Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 September 2012
Please discuss desired article improvements at the appropriate article talk page. Since this is my talk page I control the content and I do not host protracted subject matter debates on my talk page. Per WP:OWNTALK. If you continue trying to soap box here I will likely just delete it NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Global warming controversy". Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!
Discussion with Nigelj (formerly titled "The upper hand")
[1]. For my own part having lived through WP:ARBCC, I have seen great editors, who had worked tirelessly and diligently to keep the GW articles sane and useful, including throughout the Scibaby era and the CRU e-mail nonsense, pilloried and publicly humiliated using little more than a selection of their talk page diffs. I have therefore tried to become Mr Good Faith Personified whenever a GW edit box is open. I would rather look a prat for having been nice to the devil himself, and still be here to edit the articles, rather than be driven off the project or banned from the subject area like so many good and useful people were at that time. It's hard to be more chatty or more specific as I believe everything here can and will be used against people next time there is, for example a swing to the right in American politics, and these people feel they have the upper hand here again. ;-) --Nigelj (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though where I can point to evidence and offer a good faith opinion that it is strong evidence of a lack of good faith, I am not terribly concerned I will be damned for that, especially in light of my AGF track record with lots of other folk. Warned maybe, but everyone's mileage can vary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion with Ronz (formerly titled "Huh?")
Re [2]: "Only thing I want to hear from Ronz is his answers posted to article talk page, to Qs on that talk page, per WP:BOOMERANG warning issued to Ronz at ANI he started against WMC"
I'm not sure what to make of your edit summary.
As you are aware, I won't be posting anything further on the article talk page for some time. I'd like to resolve these concerns best I can in the meantime. I contacted you here because of your interjection into my doing exactly that.
Interesting interpretation. It completely ignores the purpose of user talk pages, and I'd say the purpose of WP:MULTI as well. However, it's your choice. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I don't understand your behavior. You won't engage with me here, but you repeatedly interject your comments in discussions I'm having with others... --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here on my talk page, I would like a response that addresses the one question I have asked you here on my talk page (did you ever comply with that ANI result by getting a mentor?)? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The anchor template is part of the section header; I didn't do anything with it. I'm not entirely sure how it works either.
The edit summary was the explanation for why I inserted "typically".
Occasionally we don't completely restart the block length. Conversely, we sometimes reblock the sockmaster for a time longer than the original length. For example, let's say that you commit sockpuppetry for a sustained period of time and get caught multiple times, eventually resulting in a block of two years. After that, you get caught again. It's entirely possible that the consequences would be an indefinite block, rather than just a block for two years after you get caught.
Dear NewsAndEventsGuy,
Why in the world would you want to sanction me? What rules have I been breaking? I, like many other people on Wikipedia, think this article needs to be less biased. The only reason no one here agrees with me is that they've all tried before and gotten nowhere. I thought that maybe, since I had some good sources and some sense, that I could get you guys to change this article. Believe me, I'm certainly not one of those annoying radical conservatives who like saying "global warming is disproven" (whatever the heck that means). The only reason I KNOW this page is biased is because I've been researching this paritcular topic for nearly a year now, FOR and AGAINST climate change, and this article I'm trying to edit is an offense to science.
Believe me, If this article, "scientific opinion" had ONE thing, ONE LITTLE TINY THING representing the other side, I would be happy. It's the ONLY ARTICLE I've ever sen that is so inappropriately biased.
As for my sources, I have mentioned many times that they are indeed self-published, but THE IPCC QUOTES ARE ALSO SELF PUBLISHED! My petitions are fine, my surveys are fine. My sources are just as good as the sources in the "consensus" section. None of them have "secondary sources" that prove they're scientific. Therefore, I dont' need any.
I am convinced that most of the editors, unlike me, care more about their personal opinion than anything else. If I brought up a peer reviewed, published survey sent out by the IPCC and signed by 5 million meteorologists, somebody would still find fault with it. If people are really so biased that they would sanction me for merely stating facts that they disagree with, I suppose I'd better leave, but I hope that Wikipedia is not that unfair.Cybersaur (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the above comment, you wrote "most of the editors, unlike me, care more about their personal opinion than anything else." Wiki policy includes assume good faith, and in my view this comment is an example of a battleground mentality... something that the ARBCOMM decision explicitly condemned. But in any case, nearly all of your posts lack RSs and in my view are WP:SOAP. Often they disparage living people, or groups of people, contrary to WP:BLP. I don't want to have you sanctioned because that too is battleground thinking. The purpose of sanctions here at wikipedia is not punishment but prevention. The only thing I want is for WP:CIVIL discussion, based on WP:RSs, about how to improve articles. If you work a heap harder at that, then sanctions probably won't happen. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand perfectly why you think I am doing WP:SOAP. I believe you are 100% mistaken, but I still understand. Most people just don't seem to understand my point: I don't CARE if the article says global warming is a fact! I just want to be fair to the many dissenting organizations out there. As for the criticism of organizations, I will do my best not to criticize any of them. However, you have to admit, most people were not setting the best example for me...they did they said all sorts of terrible things about the ICSC and especially the Heartland institute, talking about how it was a propaganda organization funded by petroleum companies, and bringing up "examples" of how it has lied in the past. I don't know why you don't give those guys a hard time, but I at least will be careful in the future.72.80.192.180 (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your promise of increased civility; the bigger problem is your lack of WP:RSs to back up your opinions. In reply to your comment I don't know why you don't give those guys a hard time, a partial answer is that I am not the playground attendant; if you think there is cause, you can initiate the WP:DR process yourself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand EXACTLY how my sources are unreliable...I mean, people keep attacking them using these ridiculous conspiracy arguments, saying "they are oil shilling companies run by morons who don't care about science" and all that garbage. I could easily come up with absurd statements about the IPCC, too. I mean, WHAT on EARTH am I supposed to respond to all that stuff? They don't have any sources to back up what they say, they only have these misguided conspiracy theories. The reason I havn't been bringing up any NEW sources, is that I STILL havn't heard any good reasons that my sources are bad72.80.190.67 (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you just keep going on about them without doing anything substantively different, people will complain that you are engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to a disruptive extent. The next thing for you to do, in my view, is to ask for some outside advice from editors who hang out at the reliable sources noticeboard, and there are other options for you under WP:DR. After so many people have said they're not reliable and some of those people have attempted to say why, if you just keep asking us to rehash that same ground someone will likely study the ARBCOMM climate decision a bit more carefully to see what provisions apply to that behavior. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why you reverted my edit on the page. In the edit summary you ask for 'single' changes, yet the article as it stands now presently is infected with many falsehoods and required a substantial change, the article gives undue weight to a widely discredited publication by an anti-nuclear advocate- Benjamin K. Sovacool that stands apart from the findings of respected bodies, such as the IPCC. Now due to your revert, the article once again presents a single discredited source as fact. This is giving him undue weight. So I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to revert your censoring of actual rigorous science.
