User talk:Notagainst

Welcome!

Hello, Notagainst, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 01:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Ecocide into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Negativity and prejudice on GT article?

Hi Notagainst, and thanks for the contributions and support on the Greta article. Am I the only one who has noticed a definite negative bias from our favourite Wiki editor (naming no names), who removes a lot of content and adds puffery templates at the drop of a hat? If this is all just inside my head, by all means tell me, because I'm beginning to feel I'm either on to something or I'm losing my mind. Paranoia strikes! :) Cadar (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Task force climate change

Hello Notagainst,

I saw you're one of the main editors of the Greta Thunberg. Given your interest in climate change related articles, I invite you to have a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. It's been inactive for a while, but I strongly believe that this topic should have an active group of collaborating editors to help each other with a critical eye. If you'd like to contribute, please add your name to the participants section, add some task to the to-do list or help make the to-do list a bit shorter.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for erroneous rollback

Apologies for my erroneous rollback on Greta Thunberg. I will be more careful in the future. --Count Count (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Climate change in New Zealand you included material from a webpage that is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand (CC BY 3.0 NZ)] license. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Climate change in New Zealand, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stuff and James Shaw (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

Hello Notagainst

Thank you for all your work on the Wikipedia articles relating to the climate crisis in New Zealand. You have done some really good work on this topic.

The proposed deletion of New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is objected because this is a notable organisation in the history of the climate crisis in New Zealand. This entity was very active in New Zealand, opposing any moves to address climate change and publicly attacking NIWA for publishing evidence of climate change. There was a [high profile court case] taken against NIWA. This is important New Zealand history, and is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. You have correctly pointed out that much of this article needs updating, and perhaps this organisation is now defunct. However, that is not grounds for deleting the article.

If you have further points to support deletion of the article, please put them on the article talk page. --Pakaraki (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is still a concern, see WP:Articles for deletion NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject proposal: Climate Change

Hi Notagainst, thought you might like to pitch in with support for the proposal for the new WikiProject. I'm not sure how to get a working Wikilink to the correct page, but here's the direct link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Climate_Change

Would be great if you could join us!

Best, Cadar (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert - Climate change

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.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Just sending this FYI to everyone recently in the topic area who doesn't have one in the last 12 months. And before I posted here, I sent one to myself too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Climate change in New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Shaw (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new article "Climate crisis"

Hi, I welcome your interest in "Climate crisis" framing, and there sure are abundant RSs to support an article about that framing. See WP:NEOLOGISM for an example guideline that describes articles about phrases. If you want write about "climate crisis" that would be a good approach. At Effects of global warming, the aggregate section needs updating to AR5. A lot of the text is based on AR3. As you may know AR5 is from 2013/2014, and is a review of even older papers which themselves are based on even older data. In contrast, AR3 (that much of our text is based upon) is 14 years older! So it needs updating. Sure, its not a head on club 'em over the head "climate crisis" writing, but the labor of doing the update would drive at the same point without looking like 2019 spin/framing tacked on top of 2001 outdated text. Cheers NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Later) I added article text in place of the existing redir. See Climate crisis. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EW

Caution, you're edit warring at Effects of global warming. When you get reverted, please use the talk page. For the howtos and whyfors see WP:BRD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in help the new editor mode. Do you know how to count reverts? That's a key part of the 3RR policy and I'd hate to see you get socked with a block. Just because I disagree here or there means I'm paying attention. Fact I don't disagree EVERYWHERE is because most of your work is excllent and apperciated. So if I (or anyone) disagrees, please don't take it personally. Talk to the person. And wait for a reply. You'll build colleagues that way and this place becomes fun. Anyway, in case you don't know how to count reverts please study your own work at Effects of... today.

• Bold edit - Article overhaul over 24 hrs series ending 06:18 July 26

• REVERT 1, Two edit series ending 20:10 July 26

• REVERT 2, Edit at 22:57 July 26

Note that you don't have to break 3RR to be blocked for edit warring. Insufficient discussion at the first or second revert can be grounds for blocking (often taking the unwary by surprise and leaving bitter scars). Some eds bounce back when they get surprised like that. I'd hate to lose yours, and that's why I'm trying to offer some cautions.

