Talk:Eugene Parker

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eugene Parker. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229195941/http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AWARDS_arctowski to http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AWARDS_arctowski
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eugene Parker. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131211172157/http://www.inamori-f.or.jp/laureates/k19_b_eugene/ctn_e.html to http://www.inamori-f.or.jp/laureates/k19_b_eugene/ctn_e.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Q: Should this biography article be censored by redacting a written statement of this leading physicist on the contentious topic of global warming, or is a bio article the right (the only; a normal/usual) place for such a quote to be stated. The discussion has attracted only a gang of editors who fiercely advocated the former view, but who stopped ganging up after a notice to that effect was posted. Wikipedia officially does not censor, and the Biography of Living Persons policy does not apply since the scientist has died (extensions apply only under special circumstances like threat of suicide for his/her family member, which clearly does not apply here). Yreuq (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe try again with a neutral RFC opening statement, as per WP:RFC? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Procedural Close Non-neutral. I highly suggest retracting before this escalates into a behavioural issue.Slywriter (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone: please note RCs normally solicit comments from editors who previously did not discuss, not from those who already took part in the discussion.Yreuq (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how RfCs work. Nor is this one properly formed. Schazjmd (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Wrong and the RfC is invalid regardless. Again urge you to reconsider and retract and cut the wiki-lawyering, otherwise escalation to administrators will be necessary.16:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Reply: The case is simply that of global warming alarmist editors ganging up to redact (censor) Parker's statement opposing global warming. Wikipedia does not censor. Yreuq (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on the inclusion of an exact quote by a scientist on global warming