Examine individual changes - Wikipedia

1020

'Prokaryotes'

21218487

[ 0 => '*', 1 => 'user', 2 => 'autoconfirmed' ]

false

31748642

3

'NewsAndEventsGuy'

'User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy'

'edit'

'/* A barnstar for you! */ new WikiLove message'

false

' {| class="wikitable" |- ! Tricks for consensus in a heated environment |- | Always assume its possible there's an ambiguity in the text that makes sense one way to you and makes equally good faith sense in a completely different way to someone else. Don't shoot back. When others try to make it personal remember that they are saying ''nothing'' about you and are instead telling the world they either lack discipline or else are consciously manipulating you to change the issue. So a personal attack by your assailant is nothing more than their own self-destruction. Smile to yourself, feel sorry for them, and move on. They are creating their own sanction by destroying their own editor-image. If you must stick with it, try very hard to avoid saying "you" and instead say "I" and "me" and stick to the subject matter. Then you don't have to get hot yourself. Often a magic bullet is to ask the other editor for permission to try to repeat back their own argument as neutrally as possible even if you don't agree with it. That instantly tells them you are listening and does 99% of what is possible (at least on your part) to cool things off. Besides, the exercise uncovers simple misunderstanding the majority of the time. If they just stay hot and bothered, there's a good chance they've got some compulsory emotional stuff or else lack good faith, either way... know when to politely quit trying and stick to that decision. Don't waffle back and forth about it or you'll really get bombarded when you try to end it. Just don't shoot any parting salvos and leave the door ajar. (I don't know why doors like to have the company of jars, but it seems to help.) An interesting essay along these lines is [[WP:WFTE|writing for your opponent]]. Feel free to copy reuse trash change distribute. Your mileage may vary. |} {{UserTalkReplyhere|cat=no}} {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |rowspan="2" valign="top" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|[[File:Civility Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]|[[Image:Civility barnstar.png|100px]]}} |rowspan="2" | |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''Civility Award''' |- |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your tireless effort to reach consensus on climate change articles [[User:Dkriegls|Dkriegls]] ([[User talk:Dkriegls|talk]]) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |} ''Quicklinks & text for my quick reference'' * [[WP:WikiProject Inline Templates]] * Block evading IP sockpuppet; see <nowiki>[[User:Arthur Rubin/IP list]]</nowiki> [[/Archive 1]] [[/Archive 2]] {{Index}} == Something I wish everyone understood as well as Leonard McCoy (Star Trek) == When planet Vulcan debated a proposal to withdraw from the Federation, Starship Enterprise was sent to represent the Federation, and humans specifically. At the planetary debates, Leonard McCoy took center stage. Audience outbursts were permitted, and so here is one of McCoy's answers to his main heckler: :The data about Earth speaks for itself-” Selv’s thin, angry voice came back. :'''“No data speaks for itself,”''' McCoy said, forceful. “'''Data just lies there. People speak.''' The idiom ‘speaks for itself’ almost always translates as ‘If I don’t say something about this, no one will notice it.’ Sloppy thinking, Selv! You are dealing with second- and third-hand data. You have never been to Earth, you don’t understand our language – and this is made especially clear by some of the material you claim to be ‘translating’ from Earth publications: an Andorian spirit-dancer with a Ouija board and a Scrabble set could do a better job. Though I must admit I really liked the article on the evolution of the blood sacrifice in Terran culture. That is not what major-league football is for…” :::''From the novel <ins>Spock's World</ins>, (Easily googleable... this scene is in googlebooks at the moment)'' [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 17:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC) == 25-50-25 == :*25% of people will be mad at you (or unteachable) no matter what you do, so don't waste your time trying to change them. :*25% of people will be thrilled with you (or self-directed learners) so don't waste your time trying to change them. :*Just focus on the 50% where you can make a difference. == Michigan global warming external link spamming IP == Attempts at communicating with the IP and other details of this story have been [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy/Mich-IP|moved to their own page]]. Also, * [[User:Arthur_Rubin/IP_list| Raw data, IP sock's editing sessions - Thanks Arthur!]] * [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy/Prep_ANI_for_Michigan_IP_range_block|Quickie analysis of raw data for Jan - June 2012]] * [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive763#Block-evading, Michigan-based global warming external link spammer; ACTION SOUGHT: 1yr IP range block|My first ANI (August 2, 2012)]] * [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#Michigan External Link Spammer - repeat block evasion|My second ANI (August 20, 2012)]] IN SUM, too bad the IP doesn't just pick a single article at a time, and spend a little time to actually make it better instead of just sticking in newslinks all the time. He is distracting other editors from making substantive improvements. