Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
You didn't explain why the subsection has been allowed to stand for over 4 years. That doesn't make sense; the article's been edited hundreds of times since then. YoPienso (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Sort of irrelevant, and if you're implying a lack of good faith please post to my user talk and we can discuss it there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not implying a lack of good faith. Very often I have seen the argument made against removing longstanding content, with its tacit consensus, and the argument typically prevails. I think it's important to an article called "Polar amplification" to include both poles. YoPienso (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not. Instead, I think its important for such an article to discuss polar amplification at both poles. The disputed text in this case is stand alone text talking about projections of sea ice extent. As I've said (more than once I think) that is a stand-alone discussion of sea ice extent, not a discussion of polar amplification (which is about temperature). It can certainly be in articles where it would be appropriate, and if the RSs are there, and someone who knows the RSs wants to write about it, maybe it will be part of an antarctica polar amplification discussion also. But as stand alone text, its just a sea ice discussion, not a temperature discussion. Are you volunteering? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know those pages. My question wasn't whether consensus can change, but why it did.
OK, in my mind the sea ice is so basic to amplification I saw it as the same thing. I get your point now. I was thinking of something like "Previous studies have attributed an overall weaker (or slower) polar amplification in Antarctica compared to the Arctic to a weaker Antarctic surface albedo feedback and also to more efficient ocean heat uptake in the Southern Ocean in combination with Antarctic ozone depletion" from "The polar amplification asymmetry: role of Antarctic surface height." Otherwise, we could redirect to "Arctic amplification," which is also used in the literature. My personal preference would be to explain that the phenomenon is far more prevalent in the Artic than the Antarctic.
Great! Please do. I don't think "weaker" is the right word, would be interested to hear the specific comparison words used by RSs. Agree its time to move back to the article and its talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interactions with a certain user
Since I and another editor have both been editing in the climate pages for a long time, and since many threads of content and behavior issues kept popping up, I organized them here. I think there might be some of my commentary mixed in, I don't remember. But since this way of organizing this material has just been complained about, I thought I should add an explanatory note here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A neutral heading
Housekeeping, the OP called this section "stalking me" and I changed it to a neutral heading per TPG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please read WP:HOUND, since you seem to follow most of my edits on the topic of climate change, and start or engage in discussion related to my edits, or revert a considerable amount of them in the past few days. prokaryotes (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read the entire policy section. I'll quote and bold part to call to your attention.
(A) From WP:HOUND, "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." The key thing here is "no overriding reason". In my opinion, there is a higher than average rate of error in your science page contribs, so I watch to fix what I can. Often I think you may not be following the RSs, or have a very thorough understanding of the subject, or made edits that are poorly executed in the context of other articles and text. Examples include starting (in good faith) an article on the European heat wave when there already is one (nice job resolving that) and (in good faith but carelessly) re-reverting someone else when they appeared to delete a study you liked but you hadn't looked at the full context and so you ended up restoring the second iteration of the parpagraph plus a line with just a wikilink floating in space. I don't watch your climate and science edits to harrass you, only to make sure our article are well written and follow the sources. That leads us to the second criteria for being guilty of "hounding", doing it in a disruptive manner Read on...
(B) Also from WP:HOUND, "If..... following another user around is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, (then.....) it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." You have not shown the existence of any sign of disruption (see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, a shortcut I created because I try hard to call people on disruption myself). You have only said I watch your edits. You have not shown that I do it in a disruptive way, nor "for no overriding reason". If I were doing it to get at you personally I would watch ALL your edits, not just the ones that deal with climate related items. You've been around a long time with many other subject areas of interest. If I were after you personally I'd be looking up the other subjects and undoing your work there also. Sure, you haven't been to some of these in a long time but they'd still pop up a notice that you had been reverted. I'm not doing that am I? I doubt you can find a pattern in my comments of even rude remarks. Have a complaint beyond mere fact that I showed up at the same place you were and we can talk about it. Can you find examples where you asked a reasonable question and I just blew you off? There's probably one or two that I overlooked. Good luck showing a pattern.
(C) Wrap-up..... Follow the sources, place text in proper context, write well, follow MOS, and read the surrounding text to see how it all fits together, and you'll hardly ever see me tweak your contribs. If you want to know why I tweaked something, ask and assume good faith and I'll explain. If you disagree, there's always dispute resolution. I'll be glad to join you in any of those processes at your request. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Contextual notes to self in case this becomes a bigger issue.... awhile back (after a GMO TBAN) Prokaryotes requested a block on their account in an apparent wikibreak and earlier this year requested the block be removed so they could edit again. So far so good, once I also took a long break. The last few days P did a lot of work done at featured article Global warming. It was fast, and there were things that needed discussion even as more edits appeared. If I understand 3RR I could have reported P for edit warring or asked an admin to apply DS under WP:ARBCC because we both meet the technical "awareness" criteria for imposition of DS. Instead of doing either of those aggressive things, I left what I thought was a friendly comment about paying attention to 3RR and slowing down at P's talk page. In part, P told me to "stop interacting with me". The thread is here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a weird complaint. P edits popular articles that you've been editing for ages; so obviously you'll notice. And a complaint that you engage in discussion is double-weird; that's generally considered good William M. Connolley (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recent article here outlines coverage of media in regards to new PNAS Steffen et al. study, there are many other discussions along the way, including from scientists, media, and in the public. My idea is to create a new article along the lines of Climate doom. What do you think? prokaryotes (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good name for a personal blog maybe, but it would take a fair bit of persuasion that "climate doom" passes our naming policy (see WP:NPOVTITLE). Apparently we've both been reading a lot of the coverage of the Steffen paper. The particular one you cite here ("Terrified by ‘hothouse Earth’? Don’t despair — do something") is from Grist, which reads to me like a fair bit of opinion from the Grist author laid on top of the scientific content of the Steffen paper. This body of writing, coupled with the extreme weather and fires, can easily lead some to feel a sense of doom, but we still have to be neutral about it.
I suggest bifurcating this into climate science and mental health.
