This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gaba p. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, Thanks for expanding the group of RS-oriented civility-speaking regulars in the climate pages the last few months. I hope you stick around! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the note! I definitely intend on sticking around if not expanding at least patrolling articles and commenting on talk pages. Cheers. Gaba(talk)12:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
About that Michigan based Block evading IP sockpuppet;
Hi Gaba, About this edit I don't care either way, but I thought I'd mention background about the IP editor since he's a regular on pages you seem to be watching. His IP used in that edit is a WP:SOCK of another IP address he has used before... at least, up until he incurred a WP:BLOCK at the earlier IP address. Actually, he's under many blocks at different IP addresses. He simply jumps from IP to IP to ignore the block, a behavior known as WP:BLOCKEVASION. The reason for the original block was posting WP:SPAM in the form of external links to advance their own WP:POV. The IP either makes pretty trivial edits, like the wikilink you saw, or else they plug in external RSs without really giving them any significant treatment. Wikipedia is not a WP:LINKFARM, and they post these RSs just to advance the IP's own personal views. Whether they are good RSs or not is irrelevant; the problem lies in his failure to build trust, respect process, engage in dialogue, or post these things with significant improvements to text. When an ed uses block evasion to get around a block, the timer on their block-clock is supposed to be reset, but the server still needs to be told to do that manually. This ed has been under one or more blocks for 1 1/2 years if not longer. In sum, a few us simply revert the blocked ed on sight.
If you see edits from this fellows IP ranges (see User:Arthur Rubin/IP list), and you think it really did make an article improvement, you can claim that edit as your own by doing it yourself.
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for the message. I was not aware of all this you mention about the IP's behaviour. Since I still think that edit is reasonable I'll leave it there but I'll definitely keep this information in mind from now on. Thank you again. Regards. Gaba(talk)13:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I usually ignore his stuff if under 100bytes or so. Arthur seems to use more of "waste it all" approach, not that I'm complaining, I just don't bother trying to sort the volume of trivial edtis to find the few useful ones. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
AR5
Hi G, FYI, the "first part" of AR5 is coming from working group 1 (WG1) and has not yet been "released". What we have is the summary of the summary of WG1's report. The (a) technical summary of WG1's report, and (B) WG1's actual report, will not be really-truly "released" until.... January, if I remember correctly.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Gaba, can you tell me exactly which parts of my contribution are the misinterpretation? Thanks
Some critics of Dawkins' ideas in The Selfish Gene go as far as to question the evidence that he uses to support his theory on genes. Professor Georgy Koentges of Warwick University, an expert in evolution and development, had this to say on Dawkins' own ideas on evolutionary fitness (based on older models), "This is a fantasy. There is no such thing as a good or bad gene. It doesn't work that simply. Genes are used and re-used in different contexts, each of which might have a different overall fitness value for a given organism or a group." [1]
Hi Henry, the edits we make need to be based on WP:RS. Your edit which I reverted [1] does not seem to be based in the source you used and appears to resort to WP:OR instead. Since every part of our edits need to be backed by a source and your edit was not, I reverted it. Regards. Gaba(talk)15:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Gaba. Thanks for the speedy reply. I've included all the quotes from Professor Koentges below. Did I misunderstand what point he was trying to make with his comments?
"Dawkins has a lot of unnecessary rhetoric in his review," he said this weekend. "He is usually on the spot, but it has to be said that some of his arguments are based on older models of calculating fitness. The difficulty is in assigning what Darwin called 'fitness' to a particular genetic feature. They are trying to set basic fitness conditions which they believe work over very long periods of time.
"This is a fantasy. There is no such thing as a good or bad gene. It doesn't work that simply. Genes are used and re-used in different contexts, each of which might have a different overall fitness value for a given organism or a group."
In later life Darwin said he wished he had called his theory natural preservation, rather than selection, but even the preservation of certain genes down the ages is no proof that they are good.
