47, 2 August 2009 John G. Miles talk contribs 37,447 bytes −211 rv to revision 305654168 by GoRight. BLPs are held to higher standards (incl. 3rr). A good faith editor has objected. Please delete till sourced. undo
• curprev 16:3616:36, 2 August 2009 KimDabelsteinPetersen talk contribs 37,658 bytes +211 Reverted to revision 305646167 by Splette; rv Sorry - but that was the state of the page before reverts.... Nb: Please see WP:NPA. using TW undo
• curprev 16:3216:32, 2 August 2009 GoRight talk contribs 37,447 bytes −211 rv: Enough with the tag teaming already. Leave it out until those who wish to add it can demonstrate a consensus for its inclusion per WP:BURDEN. undo
• curprev 15:3515:35, 2 August 2009 Splette talk contribs 37,658 bytes +211 Reverted 1 edit by John G. Miles; If you disagree, add a {cn} tag. (TW) undo
• curprev 15:1415:14, 2 August 2009 John G. Miles talk contribs 37,447 bytes −211 rv to revision 305639392 by John G. Miles Take it to talk. It is original research "background" w/o references (& similar info already cited appropriately elsewhere in article) undo
• curprev 14:4614:46, 2 August 2009 KimDabelsteinPetersen talk contribs 37,658 bytes +211 Reverted to revision 305582363 by Raul654; rv It makes for background. (btw. Raul reverted a sockpuppet). using TW undo
• curprev 12:3112:31, 2 August 2009 John G. Miles talk contribs 37,447 bytes −211 rv edits by Raul654 to previous. ACF may be a SP, but criticism is on point. Also contributes nothing--what scientist would give advice contrary to his own views? undo
• curprev 05:1105:11, 2 August 2009 Raul654 talk contribs m 37,658 bytes +211 Reverted edits by A Complete Fiasco (talk) to last version by GoRight undo
• curprev 05:0005:00, 2 August 2009 A Complete Fiasco talk contribs 37,447 bytes −211 →Consulting: This passage has no citation, plus it is too general...what does "worked together" mean? This is not a primary school essay, it is an encyclopaedia undo

31 July 2009

• curprev 20:5020:50, 31 July 2009 GoRight talk contribs m 37,658 bytes +1 →Views: - Punctuation. undo
• curprev 20:4120:41, 31 July 2009 Nathan Johnson talk contribs 37,657 bytes −161 partial rv; attempt to retain NPOV undo
• curprev 20:3620:36, 31 July 2009 GoRight talk contribs 37,818 bytes +227 →Views: - Well how's this then? Both properly referenced ... citations to be put into the citation template later. undo
• curprev 19:5019:50, 31 July 2009 Stephan Schulz talk contribs 37,591 bytes −133 Ummm...if you want self-described, use http://www.ucsusa.org/about/, not some out-of context snippet undo
• curprev 17:0217:02, 31 July 2009 GoRight talk contribs 37,724 bytes +133 →Views: - Let's describe the organization in their own terms. undo
• curprev 16:5616:56, 31 July 2009 GoRight talk contribs 37,591 bytes +128 →Views: - Let's add Singer's rebuttal. undo
• curprev 16:4516:45, 31 July 2009 GoRight talk contribs 37,463 bytes +148 →Views: - Restore broken reference. undo
• curprev 16:2916:29, 31 July 2009 GoRight talk contribs 37,315 bytes −285 rv: This is giving UCS WP:UNDUE weight. This is hardly a lead worthy quote and it is already covered below. In addition its placement in the timeline is incorrect. undo
• curprev 16:2116:21, 31 July 2009 Nathan Johnson talk contribs 37,600 bytes +285 Undid revision 305283852 by Alexh19740110 (talk), rv. belongs. undo
• curprev 16:0316:03, 31 July 2009 Alexh19740110 talk contribs 37,315 bytes −285 rm UCS from lede. Opinions of controversial organisations such as UCS do not need to figure in a BLP in the lede... that belongs in a 'criticism' section. undo

21 July 2009

• curprev 21:3021:30, 21 July 2009 Jacob1207 talk contribs m 37,600 bytes −4 →Global warming: Removed unneeded italics undo

19 July 2009

• curprev 15:1115:11, 19 July 2009 Enric Naval talk contribs 37,604 bytes −63 →Kuwait oil fires debate: formatting with quote template, only change to text was moving "however" with the first line of first paragraph undo
• curprev 15:0915:09, 19 July 2009 Enric Naval talk contribs m 37,667 bytes +18 →Kuwait oil fires debate: wikilink to volcano undo

17 July 2009

• curprev 13:5513:55, 17 July 2009 Ospalh talk contribs m 37,649 bytes −383 clean up, joined references using AWB undo

8 July 2009

• curprev 22:3122:31, 8 July 2009 Stephan Schulz talk contribs 38,032 bytes −106 Undid revision 301078659 by Stephan Schulz (talk) Sorry, over-sensitive touch-pad... undo
• curprev 22:3122:31, 8 July 2009 Stephan Schulz talk contribs m 38,138 bytes +106 Reverted edits by MastCell (talk) to last version by GoRight undo
• curprev 22:2822:28, 8 July 2009 MastCell talk contribs 38,032 bytes −106 →NIPCC: copyedits, and trim a little bit of verbiage; don't worry, Singer's letter is still given as much or more weight than the reliable secondary source undo
• curprev 20:1420:14, 8 July 2009 GoRight talk contribs 38,138 bytes +1 →NIPCC: - Fix spacing. undo
• curprev 20:1120:11, 8 July 2009 GoRight talk contribs 38,137 bytes −5 →Consulting: - Wordsmith to avoid using pointed out twice. undo
• curprev 20:1120:11, 8 July 2009 BozMo talk contribs 38,142 bytes +6 →NIPCC: Have to go some way to remove claims not even Singer made (not independent, only postings etc) but I am not sure Singer's response is notable undo
• curprev 20:0620:06, 8 July 2009 GoRight talk contribs 38,136 bytes +16 →NIPCC: - The order was fine. Just replace the it with the document. undo
• curprev 19:5819:58, 8 July 2009 BozMo talk contribs m 38,120 bytes −2 →NIPCC: first change has to be order: current wording imply Mann and Schmidt were condemning ABC not Singer undo
• curprev 18:5518:55, 8 July 2009 GoRight talk contribs 38,122 bytes +368 →Consulting: - Move citation to here. undo
• curprev 18:5418:54, 8 July 2009 GoRight talk contribs 37,754 bytes −323 →NIPCC: - Move citation. undo
• curprev 18:5218:52, 8 July 2009 GoRight talk contribs 38,077 bytes +266 →Consulting: - Add Singer's characterization of the donation. undo
• curprev 18:3518:35, 8 July 2009 GoRight talk contribs 37,811 bytes +681 →NIPCC: - Include Singer's response. undo
• curprev 01:0301:03, 8 July 2009 Shock Brigade Harvester Boris talk contribs 37,130 bytes −12 →NIPCC: there's no "group" undo

7 July 2009

• curprev 20:3020:30, 7 July 2009 MastCell talk contribs 37,142 bytes −21 why keep inserting material that is clearly objected to on the talk page? There is no way that a serious reading of the talk page could suggest that there would be support for this wording. undo