If you don't want advice and coaching of this sort from me, just say so. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a degree in Criminology and am currently doing an Honours paper called Crimes against the Environment which is all about global warming and climate change. I don't know what qualifications or knowledge you have in this field, but normally the person with the most knowledge and experience would be the one who does the coaching. You may be more experienced than I am on wikipedia but I don't think that entitles you to add material to pages about climate change that is vague or only half the story (which is what I perceive you to be doing). So what qualifications do you have that are relevant to the subject matter. Let's clarify that first before we discuss coaching. Notagainst (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work on your honors paper and general interest and hard work trying to make the climate pages better. Your Wikipedia life will be hard if you can't learn to disagree with friends instead of enemies. More things you should probably read are

WP:PRIVACY

WP:Expert editors

and while we're at it, maybe re-read WP:Assume good faith.

As for my subject matter credentials, please see this short video.

I've been operating on WP:DONTBITE, but that does have limits and though I'd like to be friends, I only dig so long before deciding the well is dry. Wikipedia coaching mode off.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS come to think of it I do have one other thing to add.... on the subject of "vague".... AGW is obviously a vast topic that takes more than one article. Where you see vagueness in a single article, I might be seeing a more-or-less organized hierarchy of articles that try to stay on their specific WP:TOPIC while providing links to related details at other articles. I've been working on the climate pages off and on since 2011. In terms of longterm maintainence and upkeep, the overlap is a malignant tumor. Not sure that changes your mind about your perceptions of vagueness, but wanted to be sure you included this reflection in your assessment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implied motives

When speaking of my objections to your edit, your statement Clearly it has nothing to do with verifiability, that sure sounds like you're calling my stated reason citing verifiability a lie and implying some secret nefarious agenda on my part. But I must have misunderstood, because the P&G says WP:No personal attacks. Getting back to what matters (article content) it has everything to do with verifiability, as I have explained - again - at the article talk page. Down the road, please keep your thoughts about hidden agendas to yourself. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be taking this very personally. The 97% has nothing to do with verifiability because no where in any of your arguments have you said that the 97% figure (which leads to the descriptor of 'broad' or 'almost unanimous') is unverified. That doesn't mean I think you are lying. It just means your objection to the inclusion of that information is based on some other perception or WP rule that, so far, you have not made clear.

It also doesn’t feel as though you are following your own advice to me about assuming good faith in my editing. You have accused me of calling you liar. I did no such thing. You also threatened to ban me despite also noting that “most of (my) work is excellent and appreciated”. Notagainst (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're debating different questions. You keep repeating that 97% support is "broad support" and its not WP:Editorializing to say so. I keep repeating that that question is academic because no part of John's paper supports your claim that 97% of all scientists agree that its warming and that its us. I've said this now 3, 4, maybe 5 times. So maybe we should examine Cook's paper. Please quote the text from John's study that says what you think it says. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC) (LATER) Nevermind... I just saw your recent comment at article talk acknowledging that it isn't 97% of all scientists, but rather the subset of actively publishing climate scientists. So we're making progress.[reply]

As an aside, it's really weird to me that someone who is championing the existence of a consensus is arguing that point with me, as if I wasn't one of the eds who has added the consensus to our articles, and has spent vast amounts of time to fighting disruption in the pages. In the past disruption has mostly come from the deniers, but I worry with the approach of Sept 20 and the Guardian's "climate crisis" language change that we may be on the brink if a disruptive wave from the mitigation advocacy hawks. There is a procedure to try to get Wikipedia to follow the Guardian's lead. Am I right in thinking you'd like to see us do that? If so, I'd be glad to explore the available tools for that conversation with you. I'm not promising to champion the cause myself, but the conversation would be a worthy one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "There is an almost unanimous (97%) consensus among published climate scientists that climate change is occurring and that human activities are the primary driver" was posted three days ago. Its a 100% accurate statement backed by a RS. When you finally get around to reading it, you describe is as 'progress' - but delete it anyway. Why? Notagainst (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

let's talk about article content at the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert, please read

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.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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.