"To use a simple human example, someone with the perfect set of genes for walking with two legs might die early because they jump off a cliff," said Koentges.
"Equally, there are many things that survive in biology for no beneficial reason, like male nipples. They are 'bystanders' of other important processes. They result from underlying genetic processes that in the opposite sex are absolutely essential for our survival as mammals."
Like other scientists commenting on this "tit-for-tat" dispute between Wilson and Dawkins, Koentges also detects the old struggle between those who focus purely on the gene and those who see it as "an anthropological insult to our own feeling of self-belief".
"The field has moved on, and so should we all," says Koentges.
There's no issue with the quotes, the problem with your edit is mainly the first sentence "Some critics of Dawkins' ideas in The Selfish Gene go as far as to question the evidence that he uses to support his theory on genes" which applies WP:SYN and WP:OR to derive a conclusion not supported by the source. Where did "some critics" come from? Where do you get that they are criticizing ideas presented in The Selfish Gene? Where do you get that anybody "question(s) the evidence that he uses to support his theory on genes"? All these statement should be backed by a source and right now rhey are not. Regards. Gaba(talk)18:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Dealing with edit warriors is tricky. 3RR certainly seems to apply there. Gaba, have you run across WP:BOOMERANG? Not saying it applies in this case, only saying that when these things bubble up to ANI, it gets messy when there are enough diffs to argue whether it applies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Gaba, there's some talk on WP:ANI ("Repeated personal attacks on Talk:Animal Welfare") about a matter you got involved with (a bit) as well. Please have a look when you have a moment. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I do think that more eyes are always better. Let's see if the IP plays by the rules--if you happen to note something interesting while I'm watching elsewhere, please let me know. And now, given the content of the article, I'm going to kiss my dog in salute to you. She's sitting here with me, being all-cute and hairy and stinky and a lovely hound. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your remarks while deleting my edit to Climate Change Denial. I'm trying to surface anybody active in suppressing information about Timothy Ball. Good articles on Timothy ball exist in other WP languages, but articles in the English WP are removed by unknown persons. Santamoly (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Santamoly, although I did not remove any of your edits I do agree with the editors that did. Such commentaries made inside a WP article are very disruptive, specially if made more than once, and you could be blocked if you continue making them. Furthermore, climate change articles are subject to discretionary sanctions as NewsAndEventsGuypointed out in your talk page.
If you feel an article about that person is needed you are welcome to create one, but please go through the log of the deletion of that article that NewsAndEventsGuy posted in your talk page. Regards. Gaba(talk)22:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gaba. I am sharing this with the top ten contributors of the Falkland Islands article. I'm excluding myself, and also those that are either out of the project or not contributed in a long time (thereby making you 10 out of 10). Congratulations.--MarshalN20 | Talk03:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
You're too kind Marshall, compared to you I hardly contributed anything to that article but I'm definitely glad I made the cut :) I'm very glad to see the FI article promoted to GA and of course most of the credit for that goes to you my friend. Cheers! Gaba(talk)11:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Reviewer
Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled reviewer rights on your account. This gives you the ability to:
Does not grant you any special status above other editors.
You should probably also read WP:PROTECT, since this user privilege deals largely with page protection. As the requirements for this privilege are still in a state of flux, I would encourage you to keep up to date on the WP:REVIEWER page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Gaba,
I am working on the Seyfert galaxy article as part of my Honours project in physics, and one of my targets is improving the quality rating of the article. When I started working on it it was rated as C class, and it still has the same rating. However, I think it's quality now is above C. It has a general introduction meant for all users and more advanced discussions further on in the article. All the information is referenced back to astronomy and astrophysics journals and web publications, such as the NASA website or lecture notes from top universities. It now contains more photos and a table of examples of galaxies, and it talks impartially about the current theories regarding Seyfert galaxies.
