User talk:Lawrence Solomon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Lawrence Solomon, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Confusion

There seems to be some confusion between YOUR thoughts and experiences and ACTUAL VERIFIABLE facts. You obviously have problems seeing both sides of an issue and thus are the perfect person for your current job - fact manufacturing. I say manufacturing because no one gives a shit what you think. We care what can be proven asshole.


[edit] Oreskes

Please take some time to examine the above links. Specifically about original research, verifiability, reliable sources and (i suspect) conflict of interest.

You may also want to read about the WP:3RR and edit-warring.

[edit] 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Naomi Oreskes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - i suggest that you take it to the talk page, instead of Edit-warring. Its the contributers onus to convince other editors of the merit of their edits. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your piece

Hi I enjoyed your piece in the FP. How's it going with the article? I'm afraid I can't help with any of the science bits. West one girl (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your post

Hi. I believe you posted to the 3RR noticeboard. I hope you don't mind: because your post was rather long and taking up space, and not in the standard format, I put it in a collapse box, so it only shows as an orange bar; it can still be seen when you click "show". Anyway, the page you were talking about, Naomi Oreskes, has been protected from editing until April 26 to prevent edit warring. If you have any questions about the WP:3RR rule or anything else about how Wikipedia works, feel free to post a question on my talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a reply on my talk page to your questions there. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
...and some further replies, in the same place. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] People who may be able to help

Dear Larry - as you see from my contributions I edit boring and uncontroversial things like Granny_Takes_a_Trip. But I wonder if my friend Guido can help you as he is a super-important administrator, and he owes me after deleting my talk page by accident. Also my friend the Major will be able to tell you about the 'troubles' which he and his group are involved with. The one thing to remember is this place is a bit politically correct so don't be too anarchic. Do take a look at the Major's user page while you are there. Love Kate xxx. West one girl (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an accident (!) but am happy to help. Leave me a message on my talk page (which you can reach through clicking on the little "T" in my signature if you want to leave me a message. GBT/C 19:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Although your initial forays into Wikipedia do appear to have been bumpier than they need to have been, I don't think it's necessarily down to the way it is run, per se. The danger is that there are any number of policies and guidelines which govern the site (I could throw links like WP:COI, WP:N, WP:SPAM at you until I was blue in the face). Just to make things more confusing, those policies can be acryonymed, as there are there, or spelt out like Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest, Wikipedia:Vandalism. And to top it all off they can be hidden behind other words in links. To the newcomer, there are so many of them that they can seem daunting - if, indeed, they're aware of them at all.
The problem is that if you dive in and start editing an article, put a foot wrong and other editors will potentially start jumping up and down citing policies like WP:CITE or WP:NPOV. They're supposed to assume good faith, and in particular take care to be nice to newcomers, and not spank them just because they're new - there's even a policy on that (called WP:BITE).
When I first started editing my first page was a nonsense page about a made up mountain climber. It was well-written, illustrated and laid out using wiki-text, but was nonsense. It lasted about two minutes - someone deleted it and warned me about creating nonsense pages (considered to be a form of vandalism). It wasn't particularly Bitey, but it intrigued me to finding out more.
I think part of the cause of what you have experienced is because you've wandered into one of the more contentious areas on Wikipedia (well, in life generally, I guess), and haven't necessarily have been extended the same courtesy or leeway that another new-comer might have been extended had they dabbled in a less contentious area. Don't take it personally, but maybe take the time to have a read of some of the policies (I'd say start with WP:NPOV). Raise changes on talk pages of articles before making them - get some mileage under your belt, then go for it. Be WP:BOLD - yes, there's even a policy on that.
Oh, and take Major Bonker's suggestion to heart - if you're planning on sticking around using your real name may not be ideal. You can either start a new account (feel free to email me from my userpage to let me know your new "identity"), or go here and ask for your account to be renamed. As you haven't got a huge number of contributions, the former's probably easier.
Any problems or questions, you know where to find me. This account is my public account, by the way, which I use on shared computers so my other (admin) account can't be compromised. I'm the same person as User:Gb, though! The public face of GBT/C 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I've come here following an invitation from West one girl, who has left a message asking me to drop by.

Personally, I can't see anything to worry about in what you've been up to; I've been editing for a couple of years now, so it might be helpful if I give you a couple of pointers based on my own experience.

When I started, I rather idly began by editing the article on Bobby Sands, which had been written more as a hagiography than an objective article. Incidentally, when you edit a contentious article like that one, it's a good idea to explain your edits in the article's 'Discussion' page (click on the tag in the top left corner of the page). Wikipedia works best with the technical, scientific articles, which are objective, rather than articles which can be distorted through nationalism or other weirdoes who might take a diametrically opposing view.

This actually leads me to my second point, which is that you appear to be editing under your real name. I have to say, based on my own experience that this could be a mistake; it's relatively easy for a computer's address to be traced to a geographical location and Google can start filling out the gaps. I've seen rival editors come out with 'I know where you live'-type comments and worse. Whilst most of us are rational, sensible people, there are also people out there who are complete nutcases. Not that I want to put you off!