If you have a problem with any of the reference, can you please just discuss it first on my talk page, before moving to do a blanket censor?
First, please take your uncivil censor language and burn it. Assume good faith. You are asking me a reasonable question (why) and then punching me in the nose at the same time. Ask first. If you don't like the answer, you should still burn the censor language but take your complaint to DR. As for the question itself, I will be happy to answer a well-formulated question, which this is not. To turn it into a well-formulated question -
(1) Since it is in regards to article improvement, post it on the article talk page, and
Could I ask you to comment on the changes I've made to the article Climate change mitigation instead of trying to reprimand me for the manner in which I've made the edits? Or simply reverting the article outright as you have done? I will be more than willing to discuss my edits, and hopefully you'll agree that I have added considerably to the article. Boundarylayer (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be glad to WP:FOC of any changes made within our policies and guidelines at the article talk page. Where changes appear to be made outside of our policies or guidelines, I'll likely address that too. Meanwhile, if you have a specific complaint behavioral complaint you're welcome to ask me here, but only if you provide a specific DIFF so we have a chance in hell of resolving your complaint. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I would like to know what you think of the changes I've made to the article? Any areas you think could be further improved?
In my opinion, it's ineffective and unfair to frame the question as "what did you think of the entire kit and kaboodle?", and I decline to answer the question framed that way. There are two approaches I like better and they are (A) "Do you think I am doing a good job editing within wiki procedures and policies?" and (B) "What did you think of this DIFF? Overall, I think you should not make a ton of edits all at once because its hard for other editors to keep up, and comes across as an emotionally driven campaign something like ohmigodigottahurryuptochange XYZ because of bias..... only that smacks of other bias. So slow down, for pete's sake, lest people start to think you're just bitching about antinuclear bias so you can inject your own pro-nuclear bias. What we should be doing is injecting neutral discussion of whatever is said in the RSs, with due regard to weight, etc. I think I've asked you three times previously to discuss article-improvement issues on the article talk page, so I trust you will respect that request and stop asking me about article improvement issues here Other editors want to participate too. We are not cooking up consensus in cigar smoke filled back rooms, which is what detailed side discussions at user talk pages sort of looks like. We should be cooking up consensus in the light of day, where all interested parties can learn of the discussion, which is what the article talk page is designed to do. Please use it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taking your advice
Hey man, trying to take your advice, and seen as you're involved with the ecology aspects of energy production, I thought you might be a good person to ask, if you're willing, for a third party opinion on an edit that continues being entirely reverted by Kim D. Petersen, which is then being followed by odd taunts on my talk page. Speaking of talk pages, could you reply to me there, thanks man.
Here is the edit history of the article page. Personally I believe they are attempting to drag me into a 3RR edit war with them, or something similar. I don't think they understand that if 7 ecologists and biologists publish a peer reviewed paper in 2010 discrediting 1 persons 2009 wind turbine 'avian' death rate(deaths/GWh) per unit of energy generated findings(Sovacool's) and then that same 1 person(Sovacool) later publishes a paper titled 2009 update with the same exact bird death rate, without dealing with the meat of the criticism leveled at him, then the earlier criticism by the 7 scientists still stands. With the 7 ecologists and biologists own bird death rate findings also, obviously, still being needed to make the article more balanced.
Here's the peer reviewed criticism of Sovacool's suggestions.-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142150900620X or free full access here - http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/11581Bats are not birds and other problems with Sovacool's analysis on animal fatalities due to electricity generation. Journal of Energy policy 2010, vol. 38, issue 4, pages 2067-2069.