I don't know exactly what the procedure for asking for a review is, which is why I'd really appreciate if you can have another look at the article and tell me if you think the article could go up one or two classes on the quality scale, and how I go about asking for that.
Thank you very much, Careless Torque (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Careless Torque I'll be glad to review the article but I won't be able to do it until Tuesday. After a quick glance I can tell you it surely looks like it can be upgraded to B-class. If you are in a hurry you can ask for assistance at the WikiProject Astronomy talk page, otherwise I'll look it over on Tuesday. Regards. Gaba(talk)00:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, in your edit to thin disk you added the information that the thin disc contains the bulge. To me this seems counter-intuitive – I have the feeling that the bulge is the bulge, and not a part of the thin disk, right? After all the bulge is quite decisively not "thin". Therefore I just wanted to ask you if could take a look and see if the sources do support the claim that the bulge is part of the thin disk.
BTW, thanks for adding the info/link to the spiral arms – much appreciated (I do hope though that this based on sources).
Hi Tony Mach, thanks for the note. I checked what you mentioned and although I was sure the sources I used mentioned this, I could not find it. I removed the claim until I can find a suitable reference. Regards. Gaba(talk)01:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
It happens. Sometimes we are so sure of a fact about reality, yet it is only a trick of our minds play on us. At least you looked it up and I did not have to argue with you :-) – as I am not an expert (and have only limited energy to spare), I probably would have probably given up quite quickly, and would have left it stand as a "fact". Kindest regards, Tony Mach (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the word "contains" is (was) being used poorly. I'll try to find a source which makes this clear, possibly mentioning the vertical axis of the bulge and the position of the spiral arms along the disk. Don't have much time right now but possibly during the week I'll get to it. Thank you again for the note. Cheers. Gaba(talk)14:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gaba p/Archive 6. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | Talk19:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Imprints
Dear Gaba p,
Imprints were recently added to Nova Science Publishers. And then get deleted immediately by you. Please see Springer for selected imprints, as an example of what can be posted on Wikipedia -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springer_Science%2BBusiness_Media
I do not understand your explanation for deleting, which is unfortunate. Please explain. I am sure I am missing something from your side.
Hi AnnaCRittenberg, regarding your edit: 1- you can't use Wikipedia as a source, you need a reliable source for every piece of information you want to add to an article, 2- the material you added on imprints is irrelevant and adds no value to the article, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Finally, you should give WP:BRD a read, when your edit is reverted you go to the article's talk page and start a new discussion about said edit, you do not revert it back into the article (this can be considered edit warring and could even get you clocked from editing). Let me know if there's anything else I can help you with. Regards. Gaba(talk)20:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
Your recent editing history at Genetically modified food controversies shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Hi, I appreciate you taking the time to watch over an article. I'll have to ask you though: could you indicate what edit of mine prompt you to leave this warning at my talk page? Also, please have a look at WP:DTR. Thanks Gaba(talk)21:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I can see that things have calmed down at the article, but just FYI... I see three actionable reverts: [2][3][4] I'm sure you are aware that uw-3rr is required in certain circumstances. Roccodrift (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Roccodrift the first two edits are the only ones that are related, the third one is a completely different edit made to the article. Furthermore the discussion about the revert in those two edits started yesterday so there is no need to leave a template today, neither to me nor to Jytdog. As I said, I appreciate you watching over the article but next time make sure you check first if the discussion hasn't already begun and even if it hasn't a friendly message will always be better received than a template (specially true if you're leaving it to a long time editor) Regards. Gaba(talk)23:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not looking to pick a fight with you, but a long time editor should have a better grasp of WP:3RR. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." This is meant to be helpful, I hope it is received that way. Roccodrift (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Please check the article's history again. On 9 Dec I made only two reverts, the rest were completely different edits made in small bits so as to provide a more accurate summary for each. Please note that removing content from an article is not a revert. Don't worry, there's no fight here. Next time just make sure you check the editor's contributions more thoroughly and as I said above: in the case that a long time editor did engage in an edit war, a friendly message first will always be better received. Regards. Gaba(talk)23:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Global Warming Controversy.