You're welcome to come round and have a chat on my talk page if you would like. I find that Wikipedia works best if you take a rather sceptical view of it and don't let the sometimes casual rudeness or alteration of your edits put you off. It's all part of life's rich pageant. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Instapundit

I've just read your column via a link from Instapundit. Looking at your contribution log I see that you got a rough time of it when you first started editing. Although the 3 revert rule may seem like a very arbitrary thing it is there for a very good reason. If you think that the article you have edited is controversial, try looking at the edit history of George W. Bush's article! Edit warring causes no end of headaches on Wikipedia, and is one of the biggest problems that we have to deal with (along with trolls posting things and people just plain vandalising articles).

The best advice that I can give you when it comes to dealing with controversial subjects is to cite authorities and stick to verifiable facts. That way if someone does revert you for no good reason you can then point that out in any later dispute resolution process. Wikipedia is, unfortunately, big enough and has been around long enough for it to acquire its own jargon, bureaucracy, ways of doing things and foibles. This makes it much less friendly to the newcomer than it should be. However much of that comes with the territory of being a top 10 website.

Good luck in your future editing. David Newton (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I came here after reading the article too. Essentially, you have confused Wikipedia's "verifiability" policy with Wikipedia having a "pro-climate change" policy. For reference, Wikipedia has a Neutral point of view policy. The reason your edits were reverted is because "he told me so" isn't verifiable at all. Ironically, now that your column has been published, it may be verifiable (I say "may" because it doesn't have a direct quote from Peiser). As someone said on another site, Wikipedia has lots of intricate rules, policies and guidelines, but when you have a million people editing the same thing you need to have them to maintain order. -- Chuq (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For assisting in bringing to light the censorship and supression of knowledge that is endemic to Wikipedia

Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
message 64.222.149.167 (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[eyes rolling] Sockpuppetry at its best, apparently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.118.78 (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest

Please review WP:COI. As you declared yourself with: "LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of 'The Deniers' (Richard Vigilante Books). www.energyprobe.org" in your National Post article, you might then reflect on the fact that some editors would regard that using WP for your advocacy job is placing you in a conflict position. You could of course choose to make a statement on your user page explaining why you consider that it does not do so. LeadSongDog (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I do have a conflict of interest, as do some who write about me. By sticking to facts rather than opinion, and by identifying myself, I would hope to avoid unfair characterizations of my making. Lawrence Solomon (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing climate change kerfuffle

You might like to review this discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard/ Incidents. This area of Wikipedia is where the complaints of the disgruntled are aired; I advise you strongly, as a new editor, not to add to the discussion yourself.

As it happens, I think that you have alighted on the fundamental achilles heel of Wikipedia, which is that it actually militates against expertise; the most obvious example of this is that, via Wikipedia's 'consensus' approach to editing, Bevis and Butthead can out-vote Stephen Hawking. For this reason, Wikipedia falls down in areas of nationalist (in my case) or scientific (in your case) controversy; the winners, who are then able to impose their consensus of reality via the article, are those who either have enough adherents to keep reverting the edits made by their opponents, or who are able to spend enough time at the computer to achieve the same end. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The above misunderstands WP:CONCENSUS. It isn't a vote. B&B might shout down SH, but there's no way they'll outthink him.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not that I misunderstand it, it's the practical way in which it is applied. It's pretty undeniable that Wikipedia does not work well with contentious subjects or those under dispute. For this reason, WP is better on the scientific/ technical articles - after all, nobody but a fool is going to argue against the laws of thermodynamics - than it is where opposing opinions collide - the Raj, the IRA, scientology, climate change - there's a new one every day on WP:AN/I. Anyway, LS might also be interested in this newspaper column. --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You've also managed to excite the interest of the savants of Wikipedia Review here: [1]. --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping me apprised of goings on. Lawrence Solomon (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your WP page

I don't think it's a good idea for you to contribute to your own WP page. I do recommend clarifying your resume on its talk page. I also recommend uploading to WP your recent picture - I can include it on your page then. Please understand that I am giving a friendly advise as someone who created and wrote much of the content of your WP page. Mhym (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I'm not clear on what kind of clarification for my resume I should provide. How will accurate information make it to the public page, and how can a mean-spirited tone be excised?Lawrence Solomon (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are two ways, really. Say, when it comes to your work for Carter you can either give a reference in the form "In the book [the name] by [such and such expert/historian/administration official] on p.?? the following description of my work is given... That would need to be posted on the talk page of the Lawrence Solomon page. Alternatively, you can scan a bunch of official documents providing the proof/description of your work, post it on your own website, and then post on the Lawrence Solomon talk page the links with brief descriptions (hopefully the documents are self-explanatory). Somebody who tracks your WP page will then be able to make appropriate correction to your page. Hope this helps. Mhym (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)