Then there's the mental health side. An article begging to be created is Ecological grief, see paper in Nature. That article should include a few lines about the quandary I've often seen mentioned - should we talk up just how bad some say things are, or is doing that ultimately self-defeating in terms of advancing societal change and mitigation policy? This is a question others are asking and I'm not suggesting we have a discussion about this, only that I've seen that mentioned in many places. It wasn't something I was working on and I didn't compile a bibliography. If research finds this dilemna in real RSs, as opposed to blogs and the like, then it would be good to develop text on that somewhere, including summary and pointer links at places like politics of global warming, ecological grief, public opinion on global warming, climate change mitigation. Etc.
But to the original question, I doubt "climate doom" would survive the inevitable challenge unless going in you had compiled a lot of unquestionably reliable sources to meet the subjective threshold test in WP:NPOVTITLE. But adding the 'doom' part as an element of ecological grief and the scary projections as part of the climate science articles would allow you to proceed on the content, without a battle from the skeptics. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, climate doom was just a pointer, could be also Climate despair, if you google these two words, lots of results. Currently not sure how much time I have for Wikipedia, will keep thinking about this topic. prokaryotes (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See this Social media is nice, but probably lacks the mental health benefits of being in a local group, where there is face time. Exerpt
"In a tweet, Diana Liverman, a climate scientist and co-author of the paper called out the media directly: “Clearly people aren’t reading the paper we wrote where our point is exactly that Hothouse Earth is not our destiny and that social system feedbacks are starting to move us to the Stable Earth. But media goes for worst case and makes it sound certain.”NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics
I have to confess, I like your attention to semantics, little details. However, the study you recently cited, is from February 2018, thus not responding to latest Rockström - the new PNAS study which is the subject of that part. And they made an outrages claim, that he was devoid of scientific data. prokaryotes (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not self-published. The report is a high profile compilation on IPCC, Risks, in this particular content addition, the report cites study results from Naomi Oreskes, who published on this very topic. Also from SPB guide, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field" - this report is from the experts. ... prokaryotes (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion 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.
Please stop making claims on various talk pages that I violate NPOV with my edits, or similar. I have read your input in this regard, and I disagree with your conclusions. I look forward to keep working with your critical input on various climate related topics, but continued claims of guideline violations are on the verge to disrupt the consensus finding process. You can always ask me to provide reliable sourced references for my commentary. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of discussions we had on talk pages over the years there might be actually evidence which can be construed as being in violation of NPOV terms. However, I usually do not post my personal opinions, and my article space edits should reflect that very clearly, since these are usually uncontroversial peer reviewed studies, or show results from all actors (IPCC, Critical of IPCC, mainstream ...). And yes fine, post on my talk page if needed. prokaryotes (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you certain that in your heart of hearts you're not approaching climate edits with a "We're fucked if we don't wise up" sort of inner panic, and hope for aggressive policy action? My impression of your GMO topic ban makes me think you kinda shifted the same vibe to a new issue. Even if the answer is yes, that's not evidence of POV violations all by itself. But I suppose it would make it a LOT harder to walk the line. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since this isn't AE and I'm not seeking admin review, I don't believe a careful contrib assessment would be especially constructive here. Instead I will just observe that if I'm talking smack my comments should make me sound like a weirdo. If they hurt, then remember the adage where there's smoke there's often fire. In the latter case, the better question is one for you... "How would another editor get that impression from my edits?" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Climate science is a fast evolving topic, and projections got more dire in recent years in regards to potential outcomes, and time scales. Thus, it is understandable if someone not following too closely on various topics, that things may sound dramatic or very alarming. However, you should always look at the sources, read author names, journal entries, abstracts or entire reports, or even google the topic, if in doubt - and before you brand someone as alarmist. But the bottom line is that the climate sciences are alarming, but it is something entirely different to claim we are fucked. I hope this clarifies your concerns and we can return to more constructive community editing. prokaryotes (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirmation you yourself are alarmed when you read the sources. I thought your diffs showed this quite clearly and it does help to have that honest self assessement on the table. Alone this doesn't show POV problems but its a piece of that puzzle. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I would appreciate the next time you think an edit is too controversial or alarming, ask me on talk to provide more background informations. prokaryotes (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not wrote that I am alarmed (the sciences are alarming, this according to leading climate scientists), but yes I am alarmed too, but I try to not have this influence my edits because of it. prokaryotes (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2018 (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.
Other threads of note
The following discussion 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.
This section is provided only for navigation. No discussion here please.
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.
Hey NewsAndEventsGuy, noticed your revert from a while back on the Global warming page and had a question.
In your summary I saw that you moved the info to the Effects of global warming page, but you also said "Just one single study". I was just curious, what kind of sourcing do you seek out for global warming, climate change and related issues? Any particular outlets you keep an eye on? Thanks! PcPrincipal (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good questions, thanks. As you probably know, complex topics on Wikipedia are organized in something of a tree, with a main article, and then some "main" sub-articles, which themselves might be fleshed out in sub-sub-article and even sub-sub-sub-articles. At the top articles, its preferred to have high quality WP:SECONDARY sources. These might include "literature review" articles in the professional journals, or quality media, and best are the ones that summarize a lot of scientific work. Its really tempting to add the latest soundbite from the latest paper that catches our fancy, and at main articles some of us - including me - try to keep that to a minimum because it makes for very disjointed and rapidly-dated writing. I'm not sure if this will really answer your questions, but here goes.... one can approach GW wikipedia editing in at least two ways. On the one hand, you watch headlines in something like GoogleNews and GoogleScholar and in fits of WP:RECENTISM try to shoehorn in the tag lines as they appear in search engines or social media. The other and far better way is to read our articles, and where you find a nuance that isn't explained very well start researching that nuance and propose a paragraph or two (or an article!) to improve our coverage of that little piece. If you do the latter you might be looking at old sources as well as new ones. An area where we are really weak is Climate security. That article is begging for well-written cohesive overhaul. Hope that helps! If you want to ask again, or ask something else, please do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I was not aware of WP:RECENTISM, that will be quite helpful to investigate further. Certainly makes sense given what you said about "rapidly dated writing". Thanks for you response and help! PcPrincipal (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
General sanctions
About this: That sounds quite reasonable to me. I think I would spin it differently than you pitched it, by focusing on lack of process in the one (and the confusion and drama that can cause), and us having a model for the process in the other, so let's apply the latter to the former. Something like that. And now back to my wikibreak. 2601:643:8300:C96D:CD15:305A:C81B:4798 (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, NewsAndEventsGuy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thank you for quality articles such as SolaRoad, for administering DS alerts even to yourself, for improving the global warming article in additions and discussion, for adding citations from the start in 2011, for "tricks for consensus in a heated environment", for missing with appreciation, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Hi NAEG, peace on Earth etc., Talk:Global warming is simmering away. Think we need a more focussed discussion on the scope of GW and CC in relation to sources, and your detailed thoughts will be very welcome – perhaps in the New Year? All the best for 2019, . . dave souza, talk11:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The economist quote
The following discussion 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.