Hi Gaba, thanks for your comments. :-)
I guess the tension in the Global Warming Controversy article would be identifying the purpose of the wiki article. If I interpret your comments and those of others correctly, the article seems to focusing on presenting a resolved, unified position on the scientific consensus of climate change.
However, this would appear to be in my opinion, a drift away from an accurate presentation of the 'Global Warming Controversy'. If the article is genuinely focused on the afore mentioned phrase, it would seem only logical that attention would be invested in describing skeptics views, as well as those of the the scientific consensus, placed side by side.
Or does wikipedia need a different page dedicated to explaining climate skepticism, approached at from a NPOV???
Hi Gfcan777, thanks for getting back to me. NPOV is one of the core pillars of WP, but so is WP:UNDUE. That means we can not treat "the skeptical side" in equal terms because science is settled on this matter, no matter what some skeptics would like to make others believe. Climate skepticism is actually portrayed from a NPOV, the reliable sources available all indicate that this is but a fringe not scientifically supported view held mostly by a conservative core. So we present the controversy, but always adhering to WP:RS and thus making it clear that science already settled this matter long time ago. Regards. Gaba(talk)13:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gaba p, thanks for your further comments...
I can understand better now why the reverts to my previous edits were conducted,
However, in my opinion, it does seem a shame that the Global Warming Controversy article does not explore the Climate Skeptics' viewpoint in the most accurate way possible.
I can see that it is important to not give undue weight to a minority view point, but I still think wikipedia in this instance is losing a bit of the essence of the issue.
I'm quite happy to read about 'flat earthers' on wikipedia, if the article is given the proper place. In the same way, I'd be happy to read about the Climate Skeptics viewpoint in a more deliberate fashion, even if it is just an article about 'flat earthers/climate skeptics'. I feel like something has been lost in this instance, but I guess this is a broader topic for wikipedians to discuss.
Anyway, thanks for your time and comments,
I hope there will be a more solid presentation of the Climate Skeptics view point in future on wikipedia. I guess it is a little bit like 'Bigfoot', even if science doesn't find evidence for the existence of 'Bigfoot', it is still interesting to get an accurate presentation of peoples, beliefs, who do believe. (For the record, I don't believe in BigFoot!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfcan777 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Gfcan777 I believe the article you might be looking for is Climate change denial. That one gives an overview of the climate skeptics' view point and has a pretty thorough rundown of the issue in general. Hope that helps. Regards.
PS: always remember to sign your comments by adding 4 tildes at the end like so ~~~~. That way your user name will be added to your comments. Gaba(talk)14:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Preferably articles published in scientific journals, if not at least articles from a reputed scientific-oriented media outlet. One of your sources looked like a kid's book by a man who also writes Bible Stories for Children. That's not good enough. Regards. Gaba(talk)15:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
LOL. My bad. Well, at least he acknowledges that the Earth is older than ~6,000 years old. I'll try to find something better for that one then. What's wrong with the other source noting the possible plant-based origin? 24.20.203.54 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
As a follow-up remark, I originally had no idea in suggesting this additional page content that so much of abiogenic discourse would be so heavily rooted in conspiracy theory. I sure stepped in it. :( 24.20.203.54 (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, those are definitely better sources. The DOE site can replace your original first source (change the edit accordingly) and I really have no particular issue with the second one. As for the rest of the sources, I'd say they would be a best fit for the Abiogenic petroleum origin article. Regards and thanks for taking the time to come up with better sources :) Gaba(talk)01:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Marc Morano
Extended content
Comment left on talk page. We need to resolve this issue or you need to just back down. The current comment is far worse and less factual and ripe with opinion. I have added nothing that is not sourced which was why you have reverted and then you failed to even address that part of your argument. It is clear you just do not like the comment even though it is a factual representation based off the actual source of Reference #5. Jvaughters (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Gaba, you are far off base and I am not going to back down on the improvement of statement concerning Reference #5. You will need to help draft a more acceptable wording. The current wording is clearly a POV issue. The statement I added was not any more poorly written than the existing comment and furthermore was much more accurate and factual leaving out opinion. Find a better wording or I am moving this to dispute.
