Jump to content

Talk:Global Energy and Water Exchanges

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tags

[edit]

Removing tags does not make the problems with the article go away. It's been speedied before and is still very close to a G11. Suggest those with a COI stay away from the article for the sake of neutrality, among others. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G11 means nothing to 99.99% of the world, neither COI, using obscure abbreviations is rude. Tagged issues.

-Advert=June 2008
-coi=June 2008
-notability=June 2008
-npov=June 2008
-tone=June 2008

First question how, in this wonderful world, did you infer all of this? Did you actually read the page? If so tell me how one can advertise and second explain how a person could have a conflict of interest? If you can do that we can move on to the last 3 otherwise please remove the tag.Pdeitiker (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Hint:http://www.gewex.org/feb2008.pdf, http://www.gewex.org/May2008.pdf. Now that is blatant advertisement, or is it?[reply]

WP:COI, WP:SPAM. Those help? Your obsessive pursuit of anyone tagging or deleting the article clearly highlights the COI.

I suggest you look up the meaning of Conflict of interest. I have no interest, either professional or personal in the article. I came across several pages on wiki that references or linked to the experiment and found it to be a _large_ area of deficiency in wiki. That is my only interest. I came about this because of a link on your main page to CNES, further links mentioned this project. Wiki had not information. I was trying to improve the background links for 4 pages that mentioned GEWEX.
I have no problem with tagging the article, the problem is
  1. Taggers are apparently collaborating (Conflict of interest) for personal reasons.
  2. The tags are inappropriate in at least 2 regards.
  3. The taggers apparently shoot from the hip.
  4. One of the taggers has been an admin for 2 days, and apparently does not know the definition of the words she is making.

A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the person, profession, or court system. A conflict can be mitigated by third party verification or third party evaluation noted below—but it still exists.[1]

Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

IOW you have made a false accusation, you have been an admin for 2 days, is this pattern of behavior going to characterize your behavior on wiki?Pdeitiker (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still very close to an ad

for what? Please tell me what it is advertising?Pdeitiker (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and could be speedied on those grounds. It's also not neutral

What aspects are not neutral, I will correct. Proof?Pdeitiker (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

likely due to your COI.

repetition of a false accusation does not make it any more legitimate.Pdeitiker (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you take some time to read WP policies. Oh and those are primary sources. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone trying to create a page on the topic would result in the same Tone. If I could find something negative to report I would. It appears this organization gathers and provides information for the sake of aiding in other beneficial and reformatory pursuits, while it may seem overtly positive. If you can find something negative to report about the project, then post it here and I will add it to the page, otherwise it appears you have done little to no research on your false accusations.Pdeitiker (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a time on wikipedia when admins provided constructive criticism for articles, and there is now, we see the promotion of a large number of admins who apparently shoot first and ask appropriate questions later.Pdeitiker (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good articles take time, gathering up peer reviewed literature and incorporating them into articles takes time to rework wording.

their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference

I do not, as a result of my access have direct access to references outside of medical science directly and thus I do not want to create false information without reading those sources. As a scientist I have reviewed the sites and have determined the information in those sites are credible, but outside my field of specialization. The primary literature references I have come across are not significant. Most of the affiliated organizations, like NASA, publish from their own websites. NASA, NOAA, and these other organizations are respected and in positions of trust. This article is about science not advertisement for the purpose of monetary, political, social or personal gain.Pdeitiker (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ conflict of Interest

Cleaning this up

[edit]

Since this article is the subject of an AfD, and since I think the article should stay, it behooves me to make of list of problems with the article and how they can be cleaned up. I'll only be able to sporadically add to this section over the next couple of days, but I hope to have more time to add to this after that. Anybody else, of course, chip in. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksPdeitiker (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my opinion

[edit]

This is what I think:

  • The article does not meet WP:SPEEDY#G11.
  • It is very well referenced, with government sources.
  • However, the text does bear a resemblance to that which might be found on an official website.
  • And, the article contains enough buzzwords and acronyms to obscure the importance of the subject.

I am changing around some of the tags. I am also placing a WikiProject banner and a {{rescue}} template on the article. See also my vote in this article's AFD. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My tagging aside, and I have !voted keep, but I don't think rescue is necessary at the moment. It's a pretty unanimous keep and I do't know if the rescue squad does re-writes? TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 02:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listing at Wikipedia:Cleanup, and removing {{rescue}}. This is a seriously encyclopædic subject, but I can understand if there is some dispute as to which tags are most appropriate for the article, or how seriously it needs cleanup. My own opinion is that this is a start-class article, but others may disagree. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a start-class.Pdeitiker (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article up to C-class, it may even meet B-class criteria. I am keeping the importance as low, since major reports from the project areas of GEWEX are not complete. There are areas in the article that lack reference, two sections have undergone major revisions, so references will be added as I go along. I have added categories to the article to link it to related material. Need some help de-'buzzword'ing and such but will try to correct spelling and grammar errors on my own. Also hope to add a couple more pics.Most of the important elements are in place, however explanation and relevant additions may not be in place in some sections. I am aware of this, but I am judiciously adding info at this point to prevent overwhelmingly boring material from driving down interest.Pdeitiker (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at some of the other mid and high importance articles, I am bumping this article up to Mid. I could even be considered high importance, but I am not going to push the issue.Pdeitiker (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_Energy_and_Water_Exchanges&oldid=1207441944"