Doug Weller talk 11:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Climate change in New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tim Wilson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit another editor's talk page post

By editing another editor's post, as you did in two successive edits beginning here, you misrepresent what the editor said. Even if you disagree strongly with what he or she said, do not change it. Akld guy (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, changed my mind

Thanks for your renewed addition of "strong consensus". I reviewed some old discussions in various articles talk pages and realized I was giving you 'way too hard of a time for an issue that is something of a grey area, but has generally withstood the test of time elsewhere. I hope to see you at the wiki project. We might disagree, but that's what WP:dispute resolution and other input via RFC is for. Anyway, apologies for giving you a hard time as though the matter were B&W instead of grey. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That helps - I appreciate that. Notagainst (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

great tool

Greetings, when you try to say what I said back to me and tell me you're doing that to verify your understanding... that's wonderful! It makes Wikipedia fun and full of teamwork. See WP:OTHERSOPINION.

When you try to write what others said for third parties you presume to speak for others and putting words in their mouth. If you happen to be right, then things go ok. But if you screw up, things get dumb at best, or chaotic and incomprehensible at worst, and either way it can be very irritating to the person you presumed to speak for. If it goes really off the rails others are annoyed also. Please don't do that.

Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

helpful caution

Comments like this invite a civility complaint at WP:AE because IMO they violate the principles section of WP:ARBCC generally, and paragraph Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#User_Conduct specifically. To be clear you were talking to someone else so I won't file a cmplaint at AE. I'm just trying to help you avoid an unfortunate trip to the drama boards. To find out if I'm blowing smoke, repost it and I'll shut up so you the other person can comment (or not). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations standards at Global_warming

I have just reverted two of your edits at Global warming, for reasons I will lay out at the Talk page there in a little while. As side issue to that please note that there are established (even if not yet fully conforming) citation standards at GW (see Talk:Global warming/Citation standards for details). These include having the full citation for each source both in template form (e.g., using {{cite journal}} or such), and in the proper area of the "Sources" section. For any of the IPCC AR reports you can find ready-to-use templates at WP:IPCC citation. Ask on the Talk page if you have any questions. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think removing the Darebin minutiae is correct. Also saved me the trouble of fixing the citations there! But on what you added, I will again point out that full citations should go into the "Sources" section. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Climate crisis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paramount (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

friendly suggestion

In your answer at the poll, you might consider formatting to start your NOTVOTE as

• Climate crisis

That will help others scanning the poll quickly. I almost added it for you, but when I've done that in the past with other issues and editors I've been yelled at. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately did not format my answer as you suggest because I agree with you that it is a Malformed survey - You expressed that more clearly than I did. Notagainst (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoice

Hello. I'll try and give an explanation of Wikivoice. I think wikivoice is a good way of thinking about neutrality. Imagine you have some reliable news media, such as the Guardian, that says an album is amazing. In Wikipedia, we're not allowed to say "This album is amazing" (+ citation), because that would go against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and having a dispassionate description of everything. If we do say this, we would say it in WikiVoice: we don't attribute it to somebody else, so the reader will attribute it to us (Wikipedia's voice). We would be allowed to say that The Guardian described the album as amazing (+citation).

For the climate crisis the same can be said: we're allowed to describe why other people use this word, IN THEIR VOICE, but not by putting the arguments together ourselves. Even if all the arguments are from reliable sources. If you link up argumentation (IPCC describing climate change effects that are not nice, and making the link to crisis terminology yourself), that can count as Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material, a difficult to grasp part of Original research.

The details here are sometimes quite difficult, so take your time to read the links I sent you. I know I made a lot of mistakes with this when I started here (fortunately, the Dutch wiki is bit more forgiving of these mistakes, good learning ground), it just takes willingless to learn and some time :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke Nijsse I appreciate your good intentions here. However, now you seem to be claiming that I have breached WP:OR. That is far more specific - and helpful - than vague global claims about wikivoice.

Perhaps you can give me a specific example of where I have claimed in the article that there IS a climate crisis, as opposed to quoting a RS which says so. Or is your concern actually about WP:OR rather than wikivoice. If so, why didn't you say so? If editors on this issue want me to understand their concerns, they need to be a great deal more specific than they have been to date - and point out actual examples in the article of what you/they are concerned about. Notagainst (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The part you delete here asks a good question. I'm really busy, and it will take time, but sure.... I'll review your diffs to assess whether I'm off base.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The synthesis policy and neutrality are quite often strongly intertwined, and neutrality issues are more important to keep WP reliable, so I think that's why we've focused on that. I've added a couple of examples where wording or inclusion of certain material goes against specific policies that have mostly been designed to ensure neutrality. I hope that helps! Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Climate crisis; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Zortwort (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User account(s)