Comment being replaced
He followed this up a year later with a report of over 650 scientists who, he claimed, believed that global warming was not caused by human activity.
Comment Reverted
He followed this up a year later with a report of over 650 scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. In this US Senate Document the scientists provided statements that supported global warming was not caused by human activity and directly disputed the evidence provided by the UN IPCC.
Comment Suggestion re-write
He followed this up a year later with a report of over 650 scientists including many current and former UN IPCC scientists who have now turned against the UN IPCC. In this US Senate Document the scientists provided statements that supported global warming was not caused by human activity and directly disputed the evidence provided by the UN IPCC.
Note
I took out the commas, because that is all I see wrong with the statement. But I am open for your input. The comment that I most object to is "he claimed" this is clearly an opinion. The report is not about what he claims, it is about a collection of statements from scientists. I look forward to your participation.
Hi
I just wanted to say Hi as I've recently joined the WikiProject related to some islands located in the South Atlantic and noticed you are also a member. I look forward to collaborating with you and others on improving these articles to most accurately represent consensus international views. Best regards, BlueSalix (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi BlueSalix and thank you for the note! Unfortunately myself and another editor from that group (Wee Curry Monster) are topic-banned from all articles related to the Falklands due to a our inability to work collaboratively with each other. I'm not sure to what extent I could exchange comments with you without breaking the topic ban, but if at some point you need help (particularly about past discussions of certain topics, like the one you are having with Kahastok right now) you can of course ask me and I'll request assistance to see if I can help you within the boundaries of the TB. Cheers! Gaba(talk)21:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Gaba, Good advice and thanks for informing me of protocols, still learning. You are right, we will never agree. For me undeniable evidence provides truth, short of that you have theory. This does not allow for any consensus if you actually want truth. This means addressing the skeptics valid issues. It kind of disturbs me that other educated people cannot agree to that. I did not make up the Scientific Method, I just follow it rigorously. No hard feelings, I need to learn to stick to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaughters (talk • contribs) 20:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and don't worry we can disagree. It's one of the few things in WP that is not against the rules :D. Cheers mate. Gaba(talk)23:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.
Thanks for reverting the nonsense on global warming controversy earlier today. However, you have been whacked with a (small) wet trout to remind you that while POV-pushing is bad, copyvios are worse and you should keep them in mind when you see a relatively coherent wall of text added to an article by a new editor. The screed you reverted was an exact copy of the copyrighted text linked to.... Sailsbystars (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is not with my edit, but with an apparent recent change in the parser that breaks the interpretation of the AMS-LaTeX markup. The word "aligned" appears to be substituted for "align" in the input, after which the input fails to parse. You can see this at work (among other places) at Help:Displaying a formula (search for "align"). (As you can see there, \begin{cases} still works fine, so the message unknown function '\begin' is misleading.) This should be reported as a bug – if it hasn't been already – but right now I'm trying to finish an urgent job and don't have time for that. --Lambiam18:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I undid the closing of the discussion in the Global warming talk page. This was originally posted by a user who had some edits (correctly) reverted - he followed Wikipedia policy and brought the discussion to the talk page. Clearly, he is unlikely to be allowed to make the edits he suggested but he should be allowed to discuss it if he wishes, and has behaved properly. Atshal (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Atshal, I closed the new section for two reasons: one the comment was repeated in the section above and there's no reason to have two separate sections spawned from a single comment; since NAEG deleted the first comment that issue is now resolved. The second reason is WP:NOTFORUM; unless there is a specific edit to the article being proposed, general discussions on the article's topic (specially tendentious ones) are discouraged since they will usually lead to empty argumentations with no real article improvement. Regards. Gaba(talk)01:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand your reasons, but feel that doing that kind of thing will scare off new users who genuinely want to improve articles. The standard response when people make edits that are reverted is to ask them to take it to talk - that is exactly what this user did, and the discussion was then promptly closed before it had time to get started. Clearly the edits he wanted to make were never going to be made, but I think he should be treated a little more gently. Atshal (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
rambling pontification