BL, I'm weighing in here, again, because, again, you don't seem to be aware of the facts. First, the Willis et al. response had a number of serious methodological errors, which were published side-by-side their article. So my study was in no way discredited, and, if anything, Willis et al. made some serious mistakes. See here http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.052,, and keep in mind that this response was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Second of all, the 2009 update was accepted for publication in 2008 but not published until 3 years later, such is the nature of the long peer-review process. So it's not that I didn't take into account Willis et al, I did so (see below), just not in this piece. Third, to see new analysis that incorporates some of the criticisms of Willis et al., though not all of them (since their own arguments were flawed), see these pieces, also peer-reviewed: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2011.09.019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.004, and http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2012.746993. Next time, be responsible enough to check your facts before you start making baseless assertions.Bksovacool (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, this is a courtesy notice to inform you that the clarification request you submitted regarding Climate Chnage has been closed and archived. The archived version can be viewed here, and the orginal here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)#[reply]
If what I sought were a clearcut matter of enforcement I would agree. However, I only asked for the pre-enforcement warning. I sure could be wrong, but without black and white instructions, I still think ANI is the correct place to request action from any uninvolved admin. Would welcome further comments or wikilinks so we can all learn more for next time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your Response To My Response to Sailsbystars
Your response made little sense and I'm not sure what to make of it. I can't tell if you're pro-Global warming or not. Other than that, why did you hide what I said and can you unhide please. It was just a talk page not the actual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.157.112.122 (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is in reply to your post on my talk page and on the talk page of the climate change mitigation article. That New Scientist may not be a RS could be a valid discussion, but just for the record, my edit was concerning adding the para after it. The New Scientist citation was there before my edit. JustBeCool (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS Oh I see what happened now. I hate it when the diff screen displays that way, when a person just removes a blank line. Anyway, point noted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drought image
Hi there! So I am afraid I'm the bearer of bad news, but I tagged an image you uploaded to commons for speedy deletion. [Link]. The image has a specific copyright text at the bottom that it is NOT public domain, and is in fact not licensed for commercial use (although it is free for non-profit and educational use). While work done by US Civil servants is public domain, I don't think UCAR/NCAR are actually civil servants. While they are funded by NOAA/NSF grant money, they aren't part of those organizations (it's contracted out). I don't think their work is automatically public domain (especially when their webpage explicitly says it is not). I went to update the image because it turned out to be outdated, but in doing so discovered that the licensing terms are not compatible with wiki. Do you know of another source for the image or similar where the copyright is actually public domain? (we might be able to save it that way) Sorry for the trouble, but licensing issues are really important.... and easily messed up. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, apparently they whiffed on the original study so drought maps were running about a decade ahead of schedule (hence the update they posted). Good news for my retirement years, though! Regarding licenses, I looked into it, uploading to enwiki under non-commercial use license still isn't kosher. The only way it can be uploaded to enwiki is under fair use, which means lower image resolution, and justifying it under NFCC #8 "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" (which shouldn't be too hard to sell). Sailsbystars (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we both suggested uploading under the same policy.... beats me why the text appears on two different pages. But regardless, we can't just rely on #8 we have to satisfy all 10. Where did you get the "lower resolution" bit? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Low resolution, see 3b. All of the others criteria are readily satisfied in this case, which is why I didn't bother to mention them. #8 is one of the most common reason for deletion of a fair use image, hence why I explicitly mentioned it. If #1 could be not be satisfied, that would be ideal, but I couldn't find any Wikipedia-definition-of-free version. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination was random in the sense that someone got arbitrarily singled out for engaging in a behavior that is widely considered acceptable by the community. To put things into perspective:
The Anome, a random user, has 3 userpages that are at least six years old;
JIP, another random user, has 9 userpages that are at least seven years old;
Jengod, another random user, has 42 userpages that are at least eight or nine years old.
The catch here is that it takes some serious gall to start launching inquisitions against experienced users because they're either going to persevere or go down kicking and screaming, whereas inexperienced users are easy targets due to usually being unable or unwilling to defend themselves. As such, policy must be adapted to preserve editorial equality and to protect our most vulnerable contributors from fruitless attacks on their productivity. — C M B J05:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the real issue for you regarding WP:STALEDRAFT? You know of old stuff you want to preserve, jerks you think are getting by with breaking the rule, or are you upset about treatment of the poor defenseless newbies? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue is that I care about fulfilling our project's mission; therefore, I care about the integrity of our community: that all contributors receive respectable treatment, and that fruitful content is not needlessly expunged. — C M B J08:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing by platitude isn't likely to advance your cause very far. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just letting you know what I heard. What I heard is this; STALE-content by new eds should not be removed because STALE-content by old eds is not always removed and this is a problem because we need to preserve fruitful "NOT-STALE" content. So far, I'm not persuaded there is a problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. Its amazing how many folks try to talk about AGW in terms of the ENTIRE EARTH, or alternatively in terms of JUST SURFACE TEMP and don't know that they don't know (or studiously choose to not know) that the RSs refer to a five-part climate system made up of ocean, crust (lithosphere), atmosphere, living things (biosphere), and icy regions (cryosphere). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From Wickionary> "...talk (plural talks) A conversation or discussion. ...." [3]
The "Rules" say...
"... Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article...."[4]
If the Label states "TALK" yet the ensuing discussion is limited, perhaps the label should be changed. Wiktionary has a(n) ENTRY DISCUSSION CITATIONS format. Maybe the encyclopedia ought to have a(n) ARTICLE PANEL (as in editorial)FORUMS format.
If the forum entry is sensible then refer it to the panel ask them to include their citations. If the contributer falls into a debating, argumentative, rhetorical and similar pitfall, send them back to the forum?
Wiki is a work in progress, but still.... it may be awkward for new or occasional contributers.
