User talk:Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker/Archive 1
Welcome[edit]
|
Apologies[edit]
Apologies for reverting you on User:Jimbo Wales. Appreciate your anti-vandalism help! -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think that you do it accidentally. wp:AGF. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: User:ヴォルフガング・アマデウス・モーツァルト[edit]
Hello Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:ヴォルフガング・アマデウス・モーツァルト, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not created by a banned user, or the page does not violate the user's ban. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. creffett (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- To clarify: while we do have a speedy deletion criterion for "pages created by banned or blocked users," WP:G5, that only applies if the page was created after a block or ban (generally by someone creating a new account to get around their block), not to pages created before the block. creffett (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Unacceptable.[edit]
|
Unacceptable. |
You are purposefully choosing to deny our right to share the actual historical controversies and actual source documents on file with the United States Congress in Serial Set 3878. Explain yourself.
PembinaChippewa (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC) |
<Unnamed section>[edit]
Hi Nieuwsgierige - Not sure how I chat to you. Is it via this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.2.5.130 (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is not a chat page, but a talk page. At this page you can talk with the user you want to talk about their edits. At this page you can request the user to do something for you. Everybody can create a talk page (and also user talk page). Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Edits to EU ETS article[edit]
Hi Nieuwsgierige
I've made 2 edits to the EU ETS article that you removed. I couldn't find a place to explain my edits so I understand your concern.
The whole article is in need of a clean up as it is being used as part of the political debate in Australia around wheather they have an ETS there. I've read wiki guidance around the standard of articles and it seems clear they're meant to be politicaly neutral. It comes across as odd that an article on the European ETS makes prominent and frequent references political publications in Australia, giving them a high prominence, and makes very little reference to the extensive discussions, in press and academia, present in Europe (or indeed other continents). Moreover, it only refers to ant-ETS press articles in Australia, and even fails to reflect the two-sided debate they had over there.
There was also an article refered to in the text as discussing weaknesses of the EU ETS, whereas the cited link was a minor study on environmental policies in Australia. This is simply wrong.
I'm sure you can tell me the best way to sort out this article and remove the tangents.
Many thanks David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davejf (talk • contribs) 11:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Davejf: Could you show me the links? Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davejf (talk • contribs) 13:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) And do you think this revert is done in error? Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme&oldid=973634405
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme&oldid=973640484
Both restored text that should not be in the article.
"Overall, since its conception, the EU ETS has been characterized by relatively high levels of policy uncertainty.[17] This uncertainty has been both technical, in terms of its detailed rules and procedures, and political, in terms of its public, industry, and governmental support. As a result, the scheme has resulted in a rather informal and tepid response by regulated organizations."
This is an unrelated assertion that doesn't belong in the summary, and the only citation given is a paper about environmental policies in Australia, and does not support the assertion made in the article here.
"According to a 2011 report by UBS Investment Research, the EU ETS cost $287 billion through to 2011 and had an "almost zero impact" on the volume of overall emissions in the European Union and the money could have resulted in more than a 40% reduction in emissions if it had been used in a targeted way, e.g., to upgrade power plants.[82]"
I clarified why this should be removed in the ammendment after you restored the text, but ideally, this text should be left to the political press in Australia, where the cited evidence is from. The UBS Note is nowhere to be found and it's description here is highly problematic in a number of ways that go against economic theory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davejf (talk • contribs)
- Do you want that I revert my reverts and excuse myself? Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Edits to my user page[edit]
Why did you revert the clearing of my user page, then ask me why I did it, then ignore my response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.106.218.230 (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry that I ignore you. Do you want I delete ClueBot's warning? Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker 09:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
On English Wikipedia users are allowed to blank their talk pages, with very limited exceptions. Active block notices are not among the exceptions. Please don't restore that user's talk page, and don't incorrectly warn him that his alk page access may be revoked if he continues. Meters (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- See WP:BLANKING Meters (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Ang Probinsyano (season 8)[edit]
Hi! Can you please do not return my edit because I just edited the Citations, because the Citations contained the information incorrectly so I fixed it. Aljohnhenson16 (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, don't block me because I edit well and I still don't like Edit War. Aljohnhenson16 (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not vandalize, I just do what is Right. Aljohnhenson16 (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- You are clearly not here to build up an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, because of the disruptive edits which you have done. You have been warned multiple times by me and others, but it seems you're ignoring it. You could better follow-up the warnings, otherwise there's a user who may ahead to wp:Administrator intervention against vandalism; so what's recently happened by me. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker 15:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)