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 15:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC) PS A [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A141.218.36.46&diff=549255788&oldid=549244360 play-dumb exchange] April 2013 [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 00:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC) == Help == Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, could you give me a hand? I'm having a ''very'' similar issue as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring_by_Embram that with Embram] with another editor at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polar_ice_cap&action=history Polar ice cap]. I would really appreciate it if you could stop by. Thank you. [[User:Gaba_p|<font color="blue">Gaba</font> ]] ^{<font color="green">[[User talk:Gaba_p|(talk)]]</font>} 21:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC) :Intending this as a bigger favor than the one you requested Gaba, I think I will decline and caution you regarding [[WP:CANVAS]]. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 21:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC) ::But wait.... I would not be surprised if the two users are actually the same. Check both user's block logs. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 21:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC) :::Noted, although I believe I kept the request for assistance pretty neutral. Yes, I was thinking something along the same lines. Since I don't want to engage in an edit war over at [[Polar ice cap]] I'll wait to see if the editor self reverts and if not I'll see what next step to take. Cheers. [[User:Gaba_p|<font color="blue">Gaba</font> ]] ^{<font color="green">[[User talk:Gaba_p|(talk)]]</font>} 21:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC) ::I don't think this specific issue would constitute canvassing. The edits are clearly problematic, [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 23:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC) :::Thanks for opining, and I should clarify that I did ''not'' say it would ''absolutely-positively'' constitute canvassing. I only meant that it exposes the parties to a non-frivolous ''claim'' of canvassing. Whether the various "appropriate" exclusions apply can be subjective. Who wants to go there, if it can be avoided? In other words.... stay out of the mud when possible. (Unless you want to kick your shoes off and play in it on purpose) That's all I meant. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 02:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC) == ANI ANEW AE == Hi, just to offer a suggestion: Use [[WP:ANEW]] when it's edit warring, and use [[WP:AE]] when you want arbitration sanctions. ANI is perhaps one of the least useful places to ask for specific assistance on wikipedia when dealing with problematic editors. Only in special circumstances is it useful or necessary. Although fringe topics and CC are under sanctions, they don't get acted on at ANI, only really at AE. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 23:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC) :Thanks, I meant to ask for the official ARBCC warning. Awhile back when I was asking for a clarification at ARBCC it was suggested that (requesting any admin to do it at ANI) was a decent way to go. But of course, I forgot to add that. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 23:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC) ::Whoever thought ANI was a good way to go has never edited at ANI. AE is by far the best bet. As long as concise dated diffs are presented demonstrating the issue, it generally gets dealt with, [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 07:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC) :::Oh thanks for brining this back to my attention, I forgot about that post. After I said that I was thinking more about it, and now believe I was only told to find an uninvolved admin, but not told ''how'' to find an uninvolved admin. So it's on me. Anyway, thanks, I'll try AE next time. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 11:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC) ==Timothy F. Ball== Thanks for the backgrounder you left on my Talk Page about the deletion of the Dr. Timothy F. Ball article. Wikipedia becomes seriously less useful when it's manipulated by a censorship cabal like ''William M. Connolley/Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Stephan Schulz/Guettarda'' group. We shouldn't have to go to French or German Wikipedia in order to find what's missing in en.wikipedia because of censorship. And I certainly shouldn't have to "poke" an article like I did to find out what's going on behind the scenes. Unfortunately, those of us facing an information blackout because of an active censorship cabal like ''William M. Connolley/Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Stephan Schulz/Guettarda'' don't have much choice. Those guys are doing serious damage to the credibility of Wikipedia. [[User:Santamoly|Santamoly]] ([[User talk:Santamoly|talk]]) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC) :You're welcome. Moving forward, if you can't make your criticisms by :*explaining how we can improve the encyclopedia :*through better use of what [[WP:RS|wikipedia defines as reliable sources]] and :*doing that without insulting others.... :don't expect editors like me to take you seriously. :[[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 08:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC) ::Sorry, I don't get what any of that has to do with me having to look for information on German or French Wikipedia simply because that same information is not permitted to appear on English Wikipedia. Some interest groups have discovered that a cabal of 3 or 4 editors can remove articles at will from en.Wikipedia by declaring that a notable subject is "not notable". Thanks for your puzzling suggestions but, actually, there's not a thing we can do about this. [[User:Santamoly|Santamoly]] ([[User talk:Santamoly|talk]]) 20:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC) :::Actually, there is. You can[[WP:FOC|focus on content]], talk about sources instead of editors, and make effective use of [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. Or, you can continue to just gripe. Personally, I'm not persuaded the guy is all that notable, either. You can insult me along with those other eds if you like, but that won't persuade me to change my mind. Good arguments expressed in a civil way and based on good RSs might, but that's not what you're doing. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 20:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC) ::::I'm not sure if you understand how this looks from the reader's perspective, for example. None of what you say applies. How does "Focusing On Content", for example, help me find out why some people get their shorts in a knot over this guy? It doesn't. Dispute resolution doesn't help when a single reader is looking for information that a cabal is determined to suppress. There's no dispute since nothing exists. Reliable Sources don't help because the article doesn't stay in place long enough for facts to be sourced. And I can see that you're not impressed with his notability, but how does any of that help the reader to find out what Tim Ball (for example) has said or done to make the climate dudes get so agitated that they delete any mention of the man? The whole world knows he exists (over 2 million Google hits, plus articles in foreign Wikipedias), and we can all see that he was deleted from WP by a small group that simply doesn't ''like'' him. They've found a way to effectively censor Wikipedia. [[User:Santamoly|Santamoly]] ([[User talk:Santamoly|talk]]) 04:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC) :::::I spend time talking to people who want to improve the encyclopedia. What I said applies to ''those'' people. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 08:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC) == Berkeley Earth == Would you mind taking a look at my edit request at [[Talk:Berkeley Earth]]? I have a COI that limits my willingness to edit the page myself. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) :{{User | Dragons flight}}, I will be glad to think about them sometime during the next week. Please ping if I appear to forget. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC) ==On user talk notices== On [[Talk:Global warming]] you wrote: : ''I know we don't usually talk about behavior on article pages but thought I'd mention, FYI, that this user has previously deleted an ARBCC head's up from their talk page.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=585369194&oldid=585365344] If they deleted it, that means they read it. It's up to them how they manage their talk page. In the interests of keeping talk page discussion focused, perhaps it would be better to remove that comment. It may be better in future to discuss such matters on user talk pages (either mine or that of the editor whose behaviour is in question, in this case). --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 17:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC) :Deletion of a notice does indeed indicate that the user read it, according to [[WP:TALK]]. I'm happy with saying such things on articles' talk pages, for benefit of other editors who may be interested in enforcement. However, our of respect for yourself, and since you ask nicely, will do. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC) == Article titled "Global warming controversy" == Hi there NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for for your recent comments to me regarding the Global Warming Controversy. :-) I just shared with 'Gaba' my views on what I think the tension might be in my edits regarding Global Warming Controversy. I was interpreting the article to be a balanced presentation of the arguments for and against Anthropogenic Global Warming. However, it would seem, as recent edit reversions would suggest, the article is about presenting the resolved scientific consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming, and the scientific arguments opposing Climate Skepticism. This for me at least seems to be a drift away from a purely neutral presentation of the Global Warming Controversy, with the article making a relatively poor presentation of the Climate Skeptics' viewpoint. I think maybe there is slight tension in the article title, Global Warming Controversy. My suspicion is there would be a number of people coming to the article to get a reasonable articulation of each side of the debate, but they might be a little bit disenchanted with what is presented. My suggestion and solution therefore, would be that wikipedia develop a separate, genuine article focused on 'Climate Skepticism'. That way wikipedians wouldn't have to exhaust themselves with NPOV arguments regarding the presentation of a Climate Skeptic's POV. At the moment a wiki search for 'Climate Skepticism' is re-directed to 'Global Warming Controversy' which leaves the reader wanting for a better articulation of the minority viewpoint of the Climate Skeptics. So what do you think??? A new article dedicated to discussing Climate Skepticism would be much more useful in my humble opinion....rather than people getting stuck in endless debates about NPOVs....??? Kind regards :-) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gfcan777|Gfcan777]] ([[User talk:Gfcan777|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gfcan777|contribs]]) 13:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :Pursuant to [[WP:TALK|the talk page guidelines]] the best place to suggest these things is at the article talk page. One specific proviso in the talk page guidelines that is currently a problem is [[WP:MULTI]]. At my last count there are four threads on three users' talk pages, plus the article talk page, all relating to your ideas about how our coverage of the topic might be improved. :Since you appear to be relatively new, here is the basic idea. Discussion about proposed :::*ARTICLE-IMPROVEMENT and :::*VALUE/MEANING/USE OF SOURCES ::all belong on the '''article''' talk pages. Since a lot of other editors are interested in this topic, I am going to refrain from commenting on such suggestions until you propose them at the proper venue, i.e., ''article'' talk pages instead of ''user'' talk pages. :That said, it is OK to leave FYI notes on user talk pages. For example, at your talk page I might say "Hey {{User| Gfcan777}}, did you see the discussion I started at [[Talk:Global_warming_controversy#Paleoclimate_records]]? Your input would be appreciated." That said, you also have to be careful to keep it neutral and honest because we frown on [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing to drum up support]]. :See you at the article talk page, mate. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 14:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC) == Focus == on [[Wikipedia:Purpose]] NEG. [[Special:Contributions/141.218.35.129|141.218.35.129]] ([[User talk:141.218.35.129|talk]]) 20:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC) :Excellent advice. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 20:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC) == Regarding Copyright issues== My apologies. The intention was to share some of the world's most interesting knowledge with the public. At your request, I will indeed put your message back on my talk page. And, in the future, I ensure you that I will create my own work based off information I obtain, [[User:Jwratner1|Jwratner1]] ([[User talk:Jwratner1#top|talk]]) :That will be great, and we really love enthusiastic new editors. First, please clean up by deleting all the copyright protected imagery you uploaded. You are welcome to ''truly'' design your own [[WP:IMAGES]] but copying textbooks doesn't count. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) :So, it turns out that the book I cited is entirely available for free on Google Books. Does that change anything? [[User:Jwratner1|Jwratner1]] ([[User talk:Jwratner1|talk]]) 00:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC) ::You've been here long enough now to know there are lots of guidelines. They are not hard to find. You'll get the most encouragement if you demonstrate at least some effort to look stuff up yourself, for example.... please see [[WP:Copyright violations]], and if there's something ''specific'' in there you don't understand I'll be happy to help find the answer.[[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC) ==Disruptive Editing== This is a warning that your editing of the Global Warming Talk page, appears to be contrary to WP:DISRUPT and to NPOV. Attacking other editors for disruptive editing without strong evidence and compressing talk discussions on the false claim that no specific proposal had been made makes it difficult to have coherent productive discussions. [[user:cwmacdougall|cwmacdougall]] 13:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC) :I'll be happy to have this discussion at [[WP:THIRD]] or other [[WP:DR|dispute resolution forum]] of your choice. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 13:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC) <small>(Note to self: This thread was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGlobal_warming&diff=587740217&oldid=587738250 initiated within minutes] of my replying to the OP at an article talk page. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 14:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC))</small> This is a second warning that your editing of the Global Warming Talk page appears to be contrary to WP:DISRUPT and to NPOV. For a second time you have compressed a talk discussion on the basis of a false claim, hiding crucial statements in an ongoing discussion, and inserting a biased incorrect editorial judgement in the explanation for the collapse. Such behaviour makes it difficult to have coherent productive discussions, and calls into question the neutrality of your editing of the article itself. [[user:cwmacdougall|cwmacdougall]] 0:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC) :The best place to file a formal complaint would be [[WP:AE]] (since the article falls under [[WP:ARBCC]]), but beware of the [[WP:BOOMERANG]] risk. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 01:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC) == BLP vios == Restoring them, not a good idea. Please stop. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 19:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC) :I admit I have mixed feelings about [[List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming]] but my feelings about [[WP:CONSENSUS]], [[WP:BRD]], and [[WP:DR]] are crystal-clear. Take your concerns thru proper channels, don't wage [[WP:BATTLE]] over your own individual views. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 19:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC) == ID == Hey. Just some backstory on the ID article. We've been discussing the issue you brought up for the past 6 or so months. The last 3 months or so have been solid discussion, non-stop. Consensus has strongly supported the current version of the article (with some minor adjustments) in all that time. The point of confusion is really just article scope. Some editors (two in particular) feel that the article scope should be some broad conception of intelligent design which includes historic figures (i.e. the [[teleological argument]]). The current article scope, however, is not that. It is currently written about a very specific form of the teleological argument which is promulgated essentially exclusively by the Discovery Institute. All the sources we have available back up that definition, and support the notion that the DI's version of ID is a unique concept. If you feel the article scope should be broader, then we would need new sources which showed that ID extended significantly beyond the DI... but honestly, I don't think now is the best time to start that, given the old discussion must have ''just'' been archived. It's been a really long issue, and I think we're all glad it's over without having to be escalated. Anyway, I hope that's helpful. I reverted the failed verification tag just because consensus has pretty strongly supported the current wording for a while now, and I think it should probably be discussed first before we start tagging away. Thanks. &nbsp; &mdash; [[User:Mann_jess|<b>Jess</b>]]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; [[Special:Contributions/Mann_jess|&Delta;]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|&hearts;]]</span> 00:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC) :Thanks... most of this might be most useful on the article talk page for the sake of any other newcomers. You have my ok to leave it here, or move it, with or without this comment. But if it were me, I'd move it. Anyway, thanks very much for a gentle explanation. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 00:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC) == Thanks for the hat/redirect.... == -- at the $1 biilion (or a lot less) thread. I can never remember how to do one of those hat/hide tricks! Interesting how these things get puffed up, even in places that should know better: SciAm, Nature Climate News, etc. etc. And, for all his protestations, Prof Robert J. Brulle, PhD (sic)'s news release is full of dubious puffery too -- though in fairness some of that could be his employers PR dept. Ah well. Best for 2014, [[User:Tillman|Pete Tillman]] ([[User talk:Tillman|talk]]) 01:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC) :"''I can never remember...''"; Me neither, which is why I take time to look it up when stuff like that is necessary to keep the discussion efficient. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 08:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC) ::I'm cursed with a *very* slow connection here (ISDN, long way to telco switch), which makes rouine stuff like that tedious. ::BUT -- we just ordered cable net service (+phone), which will -- I hope -- dramatically improve our speed. Best, [[User:Tillman|Pete Tillman]] ([[User talk:Tillman|talk]]) 18:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC) == Discretionary sanctions notification == ''I was templated with the ugly ARBCC warning and deleted it for looks. Here is the ensuing discussion'' [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC) :Fine, but would you mind explaining with diffs the reason you felt the need to template me? [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 15:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ::In terms of template or not template, the discretionary sanctions system doesn't give use the option. The reason for the notification was the edit to [[List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming]]. All of the users who made an edit on the 31st have been notified which makes dealing with anything which comes up later much easier. Basically the purpose of that template is as a cover for later. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 15:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC) :::Fair enough, I've passed out enough of the same warnings myself, though I have preferred to write original text most of the time. I once asked for ARB clarification if I, a regular editor, could hand out notices and log them as you have done, but the answer was that DS was under general review and I should await the outcome. Do you happen to know what developed in that effort? I haven't checked lately. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ::::[[WP:AC/DSR|Still going]] it's a job for the new Committee, once they get their heads around the job. In terms of [[WP:AE]] a warning which meets the requirements at [[WP:AC/DS#Warnings]] and [[WP:AC/DS#For administrators]]. {{tl|Uw-sanctions}} is considered to the warning which should be used. And the draft discretionary sanctions or more restrictive about {{tl|Ds/alert}} being the only thing which can be used to notify a user on their talk page. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 16:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC) :::::So I've been telling others about ARBCC for the same purpose you templated me. For example, see these three from the last 10 days. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkness_Shines&diff=prev&oldid=588404764 here] and [[User_talk:Punksta|here]] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cwmacdougall&diff=prev&oldid=587587164 here]; I'm just a regular editor, and for a long while now I mainly edit in climate change area. My objective in telling people of ARBCC is prevention, and I'm just a regular editor. Do my notices have "stick" for action at AE? In legal terms we would say the recipient of one of my notices has "Actual Notice", but the receiving party might try to argue for summary dismissal on grounds I lacked jurisdiction to serve notice and the notice was just as void as a non-existent notice. In street terms, do my notices have enough "stick" for follow thru at AE <ins>without undue worries of a boomerang</ins> ? Thanks for advice.... any help in keeping discussions constructive in the climate pages is appreciated. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 16:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC) {{od|:::::}}As long as it meets the requirements at [[WP:AC/DS#Warnings]] and [[WP:AC/DS#For administrators]] which {{tl|Ds/sanctions}} is designed to do '''and''' it is logged on the case page then I don't really care who issued the warning (if it's by a sockpuppet it gets difficult). Re your three examples, even if they were logged, I would say that Cwmacdougall and Darkness Shines would meet the requirements but Punksta may not. My standard is (which is my interpretation of [[WP:AC/DS]]): #Does it link to the decision authorising sanctions? #Does it tell the user what they need to do? #Does it suggest possible consequences for not following policies? This one isn't as important. So overall, I have no problem with a non-admin issuing the notification as long as it meets the requirements and it's logged. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 16:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC) : I think I was told that for now regular eds should not be logging. Which is why I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change&diff=543728765&oldid=543722653 reverted the log entries I had made] including my self-notice. If you know of anything on which I can hang my hat to log notices in the future, please let me know! Thanks for the supportive discussion here. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 16:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ::Not sure why, there are a few non-admins who log warnings. I had the same feeling before I got the mop. I don't think the Committee has made a decision as to whether non-admins can log but in the mean time as far as I am concerned a logged notification is a logged notifications. As long as you follow [[WP:Involved]] (ie you aren't warning everyone on the other side of disputes) I can't see a problem. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 16:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC) :::I usually thank people on the other side of disputes if they have presented reasoned discussion, RSs, and work within the process. But I have little patience for SOAP and FORUM, which is what we usually get. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 17:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ::::Hence the need for DS. Thanking them should be fine, but warning them about DS while you are engaged in a content dispute for example would not be okay (and would probably get you sanctioned). <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 17:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC) :::::What I was trying to say is that someone who posts RS-free SOAP and FORUM in the climate articles is not really engaged in a climate-related ''content'' dispute. Rather, they are soapboxing. Hence, I feel that INVOLVED, hinging on it does on there being a ''content'' dispute, does not stand in the way of a climate page editor delivering the notice. But I do try to tread lightly and rely on other climate editors also ringing the SOAP bell, because sometimes someone else might see something I don't, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=587832386&oldid=587830011 as recently happened]... and then, after a lot of further discussion, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=588538821&oldid=588492354 another opined it was still soap]. Seemed appropriate for me to deliver the notice in that case. Just for example purposes and not meaning to argue, do you agree ? [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 17:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ::::::Yes and no. The notifications aren't necessarily (although in practice that's how it works most of the time) intended to be used after editors agree that they are breaching policy. How I see it should work is the user makes an edit, the user is notified of discretionary sanctions and that's logged, the user makes edits which are against policy (RS-free SOAP and FORUM) and an admin warns/sanctions or the user is reported to [[WP:AE]]. So as far as I am concerned, as soon as they made their first edit to the climate change topic they could have been notified. Does that make sense or have a just muddled it all up? <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC) :::::::In theory that works fine, but in practice that would create an enormous secretarial headache. One solution would be to explicitly demarcate the pages where ARBCC applies, and to let the server pop up a warning box when such a page is edited. But I don't see that happening either. A better solution is to encourage anyone to pass and log these notices emphasizing that doing so is not evidence of a BATTLEGROUND mentality.... ''which is consistent with the disclaimer at the bottom of the template saying the template is not to be taken as an accusation of wrongdoing''. In other words, '''If ''getting'' the template is no evidence of wrong, ''giving and logging'' should not be evidence of wrong either!''' Such an action would enhance prevention by protecting good faith editors from fear of backlash if they try to mildly referee their own subject areas prior to formal complaints being filed. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 17:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ::::::::There was a discussion on the DS review about whether editing a page with an editnotice was enough but it was decided that it wasn't. I think once the new system is rolled out it'll be clearer that they don't imply wrongdoing. But the problem is always going to be the perception that it's being used to intimidate another user. Regarding non-admins giving notifications and logging, {{tl|Ds/sanction}} is coded so that it can be issued by non-admin - have a look at the template's documentation. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 00:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC) :::::::::Thanks for a great discussion, which I think has come to a close. I will check out the template doc and ping your talk page if I still have questions after. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 00:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC) ==Question about a source and [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]]== Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a question I raised [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources here]? Thanks. [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 21:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC) :I'll look and if I have anything to say and don't think I've been canvassed I'll be glad to opine. Thanks for asking. I think this is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=589665584 the pinpoint diff]. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 22:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)'