It appears you are operating under the rather ironically humorous and assumptive notion that, as you put it in the edit summary -lots of people "suggest" nuclear phase out. The Economist's opinion went farther and this is a direct quote which elaborates. People who like nukes won't LIKE this quote but that's besides the point in a neutral article.
With the assumption that presumedly I am one?
I wish to inform you that my efforts to reduce the size of the article, are actually due entirely to another editor who chastized me for the length of the article. As you can easily read on my talk page. It is for that reason alone that I'm trying to condense the article as much as possible.
A task that you seem to be undoing. Though I would appreciate if you joined me, now under this true-light you could actually assist in condensing the article. Especially in areas that are transitory, like how some journalist in a magazine went crystal-balling on nuclear power almost a decade ago? We can condense that, if not remove it entirely? Right?
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.
Hounding again
Having noticed you are in WP:STALK mode again, following me into articles including the talk page of Energy Return on Investment recently, an article you have never had any involvement in, only recently, to [| insert your admitted troll-like comments which you then revert]. It is concerning and a little-tiresome at this stage. Especially considering your now eagerness to issue threats of sanctions, send me frivolous notices on my talk page and whatever you have planned to do next. I will have to take your conduct to the attention of admins if you fail to desist in your, second obsession with me now, in recent years.
With respect to EROI, I have not reverted any of your work, and have offered the criticism to others that they are not discussing content of secondary RSs. We need less drama more collaborative FOC that uses the WP:DR procedures. But let's analyze my contribs to EROI.
I saw it at the NPOV noticeboard and I commented there once then again. I concluded that the study you want to include might be OK it might not, we need better discussion of content of secondary sources. Less smoke and table pounding, more sweatwork with sources.
On the article, I removed a statement of opinion with no reference that was added by someone else years before you edited wikipedia, and I added a CLARIFY tag to unreferenced text that was not yours either.
At article talk, I have no comments. Instead I againrestored your own remarks which you changed after someone replied, and I attempted a joke (first version and revised one) which I then removed before anyone replied. I was laughing at the personality type of scientist-researchers who have the egotistical gall to blather about only trusting their own work.... my wife is a research prof at a major university, and we know this type very well. It's funny. But then I realized you were unlikely to see it that way so I removed it - before anyone replied - with an apology (see prior link this thread). And now you're unable to let it remain deleted and shout about the deleted joke actually being intended as a troll even though on my own I removed it. QUESTION, are you sure I'm the one with the problem working in this good-faith based collaborative project?
The following discussion 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.
In this thread, I deleted the superfluous EW template left by User AbrahamCat, who seems to think I was edit warring at this article. I reverted one time. My reasons why the table is inappropriately used can be found at the article talk page.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2019 (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.
Ah, I did scan it and only noticed ref tweaks. Feel free to change it back. No one owns section headings (WP:TPG) but down the road if there is an issue that was hashed out long ago, it makes it really hard to find prior discussions when the headings are vague. Common examples, "neutrality", "sources", "image" that sort of thing.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that such a conversation should be had, but I don't think it's feasible. ANI is either mob rule where the person with the most people hounding them loses automatically, or fecklessly talking into the aether hoping one of the good admins like Bish or Swarm or (formerly) Alex Shih happen to stop by. MPants's hounds made themselves really obvious by doing things like retroactively editing their user page so they can claim MPants made fun of them for a disability, or suddenly not knowing what "canvassing" means when it comes to MPants, and they still couldn't be dealt with before we lost a good editor. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you've given up before trying. The #1 obstacle to new ideas is old hands like us dominating the conversation. For example, if the status quo now has problems, who are the old hands available to talk about it? ANSWER - Through Darwinian evolution, the surving old hands are us who are already evolved to swim in these toxic waters. Naturally we are going to speak from a paradigm of liking the status quo. Therefore, one idea is to try to have this conversation among "newish" editors, giving greatest air time and consensus weight to their perspectives. The specific idea I would float is that perhaps we need a corollary to WP:Community sanction we might call WP:Community protection. That's a big idea obviously and I've only thought about it for 30 seconds. The idea would be to make a higher bar to get one's foot in the door to complain at ANI and at the same time while someone is basking in community protection status there should be higher-than-normal expectation of civility. This would protect the truly victimized targets while not rewarding those who are most skilled at hiding BATTLE mentality.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Using WikiProject for some of the overarching communications
Hello,
With the huge project that we're now undertaking in terms of merging and updating article, we might want to start using the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force page. As this wikiproject is somewhat easy to find for new users and some sleeping users seem to follow it still as well, this could engage more people with the project.