Greetings... as a courtesy I am going to be intentionally vague. Please see WP:MULTIACCOUNT. If you decide I'm just harassing you, I can "show my cards" to prove I had a good faith reason to comment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last request

A couple of hours ago, you added this sentence to flooding: A 2017 study found that precipitation rates are increasing between 5 and 10% for every one degree Celsius increase. That is not what the study found, they didn't look at overall precipitation, but only at peak precipitation. You also removed my verification failed tag a day before without correcting the various mistakes in the sentences before. I'm noticing that all of your misreadings of sources make the sources more alarming than they already are. This is my last request to use sources correctly before I'm seeking outside help in resolving this behaviour. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene. That sentence actually comes from the Guardian article about this report where it says "In fact, relations reveal that precipitation rates are increasing between 5 and 10% for every degree C increase." I linked it to the Study instead of to the Guardian because I thought you might not regard the Guardian as a reliable source. Since you are PhD researcher on climate variability, no doubt you understand the nuances of the terminology better than I do. Please be understanding instead of attacking me because you have a better knowledge of the technicalities involved.

In regard to removing the verification failed tag, you did not explain why it failed and as far as I could see it didn't fail. I cannot read your mind. If something isn't accurate you need to say why. Even better, why not correct the mistake yourself (instead of putting up a tag) and then taking your frustrations out on me. Notagainst (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to come over too harshly. I really appreciate we're working as a collaborative group here. As most of our readers are lay people, I value the contributions of science enthusiasts strongly.

For future reference, I do regard the Guardian as a reliable source. It is however a source with a clear progressive bias, and as such we should not use opinion pieces from it without balancing them, and ideally we should check science articles for mistakes. If you don't have access to scientific articles, you might consider the ethics of using Sci-Hub and a VPN to access the research that your tax money has paid for. In this case, the Guardian article had made it more clear than you (from the previous sentence) that this was about peak precipitation.

In the edit summary I had explained why I put the failed verification on there. The reason why I chose tags instead of fixing it was that I feel I'm tidying up your mistakes too often. You don't need expertise to read the third paragraph of the National Geographic article that said this wasn't a prediction, but a worst-case scenario. I feel that in your enthusiasm, you're working faster than I can correct if I also want to do some updating myself and stay engaged in other discussion I've been neglecting a bit. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene. I cannot see any explanation anywhere for the failed verification tag in the Migration- slow onset section. What's wrong with "The UN forecasts that by 2050 there could be 200 million environmental migrants." It is taken from this sentence in the source: "UN International Organization for Migration posit that there could be between 25 million to 1 billion environmental migrants by 2050, moving either within their countries or across borders, on a permanent or temporary basis, with 200 million being the most widely cited estimate." Do you want to include the entire sentence...? Notagainst (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As that question was entirely content-based, I've answered on the article talk page. With the sense of crisis subsection, we're currently engaged in a WP:BRD cycle: you added the content boldly, I reverted most of it, you re-reverted, and we're discussion now. This cycle really works best if we either continue to engage in the discussion, or edit in such a way of seeking consensus. your recent edits do the opposite: you're adding to a section whose existence is under discussion. Per WP:NOTSTUCK‎ this is not the way forward, and comes over as disruptive to me. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, why did you remove information about Breakthrough when we were in the middle of a discussion about it. I suggested that rather than remove material you regarded as a minority view, that the concept of balance required you to add alternative points of view - which you agreed to try. But you then went ahead and deleted the information anyway. At the same time, you left in information from other reliable sources which made similar predictions about the potential increase in global warming to 3° or 4°C.

There's another problem here. A group of editors, yourself included I suspect, would not permit the article titled Climate Crisis to acknowledge that there is a crisis. The article ended up being entirely about terminology. Such an approach requires editors involved to practice splitting hairs.

Now it seems you want to remove the Sense of crisis from this article about the Effects of global warming. If that happens, there will be no mention of a possible crisis generated by global warming anywhere on WP - which means that WP will, in effect, not only be denying that there is a crisis, they will also be denying any sense of crisis. In other words, the distinction you now seem to be making about the difference between the effects of global warming and the response to global warming is heading down the same track. If editors split hairs in order to avoid any reference to a sense of crisis, WP articles on climate change will have little credibility. Notagainst (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notagainst, I did not delete that bit of Breakthrough report as a minority view as actual reliable sources have said similar things. I deleted it as an unreliable source that which information was already in the article attributed to a reliable source. As such, I did not change the balance of the article.