Thanks, Guy, for your edits on CEE. Besides taking a look at the source, I'm glad that you took the time to edit the article. Since CEE is back on my radar screen, I think merging it to Library of Economics and Liberty is a good idea. As CEE is a low profile, unassessed stub a WP:BLAR might work. What do you think? – S. Rich (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But doing a BLAR is so clean and simple. Anyone who really objects can easily revert. IMO proposing a merge on a low profile article like CEE is just unnecessary work. Please tell me you won't mind if I go forward. If you do mind, I'll just leave the article as is. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Say, do thought experiment with me. Imagine you did this edit: [5]. If someone had reverted your edit and said "non RS" in the edit summary, what would be your course of action? Would you open a discussion and argue that Larry Summers is RS? (I'd think that would be a very short discussion.) On the other hand, wouldn't you hope (or expect) that an edit summary pointing out that Summers has (some) creditability was enough? In any event a discussion has been opened on the Global Warming page. – S. Rich (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of playing what-if over articles and references with which I am not (yet) familiar, I will instead just say that most of the time that I am reverted, if I both disagree and care, then usually I would post a diff to the revert on the talk page, and explain why I think the revert was wrong per WP:BRD. Also, I would usually pay extra heed to this process if the article is under an ArbCom ruling, as all climate change related article happen to be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@srich - I have never seen this kind of argument from analogy lead to constructive resolution on WP. Invariably it turns out too much is ignored in asserting the analogy. SPECIFICOtalk20:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Also, Sphilbrick and I have discussed a few parts of the draft on its Talk page here. I thought this conversation might be helpful to you in case you have some of the same questions. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to look for lost content from orig, RS quality, and NPOV. Sphilbrick I noted made lots of wordsmith comments, and I'm going to skip that...alas, there's not enough time to do it all! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, although I believe I kept the request for assistance pretty neutral. Yes, I was thinking something along the same lines. Since I don't want to engage in an edit war over at Polar ice cap I'll wait to see if the editor self reverts and if not I'll see what next step to take. Cheers. Gaba(talk)21:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for opining, and I should clarify that I did not say it would absolutely-positively constitute canvassing. I only meant that it exposes the parties to a non-frivolous claim of canvassing. Whether the various "appropriate" exclusions apply can be subjective. Who wants to go there, if it can be avoided? In other words.... stay out of the mud when possible. (Unless you want to kick your shoes off and play in it on purpose) That's all I meant. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ANI ANEW AE
Hi, just to offer a suggestion: Use WP:ANEW when it's edit warring, and use WP:AE when you want arbitration sanctions. ANI is perhaps one of the least useful places to ask for specific assistance on wikipedia when dealing with problematic editors. Only in special circumstances is it useful or necessary. Although fringe topics and CC are under sanctions, they don't get acted on at ANI, only really at AE. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I meant to ask for the official ARBCC warning. Awhile back when I was asking for a clarification at ARBCC it was suggested that (requesting any admin to do it at ANI) was a decent way to go. But of course, I forgot to add that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever thought ANI was a good way to go has never edited at ANI. AE is by far the best bet. As long as concise dated diffs are presented demonstrating the issue, it generally gets dealt with, IRWolfie- (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks for brining this back to my attention, I forgot about that post. After I said that I was thinking more about it, and now believe I was only told to find an uninvolved admin, but not told how to find an uninvolved admin. So it's on me. Anyway, thanks, I'll try AE next time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy F. Ball
Thanks for the backgrounder you left on my Talk Page about the deletion of the Dr. Timothy F. Ball article. Wikipedia becomes seriously less useful when it's manipulated by a censorship cabal like William M. Connolley/Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Stephan Schulz/Guettarda group. We shouldn't have to go to French or German Wikipedia in order to find what's missing in en.wikipedia because of censorship. And I certainly shouldn't have to "poke" an article like I did to find out what's going on behind the scenes. Unfortunately, those of us facing an information blackout because of an active censorship cabal like William M. Connolley/Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Stephan Schulz/Guettarda don't have much choice. Those guys are doing serious damage to the credibility of Wikipedia. Santamoly (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Moving forward, if you can't make your criticisms by
Sorry, I don't get what any of that has to do with me having to look for information on German or French Wikipedia simply because that same information is not permitted to appear on English Wikipedia. Some interest groups have discovered that a cabal of 3 or 4 editors can remove articles at will from en.Wikipedia by declaring that a notable subject is "not notable". Thanks for your puzzling suggestions but, actually, there's not a thing we can do about this. Santamoly (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is. You canfocus on content, talk about sources instead of editors, and make effective use of dispute resolution. Or, you can continue to just gripe. Personally, I'm not persuaded the guy is all that notable, either. You can insult me along with those other eds if you like, but that won't persuade me to change my mind. Good arguments expressed in a civil way and based on good RSs might, but that's not what you're doing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you understand how this looks from the reader's perspective, for example. None of what you say applies. How does "Focusing On Content", for example, help me find out why some people get their shorts in a knot over this guy? It doesn't. Dispute resolution doesn't help when a single reader is looking for information that a cabal is determined to suppress. There's no dispute since nothing exists. Reliable Sources don't help because the article doesn't stay in place long enough for facts to be sourced. And I can see that you're not impressed with his notability, but how does any of that help the reader to find out what Tim Ball (for example) has said or done to make the climate dudes get so agitated that they delete any mention of the man? The whole world knows he exists (over 2 million Google hits, plus articles in foreign Wikipedias), and we can all see that he was deleted from WP by a small group that simply doesn't like him. They've found a way to effectively censor Wikipedia. Santamoly (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know we don't usually talk about behavior on article pages but thought I'd mention, FYI, that this user has previously deleted an ARBCC head's up from their talk page.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[6]
If they deleted it, that means they read it. It's up to them how they manage their talk page.