I hope we can put this behind us. Like I said, it was that I felt process was being ignored. If I was wrong, my apologies. My best wishes and respect to you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the bunny. The best way, and ultimately the only way, to put such things behind us is next time just be forthright with the full honest reasons for our editorial choices. See the box at the top of my talk page. I still can't do that for your views in our past head banging, because I still don't know the hows and whys of your belief readers will be misled. And to be honest, I don't want to go into here at all. At article talk, if you want to reopen the question, sure. Otherwise the ship has sailed and the only reason I am mentioning it is to agree it would be nice to put it behind us. The way to do that is next time, let's have each editors full reasons fully explained in constructive concise DR. Then the train will be back on its track. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying. I hope you know that I was being honest and acting in good faith. And I hope you are not accusing me of being otherwise. When I make a change to an article it is because I think it is best for the article. So do you. That is obvious. All I ask is that, if challenged, process is observed. I totally trust the community in deciding whether or not my change is good. As soon as there were three of you saying the naked list should be gone, and no others came to say it should remain, then I realized I was wrong and the list should go. I never fight for content. I always, always ask the community and trust what they say. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of "Green is the new Red" from "Climate change denial" talk page
Why was my section "Green is the new Red" removed from the article "Climate change denial" talk page? I used a reputable source and took statements directly from the source. The article "Climate change drnial" is incorrect in many ways and is in great need of improvement. RHB100 (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:Talk page guidelines say that article talk pages are only for discussing improvements to the article. Your comment was a general indictment of calls for climate change mitigation, and was not proposing or discussing any part of this article to be improved. I subsequently gave you the formal alert that climate change is subject to DS. By all means, you are welcome to try to propose ways to improve the article. If you post grossly POV general WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM you might get another topic ban to go along with your GPS page restriction. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A slight modification of your/our Climate change renaming proposal
One of the major elements of your plan has been executed with the climate system article. The next step for me is to write something systematic about climate variability. I've been thinking about this quite a lot and find it difficult to get a coherent definition distinguishing climate variability and climate change. If I Google climate variability, I mostly get pages seeking to explain the difference between the two. Considering they are very linked, I was thinking we could put both in one article: climate variability and change, with information comparable to https://www.pacificclimatefutures.net/en/help/climate-projections/understanding-climate-variability-and-change/. This would also help:
Getting support for proposal. People seem to indicate they want a page about climatic changes in general.
Internal linking problems after move: with this page in existence, we can change articles that correctly link to climate change (most pages linking to climate change are 'wrong' in the sense that they refer to current climate change)and link them to this page instead.
A) Thanks for asking. I like that "y/our" in the section heading. I especially like having a bit of inspiration and then having such a skilled editor do all the work, thanks!
B) See also, Climate pattern... and list of other related articles in my draft sandbox climate system article
C) Answering your two questions....
C1) this should be a very condensed merge between Climate change and climate oscillation, with the latter also split off into a list. Absolutely! The original idea was to gather up the guts of all these little sub articles and incorporate them into Climate system. I don't care much if the list of Climate oscillations and Climate patterns is embedded list in Climate system or a stand-alone list. My preferred criteria for such questions is what will be easiest to maintain?
C2) I was thinking we could put both in one article: climate variability and change At first blush my thought is that it would create yet another article with "climate... change" in the title, and we're trying to clear up the confusion about "climate change" and "global warming". So my initial reaction is negative. But I don't have my head into all this like you do. Why do you want a separate article instead of adding this to Climate system? When I started my sandbox draft, I thought variability would be an intergral part of the climate system article. At present that article has 16,000 bytes of readable prose, so there's plenty of room before we have to worry about WP:SIZESPLIT guidelines.
Broke my phone screen, so hope my typing still makes sense.
B) climate pattern is a part of variability, which is a part of the Climate system, so I agree this is a level too sub to warrant own article. A three-way merge into climate variability and change is a possibility I'm positive towards.
B) I've looked up what the IPCC glossary has to say about climate patterns. They indeed list it under the heading of modes of internal variability, confirming that this article should can logically be merged into the bigger picture article of climate variability. Their quote (AR5 WG1 Glossary): Mode of climate variability Underlying space–time structure with preferred spatial pattern and temporal variation that helps account for the gross features in variance and for teleconnections. A mode of variability is often considered to be the product of a spatial climate pattern and an associated climate index time seriesFemke Nijsse (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
C1) I like lists because of their maintainability. Their structure discourages users from adding irrelevant information if it cannot be put in that format, which is often the case.
C2) I feel strong about having an article on climate variability. This is an important and big topic of research. Most sources I found on it immediately and in its definition contrast it with Climate change making the two difficult to separate. I acknowledge that the current climate system can have some more information about internal variability, but even if we condense climate pattern and climate oscillation it would become out of proportion with the rest of the text. Condensing it more means we lose information I think is important enough to be included in Wikipedia. Hence my proposal for a subarticle. Do note that many elements of the climate system article already have a subarticle (atmosphere, carbon cycle..). Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
B) Without reading sources my gut says climate pattern isn't restricted to variability; asteroid winter following an asteroid impact is also a climate pattern isn't it
C1) Lists! Great! Have you already seen the MOS sections on WP:LISTS? If not they might help you pick the best structure
C2) New article! Great! I look forward to seeing it. I feel strongly that we hurt our overall goal if it has "change" in the name. Can it just talk about climate variability, and be called climate variability? Seems like the "change" part would still be an integral theme, woven in the text.
New paragraph numbers
D) At Climate system, for forcings, can we introduce that section with text bearing the word "external"? This was part of IPCC AR4 where they contrasted internal variability with external forcings. I think the average high school reader seeing "internal" needs that comfy word "external" to remain oriented, since the word "internal" implies a compare-contrast... so let's make what's implicit explicit and help folks not get lost.
E) Unless I missed it, at Climate system, a section we haven't talked about and is not yet there has to do with Biogeochemical cycles. I think we should add something about this since they play such an important role moving energy around and driving feedbacks.
F) At Climate system, under forcings, there is a section "response". As we know, change happens, cascade effects follow. But wait... if the audience are highschool kids, you can say the same for internal variability. I really think we should have a top level section for responses. Subsection 1) It's a dynamic system where the parts are always change Subsection 2) [{WP:SUMMARY]] of cascade responses when the initial change arises from internal variability with pointer to main article Subsection 3) WP:SUMMARY of cascade responses when the initial change arises from external forcings. .... and since I haven't studied this like you have, part of me is wondering if there is really that much difference between 2 and 3 in this list.
When my thing with P is cleared up I can devote more time to egging you on.....
B) I think you're right and patterns could be part of the response section, as well as internal variability in climate system. What's funny, is that to first approximation, the pattern of warming just after external forcing is similar to the ENSO pattern.
D) I left the words external forcing out because it felt too jargony. But indeed, with the contrast with the previous section, it might actually be the simplest section heading.
E) two of the four paragraphs of the flows of section are about biochemical cycles. Do you have any suggestions how to points readers to them? I could make subsections on that section, but that might make the flow of text more difficult. I always prefer subsections that are more than one paragraph.
F) The initial reasoning behind making it a subsection was following a source (the old ruddiman one I think). I belief structure as well as content should come from RSs. That said, I do think it also makes sense as a separate section, especially since you've given me some inspiration to put climate patterns in there, making it sufficiently long to be a section. I'll look into the other sources a bit more.