My compromise solution did not remove climate emergency/climate crisis entirely from the article. Instead, in the introduction to 'effects of humans' it included an entire paragraph about it. We need to make clear that it can be argued that the effects plus the political inaction/running out of time constitute an emergency. I consider crisis and emergency as synonyms, do you? Listing it as an effect is just not in agreement with sources. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk page for my perspective on the difficulty of making clearcut distinctions between effects and responses. Notagainst (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Effects of global warming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roger Hallam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rereverts only in clear-cut cases

I reverted the change in the scope of the effects of global warming article, inserted in December 18 that the effects include the responses. It may be considered disruptive to re-revert instead of first discussing and trying to meet the concerns of the other editor per WP:BRR. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene. I am getting a little tired of you telling me off and trying to control my editing - especially when, from my perspective, you do the same things you tell me off for. I have been working as a counsellor for the last 15 years. One strategy that works well in eliciting co-operation from unmotivated clients is called validation. This involves acknowledging their point of view. You will get a lot more co-operation out of me if you try that instead of harping on about everything you think I am doing wrong. Perhaps I should add that I am 70 years old (still working and still studying - including a recent paper on climate change). I don't have a PhD in the subject, but I am definitely not one of your children. Notagainst (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I regret frustration on both sides has come this high. If you believe I've engaged in disruptive editing (double revert, edit warring, POV pushing or things like that), please do give me a diff and I'll undo/cross out my edit. The ideal team here on Wikipedia is an expert plus a nonexpert that cooperate including making the occasional mistake. For me this cooperation goes wrong here because I feel you're pushing a POV and you are editing so fast that I cannot keep track. Whenever you make a small or bigger content-related mistake, I feel you become defensive instead of working to meet my concerns. I think the only way we can move forward is by sticking to Wikipedia etiquette, including only rereverting in clear cases, not because of disagreements. I feel I have done some validation in our many discussion (thanking you, trying to rephrase your thinking, working on top of your edits instead of reverting). Apparently, this has not been enough.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that you are also pushing a POV (along with many other editors who contributed to the Climate crisis article) which is to deny that there is a climate crisis. It seems to me you even want to deny that there is a sense of crisis. You have removed that section from the EGW page at least once, if not twice...? Notagainst (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene. And I probably am defensive. Wouldn't you be given my situation? I added dozens of reliable sources to the Climate crisis page documenting the views of scientists and others who say there is a crisis. But I got attacked (and everything deleted) by half a dozen or so editors on the basis that this perspective is not mainstream. Despite so many other sources now saying that Greta Thunberg has pretty much made it mainstream in the last 12 months, there has been zero validation for this perspective. Even with the current bushfires in Australia which represent one of the more convincing pieces of evidence of a climate crisis (highly reported by mainstream media), editors on WP refuse to acknowledge it as such. So you're right. In the face of so much denialism, I am defensive. Notagainst (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the way I was treated while trying to edit the climate crisis page was very off-putting. After that I stopped editing for a while. The way you are operating now changing almost every one of my edits on the EGW page is equally off-putting. You seem to feel the need to 'correct' and comment on everything I add. Even when I post something from the Guardian which you admit is a reliable source, you change it. It seems to me that more established editors such as yourself do your absolute best to put newer editors off participating. You operate as if you own every page to do with climate change and, once again, I am seriously thinking of leaving you to it. Notagainst (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notagainst, You might be quite surprised that I do consider climate change a crisis/emergency. I've urged my university to declare one as well, and we were successful . Thunberg has helped make this a common perspective, but certainly not the only perspective. There are people that hold a different perspective as they consider the problem easily solvable or find it small compared to other problems. Ecomodernist (mostly from articles in Dutch media, not sure whether foreign ecomodernists think differently) often hold the view it's quite solvable and therefore not a crisis. There is even a group of economists (publishing scientists) that think it's a relatively minor issue and that 'optimal' levels of warming are around 3.5C.. I think they're a bit silly, but in some cases even their views need to be addressed.