In the interests of keeping talk page discussion focused, perhaps it would be better to remove that comment. It may be better in future to discuss such matters on user talk pages (either mine or that of the editor whose behaviour is in question, in this case). --TS17:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of a notice does indeed indicate that the user read it, according to WP:TALK. I'm happy with saying such things on articles' talk pages, for benefit of other editors who may be interested in enforcement. However, our of respect for yourself, and since you ask nicely, will do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article titled "Global warming controversy"
Hi there NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for for your recent comments to me regarding the Global Warming Controversy. :-)
I just shared with 'Gaba' my views on what I think the tension might be in my edits regarding Global Warming Controversy. I was interpreting the article to be a balanced presentation of the arguments for and against Anthropogenic Global Warming. However, it would seem, as recent edit reversions would suggest, the article is about presenting the resolved scientific consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming, and the scientific arguments opposing Climate Skepticism. This for me at least seems to be a drift away from a purely neutral presentation of the Global Warming Controversy, with the article making a relatively poor presentation of the Climate Skeptics' viewpoint.
I think maybe there is slight tension in the article title, Global Warming Controversy.
My suspicion is there would be a number of people coming to the article to get a reasonable articulation of each side of the debate, but they might be a little bit disenchanted with what is presented.
My suggestion and solution therefore, would be that wikipedia develop a separate, genuine article focused on 'Climate Skepticism'. That way wikipedians wouldn't have to exhaust themselves with NPOV arguments regarding the presentation of a Climate Skeptic's POV.
At the moment a wiki search for 'Climate Skepticism' is re-directed to 'Global Warming Controversy' which leaves the reader wanting for a better articulation of the minority viewpoint of the Climate Skeptics.
So what do you think???
A new article dedicated to discussing Climate Skepticism would be much more useful in my humble opinion....rather than people getting stuck in endless debates about NPOVs....???
Pursuant to the talk page guidelines the best place to suggest these things is at the article talk page. One specific proviso in the talk page guidelines that is currently a problem is WP:MULTI. At my last count there are four threads on three users' talk pages, plus the article talk page, all relating to your ideas about how our coverage of the topic might be improved.
Since you appear to be relatively new, here is the basic idea. Discussion about proposed
ARTICLE-IMPROVEMENT and
VALUE/MEANING/USE OF SOURCES
all belong on the article talk pages. Since a lot of other editors are interested in this topic, I am going to refrain from commenting on such suggestions until you propose them at the proper venue, i.e., article talk pages instead of user talk pages.
My apologies. The intention was to share some of the world's most interesting knowledge with the public. At your request, I will indeed put your message back on my talk page. And, in the future, I ensure you that I will create my own work based off information I obtain, Jwratner1 (talk)
That will be great, and we really love enthusiastic new editors. First, please clean up by deleting all the copyright protected imagery you uploaded. You are welcome to truly design your own WP:IMAGES but copying textbooks doesn't count. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)
You've been here long enough now to know there are lots of guidelines. They are not hard to find. You'll get the most encouragement if you demonstrate at least some effort to look stuff up yourself, for example.... please see WP:Copyright violations, and if there's something specific in there you don't understand I'll be happy to help find the answer.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive Editing
This is a warning that your editing of the Global Warming Talk page, appears to be contrary to WP:DISRUPT and to NPOV. Attacking other editors for disruptive editing without strong evidence and compressing talk discussions on the false claim that no specific proposal had been made makes it difficult to have coherent productive discussions. cwmacdougall13:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a second warning that your editing of the Global Warming Talk page appears to be contrary to WP:DISRUPT and to NPOV. For a second time you have compressed a talk discussion on the basis of a false claim, hiding crucial statements in an ongoing discussion, and inserting a biased incorrect editorial judgement in the explanation for the collapse. Such behaviour makes it difficult to have coherent productive discussions, and calls into question the neutrality of your editing of the article itself. cwmacdougall 0:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey. Just some backstory on the ID article. We've been discussing the issue you brought up for the past 6 or so months. The last 3 months or so have been solid discussion, non-stop. Consensus has strongly supported the current version of the article (with some minor adjustments) in all that time. The point of confusion is really just article scope. Some editors (two in particular) feel that the article scope should be some broad conception of intelligent design which includes historic figures (i.e. the teleological argument). The current article scope, however, is not that. It is currently written about a very specific form of the teleological argument which is promulgated essentially exclusively by the Discovery Institute. All the sources we have available back up that definition, and support the notion that the DI's version of ID is a unique concept. If you feel the article scope should be broader, then we would need new sources which showed that ID extended significantly beyond the DI... but honestly, I don't think now is the best time to start that, given the old discussion must have just been archived. It's been a really long issue, and I think we're all glad it's over without having to be escalated.
Anyway, I hope that's helpful. I reverted the failed verification tag just because consensus has pretty strongly supported the current wording for a while now, and I think it should probably be discussed first before we start tagging away. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥00:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... most of this might be most useful on the article talk page for the sake of any other newcomers. You have my ok to leave it here, or move it, with or without this comment. But if it were me, I'd move it. Anyway, thanks very much for a gentle explanation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hat/redirect....
-- at the $1 biilion (or a lot less) thread. I can never remember how to do one of those hat/hide tricks!
Interesting how these things get puffed up, even in places that should know better: SciAm, Nature Climate News, etc. etc. And, for all his protestations, Prof Robert J. Brulle, PhD (sic)'s news release is full of dubious puffery too -- though in fairness some of that could be his employers PR dept. Ah well. Best for 2014, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IN SUM, too bad the IP doesn't just pick a single article at a time, and spend a little time to actually make it better instead of just sticking in newslinks all the time. He is distracting other editors from making substantive improvements. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think....(that this is an obnoxious way to start a thread?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The constructive article-related stuff has all been said.
... that[7] there is enough jumping around in all of the different threads and topics already?