F) My old professor in dynamical oceanography would get quite angry at me if I put internal variability under responses (your subsection 1). It's not a response to something, the climate system is internally generating these modes. The differences between 2 and 3 are a highly debated and studied within climate research and it's difficult to make an easy neutral statement about it.. I'd like to keep it simple and keep internal variability and forced change separate, which is quite like many of the sources do. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G) As you're reviewing the article now, would you be tempted to do it officially as well? It's currently a GAN. If you don't have time or don't feel sufficient impartial, that's okay of course. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It will still be awhile before I can/should look at the article. If I do more here in userspace than I have already done, I might accidentally abuse my promise of only working in user space until I finish saying something about P at ANI. The well-intended prolific CIR-challenged editor is the hardest to deal with, by far. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your support for new climate change WikiProject?
This thread starts with a misapprehension on my part. Cadar is talking about a proposal to convert the climate change task force (now inactive under Project:Environment) into a stand-alone project in its own right. At first I thought s/he just meant renewing the task force.
HI NAEG, thought you might be interested in supporting the launch of the proposed WikiProject Climate Change. Still in the draft stage, but I know this subject is one you have interest in.
Thanks, I admit I had less hope than ya'll back in 2011... it looked dead and rather than try to do CPR, I took my name off back then. If I undrestand right, just by adding the template to my user talk the servers will eventually add my name to the project participants list without me doing anything, right? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean. I've been pushing this particular bowl of half-set jelly up the hill for a good 10 years or so now. Baby steps, and one day we'll make it I think it's definitely time now, there's a lot to be done. As a ferinstance, I've volunteered myself to start doing copy edits on all the GW and sub pages, and discovered there are no less than 24 of them. Maintaining this category is going to be a full-time job, but somebody needs to do it.
Regarding getting on board - I think you will be able to add the template, yes, but that will only be the case once the project proposal is accepted and it goes live. In the meantime, if you could add your name under the supporters list on the project page, that would be a huge help. I haven't started the process of advertising and looking for interested editors in earnest yet - right now it's really just a case of noticing good people who are obviously interested and asking them individually.
24 sub articles? 24? TWENTY FOUR.... Ahhhhh ha ha ha hooo hoooo ho ho .... that's really funny. The climate pages remind me of the way my kid wants to paint her room, with garage sale paint poured into a blender color by color, and the blender operated briefly without a lid for each one. On a different note, the template instructions imply that the server takes care of populating the participant list once recruits add the template to their user space. I'm waiting to see if that happens. If users do need to take that second step manually, that should be spelled out in the sign up instructions to help the next person. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and I will add the instructions when we get there, but we need to get the project approved and launched before we get there As I say, it's still in the proposal stage, and we need people just to support its approval. They don't even need to commit to getting involved - that comes later. I don't know how many supporters count as enough to get it launched, but the more the merrier!
And I hear what you're saying about the paint. I haven't had the time to look at the pages in detail yet, but I've already picked up a number of issues just by catching recent edits. I tend to be a bit anal about it, because out in the real world I'm a writer and editor by profession.
Nope, you're confusing the Climate change task force with the full Climate change WikiProject which the proposal is (in part) an upgrade to. Go ahead and read the proposal page.
At this time, I'm not sold on the Project. It isn't clear that advocates have done a solid study of task force vs project, or have any experience working with one, or have an appreciation of what's involved enough to provide a cost/benefit analysis. Better, and easier, in my view is to just renew the existing task force and learn how it works and its parent project, Project:Environment, works. Then if we are so active and dynamic that we might want to do a standalone thing, we'll have lots of experience and evidence to build on a year or two down the road. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NAEG, thanks for all the input and the discussion, you've forced me to consider some of the aspects which I wasn't previously taking into consideration. And thinking about them and their ramifications has had the (perhaps unintended) benefit for me personally of firming up my intentions and resolve to see the project through. So thanks for that
One thing, though: the decision to advertise the project on the GW talk page is IMO rather precipitous, especially in light of the fact that we haven't yet fully finalised the scope of the project; you've also highlighted a potential NPOV issue. Can we please hold off on getting anyone else involved until the proposal is in a state which all editors are happy with? Especially at this stage of drafting it, the last thing we need is for some of the more sensitive types to throw their toys and decide they will not support it for NPOV or any other issue. And CC editors seem to be nothing if not sensitive
Well.... no, sorry. It's crystal-clear this push is a response to recent conflict with veteran climate editors. See this common reason for failure which emphasizes that task forces and projects are fundamentally social endeavors. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals (where new proposals start) it says the purpose of making a proposal is to to see if there are enough willing editors to participate in the project, if it should be a WikiProject or task force, and if the scope of the project should be changed in any way.. The whole idea is to improve the work at pages where there are established eds. The whole thing is doomed to fail if you can't get the established eds on board. But it sounds like your bad experience with conflict is seeking some way to balance the terms of the next engagement. Consensus doesn't work like that, however. And besides, the official task force might have been dormant for a long time, but the regulars at the top article (Global warming) make up a de facto task force in practice. It would be kinda odd to proceed creating a project without telling the task-force-in-practice that its underway and inviting their input. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC) PS Please see WP:CANVASSINGNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm making myself understood. We need to define the project and iron out potential issues such as NPOV or anything else before opening the proposal up to public discussion in order to avoid needless discussion about aspects which could have been fixed beforehand, and without losing the support of editors because of those or any other issues. I seem to be the only editor actually doing anything with the proposal, hence my single perspective and input - together with the inexperience with projects you've mentioned - means that there are bound to be problems, as already discovered. And I have no opinion on the history of the editors on the task force or any other subject before I came on board, nor do I have knowledge of prior conflicts or interest in engaging with conflicts. I've made my reasons for creating the project quite clear, I think. Conflict has exactly nothing to do with any of them. Having said that, and this is the fundamental reason for this entire thread of discussion - I have been accused of NPOV in the past, by editors who have now been alerted to the creation of a project by me, and who I do not believe will be unprejudiced towards me - and by extension, the project. Hence the fact that I brought this up.
In that case, you might want to withdraw the proposal for now and "userfy" it by creating a subpage in your own user space. You can invite people to help you draft a proposal to iron such things out before "going live". That's a fairly standard practice I think. But the proposal IS live and to succeed, veteran de facto task force members need to be not just told but actively recruited. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've moved beyond withdrawing it. We (or "I", whichever) will just have to deal with it as it is now.