I've come to believe that engaging in technospeak frequently has the effect of intimidating others from joining the conversation. Whether that effect is the reason for the technospeak in the first place, I do not know. But since such language can easily be avoided by those wanting to have conversation with a wide range of editors, the choice to mainly speak in technospeak says to me that such editors aren't really following a neutral point of view but instead want to drive off others who don't have the training to rebut technospeak. Fortunately, the only training anyone really needs is a thorough understanding of wikipedia's core policies like NPOV, BRD, CONSENSUS, and what the devil is meant by RS. So cast out fear and carry on! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry NewsAndEventsGuy but you kinda lost me :) Is your point that I should engage more in threads such as this one instead of proposing they be shut down? If so let me clarify that I only make such a proposal when I see that a discussion has run its course and is already stepping into WP:NOTFORUM. If a clear way to edit the article is not being proposed then the editor(s) should just go ahead and make the edit and then it can be discussed (possibly after this is reverted) In that particular thread it seems that noone is objecting to the removal of a statement by Dave, so if that was the origin it should end there.
I'm not intimidated by the technospeak (I'm a physicist, I can handle it :P) but I do believe that in this particular case used by a particular editor is simply an attempt to muddy the waters.
My point is this: be WP:BOLD and make whatever edit or expand whatever section or create whatever article you feel needs this done. Spending an enormous amount of time discussing it before the edit is done is, IMHO, not very helpful and has the end result of dragging the issue far longer than it should.
Oh yes, I'm familiar with it (I know editors who have "retired" in a huff at least twice now yet they still edit) and I believe it definitely applies here. Cheers. Gaba(talk)19:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hope you approve
e/c (I got your "thanks" while posting to Nigelj but I'll go ahead and complete the task here anyway. carry on!)
Nigelj and Gaba p (echoed at both your talk pages) I suppose I should have asked first but in light of the IP's choice to self-revert there was no purpose any more for some of our collective housekeeping comments so I deleted them. Certainly complaints about NOTFORUM would pertain to some of the earlier remarks, but hopefully the exercise of complaint-collapse-selfrevert has established a prvention-producing precedence (PPP). My apologies if I overstepped, and by so doing plunked my pedal in poo (also PPP). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You are hereby granted erasing power over any comment/edit of mine as long as the end goal is to advance a discussion/article productively :) Cheers mate. Gaba(talk)19:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You should probably review this [10] as that was when she was removed. She wasn't restored until last week and I reverted that edit. If you want to restore her, you should address the BLP issues raised on Jan 8 when she was removed (not by me). You have reverted to a BLP violating version. Note that my only edits were reverts and not a deletion. Per WP:BRD, you should discuss my revert before reverting again. Please undo your last edit and return the article to pre-jinkinson edit. --DHeyward (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
No. That's a lie. I reverted an edit. [11]. I didn't make a new edit. You can tell by the little "undid" tag in the summary which was added when I clicked "undo". I made no edit whatsoever to the article. After my revert, the next phase is to discuss whether Jinkinson's addition in a different section with a different source should be added. Jinkinson was bold, I reverted, now discuss. Please undue your edit warring. --DHeyward (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Please tone it down DHeyward. Your reversal of an edit that stayed untouched and unchallenged in the article for 2 weeks counts as a new edit. And I only made one rv on that article, you made three. I'm not the one edit warring. Regards. Gaba(talk)21:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
You mean an undiscussed new edit was reverted within two weeks. Meanwhile, Curry had been off for over a month before being added with a different source in a different section with no discussion. Had I noticed or had someone bothered to notify the talk page, I would have reverted sooner. But it's still a reverted edit that you are edit warring over without discussion and a BLP violation that you restored. --DHeyward (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I only brought it here because this is an editor behavior issue, not content. Jinkinson was bold, I reverted, but rather than discuss, other editors chose to edit war. That's an editor issue, not content. --DHeyward (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Which part of the "Undo" button do you disagree? No edit was made. Just a click. Is it your contention that reverting vandalism after two weeks isn't a revert because it became "consensus?" Your argument is incredibly week and arbitrary. --DHeyward (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I do not disagree with you hitting the Undo button, I disagree with that counting as a revert of a bold edit as part of the WP:BRD cycle. What you made was an actual edit, doesn't matter that you chose to use the Undo button. Your bold edit was reverted and that's when you should've gone to the TP.
