User talk:Robinlarson

Hi there, I'm new so I'm open to advice as a new commer. Robinlarson (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Robinlarson, good luck, and have fun. ---- Wywin (talk | contribs) 01:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Yucca brevifolia[edit]

Hi, Robinlarson. I just wanted to drop by with a quick note regarding the discussion at Talk:Yucca brevifolia on the issue of climate change. I noticed that you're relatively new to us here at Wikipedia, so you may not be aware of the bold, revert, discuss cycle of editing. It looks like you had tried to make a few changes to the article in one section and several editors, myself included, reverted your edits after your WP:BOLD edit. I'm glad to see a discussion evolving on the talk page, but please refrain from, at this point, adding back the material that has been reverted. Try to develop WP:CONSENSUS in the discussion by eloquently arguing you point. And if consensus is against inclusion of your edit the appropriate responses could include dispute resolution or you could accept the consensus of the participants involved. Anyway, I thought I would point you in the direction of a few helpful links. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add misleading headings to other people's sections.
Please read WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TPG. None of that has anything to do with the topic of the article. Guettarda (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, some measure of competence is needed if you're going to contribute to Wikipedia. You need to realise that Wall Street Journal Op-Eds aren't comparable with publications in the scientific literature. And you also need to realise that just because an article touches vaguely on some idea, that doesn't mean you should turn it into a long discussion about various strange ideas related to the topic. Even if climate change "skepticism" was something more than an industry-funded disinformation campaign, it still wouldn't be appropriate to include a discussion of it in this article. For one, it's mainstream science, and per WP:GEVAL, we don't give equal time to fringe ideas. But it's also not directly related to the topic by a source, so per WP:SYNTH we can't synthesise ideas and information that aren't found in sources related to the topic. Your sources don't discuss Y. brevifolia, so they don't belong in that article. Your underlying arguments, of course, are long-debunked nonsense that a handful of (industry funded) people keep repeating

You don't have to believe anything I say, but you do have to follow Wikipedia policy. And there's no way, given Wikipedia policy, that we can present climate change "skepticism" as anything more than a fringe idea. Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do this kind of thing again. Wikipedia talk pages are not fora for discussion and debate, and they aren't places to soapbox. What you're adding is unrelated to the article. Stop this. Guettarda (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are used to discuss the contents in the article, and are meant to improve the article. Including legitimate arguments to a topic used in the article is allowed if it is aimed at improving the article. Bringing balance to the section will improve the article. You used the talk page to include google results to support your view. Do not tamper with talk page discussions to suppress the views of others. These underhanded attempts to suppress opposing views only demonstrate the weakness of your arguments, or lack thereof. Robinlarson (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:::None of what you added has any bearing on the article. Nor does it have any chance - none whatsoever - of making it into the article. I used the talk page to try to explain to you what sort of a study the Shafer et al. article was. It was borderline. Your text-dump, on the other hand, isn't borderline. It's completely unrelated. And none of it is ever going to make it into the article, not unless Wikipedia's core policies are changed to give equal validity to fringe nonsense. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. It is directly related to 'climate change' an unproven theory used to make statements in the Joshua tree article. Got it this time? Apparently you're living in a media induced fantasy. Are NASA findings in the fringe? Coleman in the fringe? If it was "nonsense", you should have no trouble arguing the points made. Notice you have not: hence your underhanded name calling ("fringe nonsense") and transparent attempts to suppress these views entirely. Also, it is not my intention to include the items listed on the talk page into the article. This is yet another one of your straw men. Sorry, there are just too many scientists who have exposed the 'computer models' scam the 'results' of which you obviously have swallowed hook, line and sinker, without question. -- Robinlarson (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robinlarson: with respect, it might be time to take a very short break so that everyone remains WP:CALM. Your breathless tone (e.g. "wake up" implying you are one of the few with the truth and everyone else has been duped) and rapid editing in the discussion is not helping persuade anyone to your point of view -- or have you given up on that task, preferring to fight with people instead? The latter is quickly becoming disruptive and could get you blocked if you continue and escalate. Let that just serve as a very gentle warning to temper your behavior. We are a community of editors -- don't forget there are other people on the other end of the terminal here. Would we all say these things to each other in person? Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 19:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your words of advice, but I don't think saying 'wake up' to a hand full of editors is being disruptive. As I just indicated on my user page, my account is new but I am not new to wikipedia and am quite familiar with policy, and I have seen debates that are clearly disruptive. I will try to keep my tone in check but it is sort of difficult given some of the tactics used to suppress other views regarding a topic that I did not introduce to the article. -- Robinlarson (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could I rebut your points? Of course - they've been rebutted. Over, and over. Google or Wikipedia could tell you that. I find it hard to believe that you aren't aware that this is fringe stuff. You're entitled to believe whatever you want, no matter how strong the evidence is against your position. But that doesn't mean other people have to play along with you.

As for the links you provided - which one of those articles discusses Yucca brevifolia? None of them. So they can't be used in the article. Read WP:COATRACK. Read WP:FRINGE. Or don't. It's up to you. I'm done wasting my time trying to help you understand how things work. Guettarda (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you could have rebutted them you would have done so. Robinlarson (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do all the links you alluded to discuss the Joshua tree?? Getting tired of the hypocrisy. If you had the facts on your side you would not be giving up, you would be using those facts instead of making empty and quite transparent claims about what is and isn't fringe. That you can so readily refer to sources like NASA, Coleman and many others as "fringe" only tells me you have been sold a bill of goods that now your ego will not permit you to see as a theory not supported by the facts. Robinlarson (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

159.83.4.1[edit]

Sorry, I am not an admin nor did I campaign for any block outside of a warning before their last block; you'd have to bring it up to the admin Materialscientist who made the block, but I know them as a good admin who knows what they're doing with blocks, and read access is still on. The IP has had more than enough warnings. Nate • (chatter) 19:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI proceeding[edit]

FYI I have filed a complaint about your battleground attitude and personal attacks at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RobinLarson, Seek formal ARBCC notification for battleground attitude and personal attacks. You never know what an admin will do, but all I asked them to do was to formally notify you of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBCC. And now you have informal notification, but the process may or may not still require formal notice so I have asked someone to make it official too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming general sanctions[edit]

Please be aware that global warming is a politically controversial topic, and has been subject to edit conflicts on Wikipedia. As a result, all articles related to global warming, climate change, and related topics have been placed under discretionary sanctions. Please be particularly careful when editing these articles and try to establish consensus if others object to your edits. Thanks! --John (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CANVASSING WARNING[edit]

We don't really allow WP:CANVASSING here.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]