I intend to bring effects of global warming to good article status. That means that I'm checking every single sentence, including your additions. While the Guardian is reliable, it doesn't mean they're right about science all the time. I think I find minor mistakes in about 5-10% of their climate articles. I understand that checking everything gives ownership vibes. Just know I'm always open to third opinions, requests for comment or other forms of outside eyes. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene. Some time ago, this question was posed on the CC Talkpage: Do we want the article to be about the phrase or the crisis. If you consider global warming a crisis/emergency, why did you write Phrase per above. Also open to the idea of renaming this article to something like Reframing global warming as a climate crisis... ? Your response (and that of many other editors) denies WP readers the ability to find information about the crisis on WP. It also denies them the opportunity to see that numerous prominent sources (including 11,000 scientists) believe there is a crisis.

Your suggestion that the page should be renamed Reframing... suggests you do not believe there is a crisis - just that it could be called a crisis (presumably by a few over the top alarmists). If you genuinely believe there is a crisis, why did you not support François Robere and I when we were trying to make the case on the Talkpage that there is a crisis and this should be documented on WP? As a respected editor with a PhD, you could have had some influence on other editors who are clearly less informed than you. Notagainst (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notagainst, I'm documenting the crisis by describing what's happening instead of putting a label on it, with appropriately neutral language and taking into account non-fringe views outside of my own. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene. Those are weasel words - which are not even true - you did try to put a label on it. You wanted to call it Reframing global warming as a climate crisis.

Besides everything in WP has a label. Climate change is a label; global warming is a label; climate crisis is a label. Reframing global warming as a climate crisis does not avoid a label - it is a disingenuous label because it avoids a reality documented by RS. By proposing such a dubious label, you are not being true to your own convictions. You are also denying WP readers the opportunity to see that WP has RS documenting that there is a crisis. Notagainst (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene You urged your university to declare a crisis - but you are unwilling to urge your colleagues on WP to create a a meaningful article on the subject based on RS. What kind of person does that? Since you seem to have withdrawn from this discussion, any further interaction with you is pointless. Notagainst (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notagainst, some last words to defend myself. I didn't propose to rename it as 'reframing global warming ', but something in that direction. Later in the discussion I clarified that I didn't consider this a neutral title and a better one had come along. If some RS state we have a crisis, while others don't buy that, we should not cherrypick. Even when a substantial (say 60%) of RS are in favour of calling it a crisis (probs not yet true during previous discussion), we still reflect on the other portion. I rest my case here. Refusing further interaction on pages we both edit may be seen as disruptive editing. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene: "If some RS state we have a crisis, while others don't buy that, we should not cherrypick." I agree. What we should do is include those RS which say there is a crisis, and to provide balance (per WP:NPOV), also include sources that disagree. By omitting all RS on the subject, (and making the article exclusively about reframing instead of about the climate crisis), you and your colleagues are the ones doing the cherry picking. For a so-called experienced editor, you don't seem to understand even the most basic WP guidelines/pillars about providing balance. Your cherry picking on this issue is far more disruptive to WP and its millions of readers looking for reliable information about the climate crisis than my reluctance to engage with you. Notagainst (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to use automatic citations

Would it work for you to use automatic citation using the cite button? That will make sure your citations are immediately in the right format and for scientific sources include basic information such as the authors. It should save you some time as well. Knowing immediately who wrote an sscientific article allows me to work faster on verifying the source and if necessary find balancing opinions. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the cite button.I will have a look and see if I can figure it out.Notagainst (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

With regret, I must notify you that I have requested arbitration enforcement against you at Arbitration Enforcement. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE procedures

Sorry but WP:AE is run differently from other pages and participants have to post in their own section. Have a look at some of the other reports on the page or its archives to see the idea. At any rate, I have removed your inline replies. Please post them in your section which is: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement by Notagainst. If wanted, you can preface a reply with a WP:Notification ("ping") to the person you are addressing.

The replies I removed (without the signatures) were:

---

I was entirely unaware of Hank Stamper's comment on 6 January as I was not notified about it until Femkemilene notified me a week later. Besides which, his statement is very vague and appears to be aimed at other editors, not at me.

Femkemilene is the only other editor person who expressed any concern on this page so there is no evidence of a dispute. I will be arguing she has developed a personal bias against me after this discussion on my User page in which I commented "what kind of person does that?" after she declared her belief that there is a climate crisis - but she failed to argue in support of that stance on the Climate Crisis talk page.