I'll watch developments with interest and will at least continue to polish up the list of active vs inactive task force eds. I'm concerned, though, that your passion for the subject may be creating consensus/collaboration shoals ahead. Let's close this out here, and continue at the proposal talk page if needed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Done at least as far as the proposed Wikiproject and Global Warming articles are concerned. It's just an FYI remember and now we're all on the same page NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Global Warming - lead
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. I hope I have not demotivated you. So consider what we have achieved so far: The lead used to say that Global Warming started in or before AD1750 (pre-industrial), in AD1900, and in AD1950. All in the first paragraph! Only the 1950 date is based on the cited sources. So today we have successfully eliminated the 1900 date. Next we need to eliminate the 1750 nonsense, and the lead will be accurate (scrappy and unbalanced, but at least accurate). Please do not give up now.86.134.18.24 (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking in, but no worries. Check the article history. Dave was there when I showed in 2011, and we're both longterm consistent regulars. We sometimes respectfully disagree, just as you and I do. We need more eds of this sort. Carry on! Incidentally, so far as I know, Femkemilene is the only actual climate scientist at the wikiproject. The rest of us are "just" regular eds. Join the party! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem friendly people and I am tempted for that reason. However, climatology is really just a peripheral interest for me. Wikipedia is better served if I concentrate my efforts in areas where I do have expertise. I have become involved in editing Global Warming only as a result of recent media coverage, and when I then consulted the Wiki Global Warming lead, it pained me to the point of taking action. So once the Global Warming lead is sorted out, I will regretfully bid you farewell.86.134.18.24 (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Hi NAEG, You left a message on my Talk page. I can see that you have good intentions and you want to be helpful. I have answered on my Talk page so that whatever discussion ensues is all in one place.Notagainst (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for following WP:MULTI. Do you use a WP:WATCHLIST? I do, there's no need to add a note here, I'll see your reply anywhere we happen to interact. Of course, I do purge my watchlist from time to time, but only when activity for a particular place has been quiet for a long time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad such folks aren't interested in working together. I've recently adopted a new favorite quote, this time from Thomas Jefferson, "On the question, What is the best provision, you and I differ; but we differ as rational friends..." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before in this edit at Talk:Global_warming: I didn't think the IP's comments amounted to a personal (or even personnel?) attack, and though rather tart, I don't see any malice in them. (Perhaps I have become desensitized?) At any rate: in such cases I would recommend the {{tl|rpa}} template. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!18:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in my sandbox where I'm preparing a format for the discussion and I'm collecting arguments. I think you collected a list of previous discussions, right? If so, feel free to post it under the right section. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its too rough to presume to add to your own work, but anyone is welcome to visit, and maybe build on it, or copy it to their own space
Please read WP:EL. The section you linked to contains the sentence: "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." that isn't the case here as she is not famous for making selfies.
WP:ELMIN, the section below the one you linked to, is very clear that these links are not acceptable.
Poveglia (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your right! Thanks for pointing out the later section. RSs abundantly point out GT and peers are organzing via these various platforms, but I agree you're right...with the others listed, that is good enough. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologize; if I am correct about something then it was probably by accident. I noticed your talkpage contains a banner saying: "Although we may disagree, let us do so as rational friends!" Can I be the exception please? I'm happy to be your friend, but being rational in an irrational world is overrated in my opinion. Poveglia (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since our disagreement where you were the only person who opposed and reverted my well researched, multi-day edit on climate change there's been zero movement on the climate change topic and it remains utterly broken. Would you be open to allowing my edit now and contributing subsequent edits in an attempt to reorganize the content, or would you still revert my edits? I'm not going to get involved unless you are willing to be constructive.--Efbrazil (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This edit: [climate change edit] as per [this discussion]. It was so disheartening to have you revert that multi-day edit after everyone else agreed it was a good idea that I gave up on wikipedia for the last 6 months. I came back and saw that the climate change article is still entirely broken, so I'm hoping you see that as well and want to let me proceed with editing the article now.--Efbrazil (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't WP:OWN the article or control the door to your editing. But there has been a HUGE amount of work on this problem at user talk pages and in userspace. A proposal is forthcoming. Please add yourself to the participants list at WP:PROCC and say hello to others there. In particular, you may want to talk to Femkemilene, who for the moment is clerking the ideas at her userspace. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NewsAndEventsGuy I wasn't about to battle you in a revert war. You calling me names and not even offering a reason for reverting the edit was enough for to realize that dealing with the situation was going to be toxic. Hopefully going forward you can either back off or be constructive.--Efbrazil (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Efbrazil, welcome back! The ideas NEAG refers to can be found in my sandbox.
@Femkemilene- thanks, you can see I made the image updates you asked for. I'll take a look next week at the details of what you're up to and see if I can't make a constructive contribution. It's super frustrating that the current article has remained garbage for so long.--Efbrazil (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually done quite the rewrite of the article, removing a lot of ballast about current climate change & some climate skeptic remnants. Spend a good long day on that. Still not one of our best, certainly, but not the worst either. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Climate variability and possible temperature change since 1850 article
Hello,
Have you had time yet to think about how you would want to shape the top article(s) about natural climate change and variability? Would be lovely if we can find a common plan on that before our big proposal.
I had another proposal, which I now don't want anymore. The plan was to have an article about global warming in the strict sense of the word (only temperatures) under a name such as temperature rise since 1850 or smth. We already have instrumental temperature record for that.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since I last wrote to you I haven't even slept much. That other project remains all consuming.
In general, I really dislike the idea of dropping "natural climate change" into the Wikipedia lexicon. That verbiage is rare in lay sources, and just screams to re-litigate the "its the sun" / "its not us" nonsense. We would do ourselves no favors trying to go that direction. Instead, I'd like to treat the concept as it seems to appear in most of the lay sources I read, i.e., which as I understand them say climate has a bit of variation within the tolerance of a stable climate, but evens out over the long run. If that's a fair paraphrase, then.....
I would still like to see the text at Climate change be merged to other articles as I outline in my sandbox last Feb.