People are already mingling criteria, categories, notability, verifiability and god knows what else all over the place. As said it is much like a Gish gallop... whenever a point is reached on either of those, where it would actually be possible to have a meeting of minds, the discussion changes to another of them.
I really hope:
that we can get an FAQ down to pat.
that we can get the notability sources into a section just like the peer-review one.
I agree the whole blessed thing is a mess, but I disclaim any inordinate share of blame. Since you've opened the door to editor behaviour, one thing that will make it less of a blessed mess is a reduction (on your part) of speaking in the second person "you obviously don't get blah blah blah" type of thing. I'm not complaining about a specific edit, just your penchant for saying "you this" and "you that" in non-constructive ways (i.e., mild put downs, rebukes, insults). It's quite annoying whether you're speaking to me or someone else and just makes you sound arrogant. Likely you'll get more cooperation with others remaining ontopic disciplined if you abandon that style.
As for a cut off date, I think you are dead wrong that we can just pick one without an outside source, and I'll continue to say so. If we can make progress on the other things on your list, that will be great.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that critique to heart :) And it might explain some reactions, although i strongly suspect that for most it doesn't affect their views. As for the other issue on cut-off date, i respect that we have a difference in opinion on it... and i hope you know that whatever consensus evolves out of this mess (or later) is going to be respected on my part - i'm not going to be butt-hurt :) But i will argue my own view until that time. And i hope that you'll notify me, if i step out of line. --Kim D. Petersen22:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious... why don't you just create such an article[8]? Why would you want to "transform" the list into something that it has never been? It is (in my view) like taking an article about "climate change and livestock" and transform it into an article about "climate change and horticulture" because you figure that horticulture is more important. Sure there are similarities, but it is not as if Wikipedia is made of paper and paper is scarce. I would've answered on the list, if i wasn't tired of proposals being sidetracked by related but not on-topic things. --Kim D. Petersen21:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed been mulling it over for awhile, but have no plans to create a POVFORK or thing that can be accused of being a POVFORK because I proceeded without community support. For one thing, I don't have time to find all the related RSs thought I suspect they do exist. Community support would (in theory) involve some others with knowledge of potential sources. Further discussion should be on the article page. Start a new section for it if you like. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you create an article about something a category, list or navigational template already covers, then i have trouble seeing that it could be a WP:POVFORK. A navigational list is not there to provide information, which is what you appear to want - so it (again imho) doesn't conflict. As for creating such an article - it might be interesting - but i suspect that you will run into WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV issues long before it could even get off the ground. That is the whole issue here: This is by definition a list directing towards tiny minority->fringe viewpoints, and an article presenting such views, would have to be sociologically bound by describing not the views or persons, but instead the driving forces, conflict and political aspects... you'd get something like a 3rd leg to Climate change denial and Global warming conspiracy (possibly a umbrella/summary article).
And no. I won't take it to the list discussion page - since it doesn't belong there... what you have is the concept of a new article. --Kim D. Petersen 22:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Nb: Yep its your talk - but it is not polite to imply that i wrote that (quite impolite) headline, which it currently does). --Kim D. Petersen22:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition: I rather doubt that such an article would cater to any of the points you address, since currently the most vocal objections are based on the belief that fringe viewpoints shouldn't be addressed/noticed at all - but instead be suppressed from existance. --Kim D. Petersen22:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I pursue this it will be explicitly to convert the existing article/list-thingie into something that is unquestionably an article with an embedded list, and for that reason the proposal is not to create a new article. Er go, I will only reply more on this topic at the article/list-thingie's talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i can see that you are not willing to reason or exchange thoughts, but are instead determined to take the whole thing off-topic on the talk page (at least that is the impression that you give). --Kim D. Petersen23:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fair enough, I've passed out enough of the same warnings myself, though I have preferred to write original text most of the time. I once asked for ARB clarification if I, a regular editor, could hand out notices and log them as you have done, but the answer was that DS was under general review and I should await the outcome. Do you happen to know what developed in that effort? I haven't checked lately. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I've been telling others about ARBCC for the same purpose you templated me. For example, see these three from the last 10 days. (here and here and here; I'm just a regular editor, and for a long while now I mainly edit in climate change area. My objective in telling people of ARBCC is prevention, and I'm just a regular editor. Do my notices have "stick" for action at AE? In legal terms we would say the recipient of one of my notices has "Actual Notice", but the receiving party might try to argue for summary dismissal on grounds I lacked jurisdiction to serve notice and the notice was just as void as a non-existent notice. In street terms, do my notices have enough "stick" for follow thru at AE without undue worries of a boomerang ? Thanks for advice.... any help in keeping discussions constructive in the climate pages is appreciated. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it meets the requirements at WP:AC/DS#Warnings and WP:AC/DS#For administrators which {{Ds/sanctions}} is designed to do and it is logged on the case page then I don't really care who issued the warning (if it's by a sockpuppet it gets difficult). Re your three examples, even if they were logged, I would say that Cwmacdougall and Darkness Shines would meet the requirements but Punksta may not. My standard is (which is my interpretation of WP:AC/DS):
Does it link to the decision authorising sanctions?
Does it tell the user what they need to do?
Does it suggest possible consequences for not following policies? This one isn't as important.
