Hello, Terradactyl, 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:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.
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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!
Reference errors on 20 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Earth system science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cause and effect. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. prokaryotes (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that if you continue with POV edits, you will likely be reported at a noticeboard. Thus i suggest you change your approach, and stop edit warring vs consensus. Your edits are disruptive.prokaryotes (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
September 2015
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. NeilNtalk to me02:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks
Dear Terradactyl, any thanks for your work in ESS and Gaia Science, like Lovelock himself, I think it has long ago left being a mere hypothesis. I was one of the earlier contributors to both articles. Warm regards, John D. Croft (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
re:Your comment on DR/N under "Fourth statements by Editors"
In regards to your comment here, let me explain some things and ask some questions since this is highly disruptive to the resolution process and is not helping your cause of adding/re-adding the contested material against the local consensus.
Point, the First: "Impartiality of the RfC"
If you have, then you should have seen (in the lead) the statement:
"Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. It uses a system of centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations to advertise discussions to uninvolved editors." (emphasis added)
So, by obvious declaration, an RfC is the closest thing that you will get to "an impartial process" besides DR/N, Formal Mediation, or ArbCom. However, ArbCom will also take into account the behaviours of editors which can adversely affect the filing party per WP:BOOMERANG.
Point, the Second: "Recap of the dispute"
Robert McClenon is not dedicating 100% of his time to this dispute, but is spread out over a few large and important pages at the moment. He is a human and hence is likely to make mistakes and/or not read through every word of the statements/comments. You need to assume some good faith and not jump to the conclusion that Rob is trying to act against you; if anything, Rob is trying to help you out of an otherwise untenable position.
Point, the Third: "RfC Wording"
This is my, and Rob's, biggest area of concern with you. You seem to have assumed that Rob will be writing the RfC statement when he has specifically asked you (as the filing party and the proponent) to propose a draft statement. So your statement below (in the box) is actually making a very large assumption, a false assumption, though you have finally given Rob a draft statement to work with.
Stanza 6 → 10 of comment
"But it would appear from his 'recap' that the mediator probably intends to have this RfC read something like:
“Do you agree the an editor should add a lengthy section to the Earth system science entry about the Gaia hypothesis against local consensus?”
And, lo and behold, every single editor polled would likely say – surprise, surprise! – no! So would I – if I were asked and knew nothing more about it.
But an adequate RfC would read something like this:
“Do you think that in the Earth system science (ESS) article a longstanding section concerning the relationship of ESS to Gaia theory, as well as longstanding material about the Amsterdam Declaration on Global Change, should be reinstated in a new version (of the same length as prior) citing sources discussing the viewpoint that ESS and Gaia theory are synonymous, alongside other viewpoints?”
Point, the Fourth: "Binding nature of RfC"
An RfC is binding in the same way that a DR/N closure result is binding. It is an agreement between editors on how to proceed, via consensus. However, DR/N cases are typically between small groups of editors and so, when a new editor comes along, the said DR/N case is rarely considered as it was between the involved editors and content change.
An RfC on the other hand is about the content, and never about editors. Hence an RfC is considered binding to the article page, rather than the content dispute between the previous editors.
So, to put it into a bit of context:
Editors, A, B, Y and Z are in a dispute over content. They go to DR/N and it gets resolved as "no addition". That result is binding to the content disputed and the editors involved.
Editors M and N come along after the DR/N case. They don't know about the DR/N case that involved A, B, Y and Z; however they make a change to the article that is related to the previous content dispute. The editors decide to use an RfC to determine a better way forward ... RfC starts and finishes ... RfC consensus is to "accept the changes" made by Editors M and N by 30 to 6, despite the previous DR/N case.
The RfC consensus is considered "community consensus", and is seen as "more binding" than a DR/N case.
Does that help make this clearer about the "binding result"?
Point, the Fifth and Last: "Behaviour of Mediator (Robert McClenon)"
If you feel than a Mediator is being biased or not acting in good faith, then you can discuss having a new mediator take over on the DR/N talk page. Rob has already made this suggestion to you after your comment was posted, but this to ensure you know how to ask instead of being uncivil and commenting on Rob's alleged bias/unhelpfulness.
If you have concerns, enquires or general questions about this post; please use {{u|Drcrazy102}} in your reply message. If you have questions about thing unrelated to this post or DR/N, feel free to drop me a message on my talkpage. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Terradactyl. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