Sorry mate but I re-removed the graph because it is an importation of OR by a blog reader. However, I do hope someone with graphic artist skills can re-do the blue lines to match skeptic claims reported in RSs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
No apology needed, I see the value in the objections raised even if/when I do not share those objections 100%. Regards. Gaba(talk)13:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you know any graphic artists who can use the concept of the image and bring it into compliance with RSs? If you don't know, we're encouraged to make our own RS based images. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean to simply replicate the escalator image using Skeptical Science as a source or are you thinking of a new image using different sources? I can plot such an image in python with no problems, I'd just need to know exactly what we are aiming at. Regards. Gaba(talk)15:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I mean to make a new image; on the file for the image (and not where it gets used) we attribute the original concept to SkepSci in keepign with the CC3.0-attribute license. However, we add RS citations (not to skepsci) for 100% of the data that appears on the image. That would include the squiggly line, it would include a red line for the straightline rise (we should be able to find a source somewhere that says "from 1970 it has risen X", and we add blue lines for various skeptic's claims of no warming or cooling. Note that we can use non-RS denier blogs for the blue lines, since they are RS for fact that they said their own statements. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I can throw together graphs about pretty much anything temperature-related if y'all want. Why heck, I can probably even SVG-ify them. Basically, what you're saying is we want to replicate the escalator. The main problem with that is the sourcing of the inclines and the declines (i.e. we can't just pick them arbitrarily as SkS does). You would have to have a source that lists the various periods of apparent decline. Now where would one find such a source... hmmm... Sailsbystars (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I was about to say something very similar to what Sailsbystars just said. I have no problem in producing a PDF high quality image with python, the sourcing is the issue since SkepSci is out of the picture. NewsAndEventsGuy do you have these sources at hand? Regards. Gaba(talk)23:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I dug about looking for papers on climate variability that might have such data and came up empty. Although one of Mike Mann's ancient papers on natural climate variability (pre-hockey stick) came up in the search.... which I found... interesting...but unhelpful in this particular matter. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking we'd find sources not about scientists reporting of slower warming\coolimg, but rather for where skeptic/deniers read the signal to say "stopped"/cooling. Skepsci has a post that provides some such links. I linked it at talk for gw hiatus.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Ted Nugent
Thank you for your interest in Ted Nugent's wikipedia page. Please note the following edits have been made to the page and their appropriate citations. If you have additional questions about the material, please feel free to message me before making future revisions. Thank you.
1.) Notable Instruments: Nugent is known for playing three other guitars besides a Gibson Byrdland. He is known for using a Gibson Les Paul, PRS Guitars (custom 24), and a Gibson Howard Roberts Fusion. The notable instruments column should reflect this.
2.) The introductory section contains political opinions, which violate wikipedia's rules. The use of the word "crude" is not an objective statement of fact and should be removed to reflect wikipedia's rules.