Not sure why, there are a few non-admins who log warnings. I had the same feeling before I got the mop. I don't think the Committee has made a decision as to whether non-admins can log but in the mean time as far as I am concerned a logged notification is a logged notifications. As long as you follow WP:Involved (ie you aren't warning everyone on the other side of disputes) I can't see a problem. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I usually thank people on the other side of disputes if they have presented reasoned discussion, RSs, and work within the process. But I have little patience for SOAP and FORUM, which is what we usually get. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the need for DS. Thanking them should be fine, but warning them about DS while you are engaged in a content dispute for example would not be okay (and would probably get you sanctioned). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to say is that someone who posts RS-free SOAP and FORUM in the climate articles is not really engaged in a climate-related content dispute. Rather, they are soapboxing. Hence, I feel that INVOLVED, hinging on it does on there being a content dispute, does not stand in the way of a climate page editor delivering the notice. But I do try to tread lightly and rely on other climate editors also ringing the SOAP bell, because sometimes someone else might see something I don't, as recently happened... and then, after a lot of further discussion, another opined it was still soap. Seemed appropriate for me to deliver the notice in that case. Just for example purposes and not meaning to argue, do you agree ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. The notifications aren't necessarily (although in practice that's how it works most of the time) intended to be used after editors agree that they are breaching policy. How I see it should work is the user makes an edit, the user is notified of discretionary sanctions and that's logged, the user makes edits which are against policy (RS-free SOAP and FORUM) and an admin warns/sanctions or the user is reported to WP:AE. So as far as I am concerned, as soon as they made their first edit to the climate change topic they could have been notified. Does that make sense or have a just muddled it all up? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In theory that works fine, but in practice that would create an enormous secretarial headache. One solution would be to explicitly demarcate the pages where ARBCC applies, and to let the server pop up a warning box when such a page is edited. But I don't see that happening either. A better solution is to encourage anyone to pass and log these notices emphasizing that doing so is not evidence of a BATTLEGROUND mentality.... which is consistent with the disclaimer at the bottom of the template saying the template is not to be taken as an accusation of wrongdoing. In other words, If getting the template is no evidence of wrong, giving and logging should not be evidence of wrong either! Such an action would enhance prevention by protecting good faith editors from fear of backlash if they try to mildly referee their own subject areas prior to formal complaints being filed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion on the DS review about whether editing a page with an editnotice was enough but it was decided that it wasn't. I think once the new system is rolled out it'll be clearer that they don't imply wrongdoing. But the problem is always going to be the perception that it's being used to intimidate another user. Regarding non-admins giving notifications and logging, {{Ds/sanction}} is coded so that it can be issued by non-admin - have a look at the template's documentation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a great discussion, which I think has come to a close. I will check out the template doc and ping your talk page if I still have questions after. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the main point of the notifications. Their purpose is speed-banning. Anyone who receives one of these notifications can then be blocked or banned for a year with no warning, and no discussion; and it can be done by any one of the thousand or so active admins. And not just for editing in that topic. The notifications can, and have been, used on someone who makes a good faith comment on a talk page or AE or RFA. And you think they can be appealed, just by putting an unblock request on your talk page? Think again. Any admin who unblocks you can be subject to disciplinary actions themselves. The only person who will be determining the status of your unblock request is the same person who blocked you in the first place. And they have never been known to reverse themselves. —Neotarf (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally in any of the arbcom/arb enforcement procedures, users are generally supposed to comment only in their own area, but there are many ways of doing so. You can post under a subheading, either using a lower level heading than the main section or a line of bold text. You can also just indent on your initial remarks. You can also indent under reply to a particular individual to keep up a conversation of sorts. Some examples are below for your edification.
===Statement by Sailsbystars===
Here I present evidence blah blah blah (sig)
The statement by User:soandso needs to be seen in the context of xyz (sig)
This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee have authorised discretionary sanctions for Climate change, which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.
Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior and applicable policies. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.
Please carefully read the following notice:
This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee have authorised discretionary sanctions for , which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.
Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior and applicable policies. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.
Changing the heart of the battle-doers
Re: [9]: Unfortunately, we, as human beings, can unintentionally change the heart of battle-doers for the worse if we are not careful. With some luck, we can also slowly coax it away from the battle lines if we use diplomacy. I speak as someone who is slowly turning from totally tackless in person to someone who is approaching "average" in my diplomatic skills and seeing the fruits of it.
I've been following an ARBCOM action (it's tangentially related to an WikiProject I'm involved in), and the bottom line is that if any one of the editors who are having to defend their actions had been a little more peaceful and a little less defensive, it is likely that neither party would have been combative enough to be looking at sanctions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the discussion on the global warming controversy got collapsed. I thought the talk section was very well thought out. After reading the entries I learned a lot and went off to read up, but then it got closed out. Any thoughts on getting it redisplayed for its educational value? Kd4ttc (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re your comment on AC DS review [10]; that's just wrong: ruining Chocolate Chip cookies by putting nuts in them is entirely unacceptable, and, per WP:BEANS, should not be mentioned on-wiki. Yuk. Shudder. NE Ent11:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the issues that interests me on wikipedia, and one of the reasons I make edits, is the neutrality of articles. I do not think my edit was a "bold edit"particularly - but one that is clearly likely to be more accurate and is also more neutral. "Challenge" is a much broader term and does not infer motives in quite the way that 'undermine' and does have the same negative connotations. The claim that all such think tanks were aiming to 'undermine' is actually quite a big claim and one that is probably unknowable. The best you can do is write that this particular author claimed these think tanks were trying to undermine something. 'Challenge' is a more appropriate word since it is a much broader term, definitely accurate since it is incontrovertable - both 'sides' on this particular debate would certainly agree with it. It is a less strong claim, but one that can be made without the need to add something like "It has been claimed" to preface it.