As part of that ..... For the topic I think you're calling "natural climate change" I'd like to see us stick with the far more familiar "climate variability". One way would be for Climate system to hold the superficial beginner level summary in a 1-paragraph subsection "Climate variability". Then the intermediate text could be at Climate, in a subsection "climate variability" with maybe 2-3 paragraphs. We could call it good right there, but if anyone wanted to write an in-depth coverage there could be a whole article Climate variability. With effort, I might be able to write the superficial intro paragraph but the rest is beyond my current understanding (and available time).
Then we have the category of external forcing agents, which includes both natural and human mechanisms. Thanks once again for launching climate system! For each mechanism, Climate system now has very brief intro text. We could devise a template for a an intermediate-level subsection. Then write such subsections for each of the external forcing mechanisms and add or merge to the main article for each thing. Take volcanoes for instance. Without looking, I think that article already has some text about external forcing of the climate system. We could format that text so the subjection looks like its sister subsections at all the other main articles for other forcing mechanisms. There would be one exception to this pattern - for humans as external forcing agent.
Doing the above resolves the original problem that both "climate change" and "global warming" point to different article text. The only way to resolve that is to make one of them go away, and do the hard clerical work of going through the thousands of links to fix eggs.
I've not replied in the hope you could get some more sleep.
I don't agree exactly with natural climate change being a rare term, but I think there is a better option anyway. I think the 'its the sun' people don't drain a lot of resources anymore on Wikipedia as they're so easily proven wrong. So I don't think that is an important argument.
Yaay, you're okay with a climate variability article! If you look at the WMO website's definition: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.php, our page that is now called climate change is basically about climate variability.
Climate Variability is defined as variations in the mean state and other statistics of the climate on all temporal and spatial scales, beyond individual weather events. The term "Climate Variability" is often used to denote deviations of climatic statistics over a given period of time (e.g. a month, season or year) when compared to long-term statistics for the same calendar period. Climate variability is measured by these deviations, which are usually termed anomalies. Variability may be due to natural internal processes within the climate system (internal variability), or to variations in natural or anthropogenic external factors (external variability). (emphasis my own)
I think renaming climate change to climate variability is going to be much more easy than having it deleted / distributed over other pages, in terms of getting consensus. Also, I really think we should have a top-level article about why climate changes. A further advantage of renaming climate change into climate variability first, and then discussing a potential name-change for global warming, is that the procedure becomes so much more easy than the one I've been trying to draft. Just two renaming efforts.
Addendum/slight change of mind: let's make the title climate variability and change. If I Google climate variability, all lay sources contrast that with climate change. The fact that the article has climate variability as the first part of the title will stop people from thinking it's about current climate change. This title furthermore covers the content of the article best. There is a grey area with between climate variability and change that covers both, so having one article to describe both works best.
I think I may have proposed this before, sorry for reproposing it. I'm getting more convinced that this is the way to go, both logically and procedurally. I think we might have come close to our max brain power and brainstorming on this and I'd like to bring the question(s) to a wider public soonish, even if we don't fully agree by then. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another barnstar for NaEG !
The GW & CC Barnstar
For your uncompensated and conspicuously constructive diligence in mediating, guiding, educating, thought-provoking, advising, resolving, and coordinating, especially in matters related to Global Warming, Climate Change, under whatsoever names by which they may hereinafter be designated. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NewsAndEventsGuy, I'd like to add my thanks! I've been editing the Greta Thunberg article, and I appreciate your contributions, and in particular, the efforts you've made to keep us honest and, to the extent possible given the subject-matter, NPOV. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello NewsAndEventsGuy. Please would you archive the section 'This is NOT a Fan Page!' on GT which I started?
The article does not now seem to be a fawning fan page. Legitimate concerns are now raised and discussed properly (eg concerns about the use of the word "shitting").
If you think the section should remain unarchived for whatever reason, That's OK.
Thanks! MartiniShaw (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily I'd probably be glad to WP:SOFIXIT and WP:BEBOLD and just do that. But we're not the only eds involved in the thread, and that thread was involved in a recent ANI between me and another editor. So I will have to recuse myself. You have the same tools I have. If you think it's appropriate, you have my permission and this is a good time to learn how. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MartiniShaw: Oops. What I meant is that "as far as I'm concerned" you can archive it, even though I was involved. I don't speak for anyone but me however. So you're on your own for deciding if its an appropriate move to make. Options are to just do it, and reverse it if anyone complains, or ask the others too. Or leave it and let the bot get around to it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion 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.
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.
Can you help to remove a useful source from the blacklist?
Hello NewsAndEventsGuy,
I don't know how much influence you have but you seem to have more experience of Wikipedia internal processes than I do. I really don't enjoy getting involved in internal Wikipedia discussion but we have enough problems where I live with external obstacles to Wikipedia without having to put up with obsolete internal blocks. So I have made this request to remove PV magazine from the blacklist. If you are able to help with it in any way I would be most grateful.Chidgk1 (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: I've never dealt with blacklisting at all so you already know more than I do. I'm a little more familiar with this. Near as I can see, this isn't a controversial issue, just a procedural one, so I can't see any problem here. But please study the link I just shared and be very careful how you reach out if, down the line, the subject is a "hot" one... as if global warming isn't (yuk yuk). Anyway, for hyper care and attention to process I think I have to recuse myself now. And even if that weren't true, I'm under a self-imposed block while a complaint about me is resolved at ANI NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS I guess I don't see any harm in giving advice here. First, I saw that user JzG is there... he's very reasonable. Second, you only just posted. If you get no replies in a week, follow up with me again but I bet folks answers. Last (for now) you're opening request will be more compelling if you can show one (three is better) example(s) how you would improve our articles using this source if were delisted. That way eds could actually do some WP:Verification and see that our goal of prevention, not punishment was met long ago when they were spamming, but is causing problems today, assuming they are no longer spamming. Though how you would prove the negative "they aren't spamming anymore" is beyond me. Have you reviewed a truckload of archived delist requests? Maybe the answer was invented in prior filings. Good luck!~ NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion 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.
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.