---

The simple answer as to whether "wikivoice is not a principle" is that WP has a pillar called Neutrality. WP:wikivoice redirects to WP:NPOV. That page does not mention wikivoice in the list of contents. There is a section on the NPOV contents page called Policies and guidelines. It contains dozens of related policies - but wikivoice is not among them. WP does not have a principle, a guideline or a pillar called wikivoice. This is not a belief. It is a fact. I will provide further explanation on this issue later today.

---

On checking, I see that you have now posted in your section, but I'll still post the above in case you want to add anything. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Please review recent edits at WP:AE. As you are a new editor I will explain some core issues. The key point is that Wikipedia has hundreds of articles where editors battle to varying degrees. You must be aware that climate change is a hot issue in the real world with fierce proponents on both sides. Naturally, the same thing applies here. Various ways of handling that might be considered but the fact is that Wikipedia has no central editorial committee to rule on content issues or to ban unwanted contributors. Accordingly, disputes are handled with regard to behavior. It's easy to pay lip service to WP:CIVIL and similar, but in an area under discretionary sanctions (see #DS Alert - Climate change above) each editor must be scrupulously clean. Wikipedia operates on a "I know it when I see it" basis—rather than specifying exactly which words are ok and which are prohibited, an uninvolved administrator should ensure that editors never make snide comments which any competent reader of English would know are needling or belittling their opponents. Studying WP:FOC would be useful—focus on content, aka comment on content not contributors. With regard to content, it is pointless to add text unless the source is really reliable and really says what the text says. The mass migration issue at WP:AE is an example where there is a lot of confusion about whether such migration has occurred, versus whether it may occur in the future. It is essential that text be more precise and measured than evident at diff ("Global warming is already driving mass migration in different parts of the world"). That is a very strong statement which almost by definition cannot be more than someone's opinion, and that raises the "wiki voice" matter discussed at WP:AE. Do not add text like that unless each source is really reliable and really says that (hint: what may happen by 2050 is not relevant to that text). These are my opinions for your consideration and I do not want a response. However, please review recent edits at WP:AE and see whether you would like to respond there. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq. You seem to be suggesting that opinions about climate change (or any other issue) are not valid on wikipedia. That makes no sense when one of the key requirements for WP:NPOV is Balance where it says: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." In other words, the principle of neutrality appears to be based on the assumption that so called "facts" can be interpreted in different ways. All that is required (as far as I can see) is to quote a RS - and an opposing one if they disagree. Notagainst (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is time to close the WP:AE report. You must read what I posted above and respond now. If the above is your full response, please say so because the request has to end. Regarding your comment above, I cannot tell which part of my comment it is responding to. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The following comment was posted in the wrong section at WP:AE. Once again, on that page all responses must be in your section. See examples in the archives for how that is done. The issue is not being more circumspect: the point is to not comment about other editors at all. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking me to be more circumspect in how I comment on other editor's editing, I am happy to comply. Notagainst (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AE review

Above I wrote "please review recent edits at WP:AE". To help with that, check this history of WP:AE and look for comments in the Notagainst section. If necessary, update your statement by striking text that is no longer wanted or by adding any new comments. Please do that in your section. I will close the report soon but need your final review. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from everything related to climate change for six months. Please examine WP:TBAN for an explanation of what that means, and bear in mind that violations will result in blocks.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. Johnuniq (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Sockpuppet investigation notice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Notagainst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.149.246.232 (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Also pinging the possible sock accounts @Pinklydo: and @Friggenfright: from here rather than posting on their pages. User @NewsAndEventsGuy: may also be interested since he warned about sockpuppeting above on this page a year ago. I guess he referred to Friggenfright but who knows, there could be more. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

It has been found that you have been using one or more accounts abusively or have edited logged out to avoid scrutiny. Please review the policy on acceptable alternate accounts. In short, alternate accounts should not be used for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position. It is not acceptable to use two accounts on the same article, or the same topic area, unless they are publicly and plainly disclosed on both your and the other account's userpage.

Your other account(s) have been blocked indefinitely. This is your only warning. If you repeat this behaviour you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notagainst. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- TNT (talk • she/they) 20:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]