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK[•]00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was watching the page but I do appreciate the courtesy! I replied there, but mostly to say we (including me) should be talking about ed behavior at ed talk pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of the part I removed addressed article improvements. It might be an interesting wikilawyer exercise to parse the "harmful" line under TPO, or think about other related guidelines etc to think if something else might apply better, but I decline. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More on the RSST
Thanks for noticing it--I didn't think anyone ever would. I've been using it myself fairly frequently (and have no idea whether anyone else ever has), but the idea of converting it into a real tool like those on Tool Labs is an appealing one. Can you explain how I would go about doing so? Jinkinsontalk to me03:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also: I've added a bunch more sites to the tool than are listed on the subpage, I just never updated it b/c as I said before I never thought anyone would give a shit. I can tell you what they are, or add them, or whatever you want me to do. Jinkinsontalk to me03:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't a clue, but before I worried about the mechanics of the packaging I would seek others' input on the concept itself. For both purposes I suggest soliciting advice from the nice folks at the reliable sources noticeboard, and maybe one or more of the village pumps. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this will jog your memory: "Since the purpose of the page is to post the url to a blacklisted site, in my view, the page is inapproporiately gaming the system by trying to side-step the blacklisting, and it should therefore be deleted, hopefully by its creator, or alternatively via WP:MFD." Diff: [11]Jinkinsontalk to me13:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, I did say that. Thanks for bringing that back to my attention. Those braincells were overwritten by a subsequent study of WP:Blacklist and warming to the interesting aspects of the idea. Hopefully I also communicated that I'd like to see additional user input at the noticeboard not just to create an obstacle, but because it merits discussion. But if that wasn't clear before, that is at least what I was trying to say.... most recently, anyhow! Thanks for not thumping my forgetfulness too hard. I went looking for my comments at the talk page, but they must've been toasted when the page was deleted. Anyway, carry on! I'm not going to participate in further discussion, but if it becomes hosted at a toolserver sometime, please let me know! Good luck. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How was I trolling?
Please explain why you deleted my comments. I wasn't trolling. Consensus means nothing with regards to science. It just means people agree. There was once a scientific consensus that the earth was flat. there was once a consensus within the nazi party that all jews were bad.
Here are my comments. Please nit pick them and show me where I'm trolling... or you could just delete me again.
"The scientific method has NOTHING to do with consensus. The scientific method is about having a theory and setting out to disprove that theory. If you can't disprove it then your theory MIGHT have merit. Completely accepting anything without skepticism is wholly UNSCIENTIFIC. Especially a relatively new theory and science such as climate change, which even if true, is bound to be wrought with errors and inaccuracies."2601:8:1E00:138:652E:FBCC:ECEF:88E5 (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The community at large has agreed to some talk page guidelines which say that the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss suggestions for article improvement based on what wikipedia defines as reliable sources. The wikilawyers can debate the technical applicability of the word "troll", but I'm more interested in what article improvement you were trying to advocate with that statement? If there wasn't any, then regardless of label your remark still fell outside of the talk page guidelines. If you can think of an article improvement based on what wikipedia defines as reliable sources, I'd love the chance to review a bold edit or discuss the idea at the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS Another question, what's with the weird, hard-to-contrast single-edit user names ?
Psss... IPV6... It's IP addresses, but the new version of them. Right now IPv6 represent a small number of IP edits to wiki, but eventually they will be all of them. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Ohhhh, and Thhhhaaannnksssss. I didn't knnnow about thaaaaaat. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've summarized my main edits, if you take issue with the removal of certain images, we can re-add them, rather than to revert evyerthing. prokaryotes (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. Please refrain from making baseless and unsupported accusations on other editors' talk pages. Thank you. John2510 (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You just did what I went to do and the realised that it was a good edit - just unexplained. I have left a polite message at the IPs talk page that edit summaries would be good. I would suggest restoring the text deletion - it makes better sense after the deletion. Thanks VelellaVelella Talk 19:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Anyone can complain about legal threats made against third parties, and.... I intend to do so if you start editing elsewhere w/o deleting that material first", see User talk:JamesBWatson#DRN and legal threats. JamesBWatson hasn't edited Wikipedia since I posted that so I assume that he hasn't seen it. You can do as you think best, but I would prefer that he be given a chance to handle it.
BTW, I loved "The issue is that wikipedia editors have to have a mutual trust and respect.... we can debate vociferously, we can get so fed up with each other we work on different parts of the project without speaking, but talking on the wikipedia platform about litigation against one another is not allowed." Well said. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: The IP address is currently blocked and I closed the DRN case. The block log entry says:
"JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) blocked 71.74.249.0 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 years (Making legal threats: <!-- There has also been much other disruptive editing -->)"
(A) New users probably ought not pass these things out, since they likely haven't an appropriate level of experience just yet, and
(B) Chronological analysis of the page and talk page histories demonstrates this is nonsense
(C) If you want to improve things around here, you might try commenting on the merits of the various proposals at the EW talk page instead of looking to stir up drama here
(A) Unless this is a new user name, your contrib history unambiguously shows you are a relative newcomer at wikipedia.
(B) Actions by admins at the noticeboards are not punitive. They are preventative. If you look at the time stamp of my posts at WP:Edit warring, and the time stamps of my posts at its talk page, you'll see that my actions have focused on discussing the text I think needs improvement.
I'm busy spelunking in wikipedia history charting climate change vs global warming, while prepping a contrib to the thread(s) at [{Talk:Global warming]]. There's a lot to wade through and I have to take it in bites. Anyone interested in chatting about the past evolution while I put my thoughts together.... you're welcome to peruse my notes in my sandbox, and/or opine away.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You recently removed an entry I made, saying it was unsupported. I thought it was supported in the text and links within. In any case, what kind of support do you think is needed?
Rbrustman (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