Climate change and global warming articles
Note: the short-cut route you propose also requires discussion and cannot be executed fast. See Wikipedia:Merging#Step_3:_Discuss_the_merger and Wikipedia:Merging#Step_4:_Close_the_merger_discussion_and_determine_consensus. I'm noticing that I'm slowly getting frustrated with the discussion and feel we're both only moving towards each other within the bounds of our big ideas. It would be so nice if we can just agree on any move forward now, as our main goal (getting rid of climate change's title) is the same. Would you at least agree my proposal is a huge step forwards? We might have to do this in steps instead of getting to the 'right' solution immediately. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My original post in your sandbox talk, outlining three phases, explicitly acknowledges the need for discussion about merging. And who would complain? (None I think) If anyone does, who would object once they understood the goal? (None, unless some climate deniers want to block reform). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To help the discussion forward, could you entertain the possibility of renaming 'climate change' (same scope) and come up with what you consider the best name if we were to do this? I know this would be a second-best solution for you, but for me it's massively helpful to know what second best is for you to be able to move closer to you (btw, the same goes for names of global warming; it's massively useful if you would change some of your survey 'votes' into weakly or strongly disagree as there doesn't seem high support for the long title you proposed). Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I really admire
Femkemiline's passion for this subject
Determination to have excellent articles
Enormous time and mental energy put into the reform effort
THANK YOU!!!!!!
We're going to have to accept a disagreement among friends. You think (I think) that we can keep the two articles and fix confusion by just changing their names. I don't share that belief. I have a strong opinion that the confusion is best resolved by explaining generic climate change as an aspect of the climate system. I believe this is true true on a pedagogical level (example ref) and a IJUSTLIKE level... believing that lay readers will always be confused between AGW&CC vs generic CC when the latter has a "climate change" derivative in its name. By putting that info under "climate system", we both help inculcate systems-based thinking as well as "hide" that topic from article searches. Anyone who really wants that info will easily find it from the various wikilinks anywhere else they end up. But there I go repeating myself again, and to what point? We have repeatedly been around the same circle.
It's time to stop doing that.
It's disappointing when close friends ... may I call you a close Wikifriend?..... don't agree. We want it to be easy and painfree, but alas.... well, that's OK! I still really value all those things I just said and that won't change even if I "lose" this debate. If the community consensus is to go your way, we're all better for the discussion. I think the thing to do is to appreciate the airing of views that has happened in your sandbox and put it out to the world. I confess I have never been optimistic that the resulting discussion will be as focused as you might like and I doubt the outcome will be different than last time, but .... I'd love to be wrong! It's time to sink or swim with the sandbox, I think, Femke. I look forward to whatever you try next
In the "real discussion" if people strongly prefer your way, I would be able to acknowledge that... I'm not so stubborn as to stand in the way of a strong leaning one way... even if it isn't mine. But its time to hvae the real discussion.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And btw, yes, you may call me a close Wikifriend. I definitely regard you as such. I think I've changed my mind about what the best alternative name is after people's comments: climate change (general concept). Only adding the word general didn't specify it sufficiently, but stating that it's a concept (instead of an issue or problem) makes it clear that we're talking conceptually instead of about something specific. I've put it there inconspicuously in a couple of comment & in introduction and, if it gains traction with the few that have commented so far, maybe I'll put that as an explicit second proposal. Happy I followed the advice at RM and didn't start the formal procedure yet.Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You did it!! I am so happy that we (you) finally have cracked this nut. I put "climate change" into the search field and ended up at the "global warming" article - yay! (next step after the dust settles is to rename it to "climate change" if I remember correctly?) EMsmile (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Process after rename
Just a quick question arising from your changes in the redirecting placeholder section. When (if?) we get a move of climate change, what do you see as the follow-on process? I'm thinking.
Discuss redirect
Propose redirect
Fix all these internal links.
(# Possibility for discussion merge if you want. Note that merge might create double redirects, which a bot will solve for us)
Discuss rename global warming in group of enthusiasts (open to all)
Discuss best options rename global warming on that page
Simple.... leave it alone except for the usual effort at content improvement. Before I would even consider renewing a push to merge that to climate system I want to find out if the overall effort resolves the perennial reader confusion and [{WP:EGG]] complaints. If that "noise" subsides, I'll probably forget about merging (no promises though!)
2B) What do you see as the follow-on process... for the new "climate change" redirect, which at that time will simply point at Climate change (general concept)?
If one accepts the premise that all reforms have to be proposed, defeated, revised, and re-proposed a few times, then this is also simple. The new "climate change" redirect could be listed at WP:Redirects for discussion, and there will be an avalanche of ideas. It's likely a big thread will end with no consensus, but with a great deal of ideas floating around. The most interested editors could then form a new little working group like we just did at your sandbox, to do a new round of preliminary work. When ready, we just make a 2nd attempt with whatever options seem to be the strongest.
COMMENT, when we get that far, I anticipate a lot of argumentation that goes all over the map, but underneath it all there will be POV preferences (A) some will want to send "climate change" to Global warming; (B) some will want to rename Global warming to "climate change"; and (C) when they get tired of fighting they will compromise by sending both to some other title, perhaps Global warming and climate change. But I think it will take a few "no consensus" closes. The key to making any of that happen is to stay laser focused on the babystep now before us. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NPA template
All the constructive things appear to have been said. See also WP:DROPTHESTICK
The following discussion 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.
Section heading changed by me. Per WP:TPG all headings must be neutrally phrased.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Would you kindly consider to clarify what led you to send an NPA warning to me while giving friendly support to the User who started the PA [1] with these words: "Bernd Bricken has been trying to attack and rewrits the German article from a "skeptic's" viewpoint. ... "? Thanks. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Simple. Until you pointed it out here, I never noticed what the other editor wrote. If I had, I might have said something to them or I might not have. Because of the way this unfolded I can no longer read it "cold" and evaluate it without mental clutter so I'm not going to try. The concerning thing is you showing up here to complain about the other guy's sins. See WP:CLEANHANDS. You should be talking to the other editor, following WP:ARBCC#Principles and making use of the tools listed at WP:Dispute resolution. Other possibly helpful things to read WP:BAIT and WP:OUCH. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2019 (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.
Sure, and thanks. I still self alert anyway because then when I alert someone else and they react thinking its a badge of shame or something I can just point to the same alert that I posted on my own page. "See? It's just an FYI. I gave the same thing to myself" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
may be less of an issue now, but still an issue: gw/cc versus new "climate change (general concept)"
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