3.) Nugent's position on global concert gross ranking is noted by Rolling Stone, a reputable source for musical information. As such, the page is amended to reflect this standing with the appropriate citation.
Citizen150 I've reverted you again as per WP:BRD (among other policies). I have to warn you that you could be blocked for WP:EDITWAR if you continue reverting. Please open a new section at the article's talk page explaining your edits and they can be discusses. It's pretty much what you did here but over here. Also, always remeber to sign your comments typing 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of your messages. Regards. Gaba(talk)17:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Edits to CFACT page
Gaba, I see you reverted a change I made to the CFACT page. I'm not going to revert your change, but I'd ask that you please do so and that you discuss the issue on the talk page before making changes. Thank you. Turnout8 (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Driessen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Sorry that I wasn't clearer on the extent of the problems. I believe I've listed most of the pov concerns currently under discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Straw poll
Hi Gaba - I saw your comment on the Ken Ham talk page. To keep this orderly, in just a few minutes I'm going to insert a subsection break and re-factor so that your !vote leads off the straw poll and encourages others to do the same. As this means I'll be moving your text down just a little, please refactor or adjust anything that I do to your comment as you see fit! Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I have a solution, I'm just waiting for a woolly thinker to change it again, then I have a bold edit ready. This message ought to self destruct, but it probably wont. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Tedious
Regrettably Andrew really doesn't seem to want to take the hint, and indeed is digging a deeper hole. Looks to me that he's already well over the line for WP:ARBPS sanctions, given the background it would be very helpful to put together something about the repeated wall of text problem. A concise statement with a few links should suffice for an uninvolved admin experienced in dealing with the topic area, or were you thinking of another route to administrator intervention? Unfortunately I can't spend much time on this for a few days, so am grateful to you for raising the point. Thanks, dave souza, talk20:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Tedious is definitely the word to describe this. I think we should give him one more chance to realize his talk page editing style is quite disruptive, I've left him a clear message about this in the talk page of Teleological argument. If no change happens and he continues down the same path of WP:FORUM, WP:PAs and WP:WALLOFTEXT then WP:ARBPS will certainly have to be considered. Regards and thank you for the note. Gaba(talk)00:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything to gain making the same comments I made in the Teleological argument and the Intelligent design articles in AL's talk page. He's well aware by now that he's been warned about his WP:PAs on other editors and his disruptive TP editing. If there's a next time where he attacks other editors then it's either WP:ANI or WP:ARBPS as Dave said. Where you referring to something else Myrvin? Regards. Gaba(talk)14:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
You've recently edited the lead in Astrology. In general it was a needed edit, but you removed too much. I've added a bit to the lead to include some summarical essentials, so at the moment it contains, at least, the bare minimum that it should contain. You're invited to take a look. François Robere (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi François Robere thanks for the note. I've just copy/edited the lead to make it simpler. I suggest that if further discussion is needed we move it to the talk page of the article to avoid fragmentation. Regards. Gaba(talk)14:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Wrt to Andrew at ID
Yes, I agree it's best not to engage in endless discussion. His writing is so obtuse I can't understand half of it, like the last paragraph he posted. Yet, asking for clarification just produces more garble. Sad; he could be a valuable contributor. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note Yopienso. Really, it's sad that he can't see how he's diving headfirst into a topic ban not far down the line, he seems like he could be a productive editor if he would just learn to drop it. Cheers to you. Gaba(talk)02:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I knew there had to be a policy about linking every day words. I was only familiar with a similar one, WP:SEAOFBLUE, but it didn't seem to apply in that case. Thanks NAEG! Gaba(talk)02:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marco Rubio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Hayes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
User:Gaba_p - where is it exactly stated that I can't detail your warring on the talkpage? Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Please see my comment here.[12] You could have just as easily had said "this belongs in the lead, being a conspiracy theorist is what put him on the map" and your point would have been just as valid. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
