User talk:Bjquinn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Bjquinn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

I've tagged Zidelook as needing context, because I don't know what a MAPI connector is.

Again, welcome!  NickelShoe (Talk) 21:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Hadcrut-jan08.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Hadcrut-jan08.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Global cooling graph

The global cooling graph has been discussed on the talk page, and its inclusion there has been rejected. Do not re-add it, or I will block you. Raul654 (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Raul654 and WP:NPA

This posting is in reference to your posts at Talk:Global warming#Raul654. There's no reason to call out an editor on a talk page like that. If you believe that a certain user is acting inappropriately, exerting WP:OWNership or a page, whatever, you should try to be civil and explain your grievances. Moving to "dismiss" people because you think you've been mistreated isn't how Wikipedia works. If you two can't work things out, I'd suggest looking into dispute resolution or third opinion. If you believe he is abusing power in some way you could also try the administrators' noticeboard. Nobody is going to block you for making good-faith edits so long as you mind WP:3RR, so don't worry about that. But making personal attacks is an easy way to get blocked around here. If you remain civil, people will be much more likely to hear you out. There are numerous ways to try to work things out but I'd recommend removing any personal attacks you might've added to talk pages. I'll keep watch on your talk page so you can just reply here if you'd like to comment, or remove this if you don't think it's useful. Oren0 (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bjquinn (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unanimity is not necessary

On Talk:Global warming you wrote

“ And that you figure a way out to agree amongst yourselves the best way to prevent me from being able to make any modifications to this article, rather than contradicting yourselves. ”

The editors on global warming can't be neatly split into two sides. Yes, there is the general consensus among the editors who frequent the article that the existence of anthropogenic global warming is robustly supported by the available evidence. Beyond that, there are many different editors with many different approaches, ideals, and expectations for the article. It's a good thing that everyone on the talk page addressing your comments doesn't have exactly the same opinion. Different intersecting perspectives can greatly improve the article. That includes your perspective. As long as you follow all of the rules, read the sources, and sensibly analyze them, everything that makes sense for you to go into the article will also make sense for other people to go into the article. The article doesn't read as it does because editors are warping the literature; it reads as it does because the evidence soundly supports the facts and ideas presented in the article. It's important that we present the ideas fairly, and skeptical people can help to do that. - Enuja (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. It's just that a few of the editors are a bit aggressive and, being in the process of promoting a somewhat skeptical viewpoint, I had sometimes found myself being shot down for multiple and conflicting reasons from different people. I'm learning.  :) Bjquinn (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)