' {| class="wikitable" |- ! Tricks for consensus in a heated environment |- | Always assume its possible there's an ambiguity in the text that makes sense one way to you and makes equally good faith sense in a completely different way to someone else. Don't shoot back. When others try to make it personal remember that they are saying ''nothing'' about you and are instead telling the world they either lack discipline or else are consciously manipulating you to change the issue. So a personal attack by your assailant is nothing more than their own self-destruction. Smile to yourself, feel sorry for them, and move on. They are creating their own sanction by destroying their own editor-image. If you must stick with it, try very hard to avoid saying "you" and instead say "I" and "me" and stick to the subject matter. Then you don't have to get hot yourself. Often a magic bullet is to ask the other editor for permission to try to repeat back their own argument as neutrally as possible even if you don't agree with it. That instantly tells them you are listening and does 99% of what is possible (at least on your part) to cool things off. Besides, the exercise uncovers simple misunderstanding the majority of the time. If they just stay hot and bothered, there's a good chance they've got some compulsory emotional stuff or else lack good faith, either way... know when to politely quit trying and stick to that decision. Don't waffle back and forth about it or you'll really get bombarded when you try to end it. Just don't shoot any parting salvos and leave the door ajar. (I don't know why doors like to have the company of jars, but it seems to help.) An interesting essay along these lines is [[WP:WFTE|writing for your opponent]]. Feel free to copy reuse trash change distribute. Your mileage may vary. |} {{UserTalkReplyhere|cat=no}} {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |rowspan="2" valign="top" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|[[File:Civility Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]|[[Image:Civility barnstar.png|100px]]}} |rowspan="2" | |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''Civility Award''' |- |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your tireless effort to reach consensus on climate change articles [[User:Dkriegls|Dkriegls]] ([[User talk:Dkriegls|talk]]) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |} ''Quicklinks & text for my quick reference'' * [[WP:WikiProject Inline Templates]] * Block evading IP sockpuppet; see <nowiki>[[User:Arthur Rubin/IP list]]</nowiki> [[/Archive 1]] [[/Archive 2]] {{Index}} == Something I wish everyone understood as well as Leonard McCoy (Star Trek) == When planet Vulcan debated a proposal to withdraw from the Federation, Starship Enterprise was sent to represent the Federation, and humans specifically. At the planetary debates, Leonard McCoy took center stage. Audience outbursts were permitted, and so here is one of McCoy's answers to his main heckler: :The data about Earth speaks for itself-” Selv’s thin, angry voice came back. :'''“No data speaks for itself,”''' McCoy said, forceful. “'''Data just lies there. People speak.''' The idiom ‘speaks for itself’ almost always translates as ‘If I don’t say something about this, no one will notice it.’ Sloppy thinking, Selv! You are dealing with second- and third-hand data. You have never been to Earth, you don’t understand our language – and this is made especially clear by some of the material you claim to be ‘translating’ from Earth publications: an Andorian spirit-dancer with a Ouija board and a Scrabble set could do a better job. Though I must admit I really liked the article on the evolution of the blood sacrifice in Terran culture. That is not what major-league football is for…” :::''From the novel <ins>Spock's World</ins>, (Easily googleable... this scene is in googlebooks at the moment)'' [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 17:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC) == 25-50-25 == :*25% of people will be mad at you (or unteachable) no matter what you do, so don't waste your time trying to change them. :*25% of people will be thrilled with you (or self-directed learners) so don't waste your time trying to change them. :*Just focus on the 50% where you can make a difference. == Michigan global warming external link spamming IP == Attempts at communicating with the IP and other details of this story have been [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy/Mich-IP|moved to their own page]]. Also, * [[User:Arthur_Rubin/IP_list| Raw data, IP sock's editing sessions - Thanks Arthur!]] * [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy/Prep_ANI_for_Michigan_IP_range_block|Quickie analysis of raw data for Jan - June 2012]] * [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive763#Block-evading, Michigan-based global warming external link spammer; ACTION SOUGHT: 1yr IP range block|My first ANI (August 2, 2012)]] * [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#Michigan External Link Spammer - repeat block evasion|My second ANI (August 20, 2012)]] IN SUM, too bad the IP doesn't just pick a single article at a time, and spend a little time to actually make it better instead of just sticking in newslinks all the time. He is distracting other editors from making substantive improvements. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 15:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC) PS A [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A141.218.36.46&diff=549255788&oldid=549244360 play-dumb exchange] April 2013 [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 00:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC) == Help == Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, could you give me a hand? I'm having a ''very'' similar issue as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring_by_Embram that with Embram] with another editor at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polar_ice_cap&action=history Polar ice cap]. I would really appreciate it if you could stop by. Thank you. [[User:Gaba_p|<font color="blue">Gaba</font> ]] ^{<font color="green">[[User talk:Gaba_p|(talk)]]</font>} 21:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC) :Intending this as a bigger favor than the one you requested Gaba, I think I will decline and caution you regarding [[WP:CANVAS]]. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 21:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC) ::But wait.... I would not be surprised if the two users are actually the same. Check both user's block logs. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 21:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC) :::Noted, although I believe I kept the request for assistance pretty neutral. Yes, I was thinking something along the same lines. Since I don't want to engage in an edit war over at [[Polar ice cap]] I'll wait to see if the editor self reverts and if not I'll see what next step to take. Cheers. [[User:Gaba_p|<font color="blue">Gaba</font> ]] ^{<font color="green">[[User talk:Gaba_p|(talk)]]</font>} 21:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC) ::I don't think this specific issue would constitute canvassing. The edits are clearly problematic, [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 23:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC) :::Thanks for opining, and I should clarify that I did ''not'' say it would ''absolutely-positively'' constitute canvassing. I only meant that it exposes the parties to a non-frivolous ''claim'' of canvassing. Whether the various "appropriate" exclusions apply can be subjective. Who wants to go there, if it can be avoided? In other words.... stay out of the mud when possible. (Unless you want to kick your shoes off and play in it on purpose) That's all I meant. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 02:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC) == ANI ANEW AE == Hi, just to offer a suggestion: Use [[WP:ANEW]] when it's edit warring, and use [[WP:AE]] when you want arbitration sanctions. ANI is perhaps one of the least useful places to ask for specific assistance on wikipedia when dealing with problematic editors. Only in special circumstances is it useful or necessary. Although fringe topics and CC are under sanctions, they don't get acted on at ANI, only really at AE. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 23:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC) :Thanks, I meant to ask for the official ARBCC warning. Awhile back when I was asking for a clarification at ARBCC it was suggested that (requesting any admin to do it at ANI) was a decent way to go. But of course, I forgot to add that. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 23:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC) ::Whoever thought ANI was a good way to go has never edited at ANI. AE is by far the best bet. As long as concise dated diffs are presented demonstrating the issue, it generally gets dealt with, [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 07:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC) :::Oh thanks for brining this back to my attention, I forgot about that post. After I said that I was thinking more about it, and now believe I was only told to find an uninvolved admin, but not told ''how'' to find an uninvolved admin. So it's on me. Anyway, thanks, I'll try AE next time. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 11:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC) ==Timothy F. Ball== Thanks for the backgrounder you left on my Talk Page about the deletion of the Dr. Timothy F. Ball article. Wikipedia becomes seriously less useful when it's manipulated by a censorship cabal like ''William M. Connolley/Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Stephan Schulz/Guettarda'' group. We shouldn't have to go to French or German Wikipedia in order to find what's missing in en.wikipedia because of censorship. And I certainly shouldn't have to "poke" an article like I did to find out what's going on behind the scenes. Unfortunately, those of us facing an information blackout because of an active censorship cabal like ''William M. Connolley/Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Stephan Schulz/Guettarda'' don't have much choice. Those guys are doing serious damage to the credibility of Wikipedia. [[User:Santamoly|Santamoly]] ([[User talk:Santamoly|talk]]) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC) :You're welcome. Moving forward, if you can't make your criticisms by :*explaining how we can improve the encyclopedia :*through better use of what [[WP:RS|wikipedia defines as reliable sources]] and :*doing that without insulting others.... :don't expect editors like me to take you seriously. :[[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 08:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC) ::Sorry, I don't get what any of that has to do with me having to look for information on German or French Wikipedia simply because that same information is not permitted to appear on English Wikipedia. Some interest groups have discovered that a cabal of 3 or 4 editors can remove articles at will from en.Wikipedia by declaring that a notable subject is "not notable". Thanks for your puzzling suggestions but, actually, there's not a thing we can do about this. [[User:Santamoly|Santamoly]] ([[User talk:Santamoly|talk]]) 20:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC) :::Actually, there is. You can[[WP:FOC|focus on content]], talk about sources instead of editors, and make effective use of [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. Or, you can continue to just gripe. Personally, I'm not persuaded the guy is all that notable, either. You can insult me along with those other eds if you like, but that won't persuade me to change my mind. Good arguments expressed in a civil way and based on good RSs might, but that's not what you're doing. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 20:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC) ::::I'm not sure if you understand how this looks from the reader's perspective, for example. None of what you say applies. How does "Focusing On Content", for example, help me find out why some people get their shorts in a knot over this guy? It doesn't. Dispute resolution doesn't help when a single reader is looking for information that a cabal is determined to suppress. There's no dispute since nothing exists. Reliable Sources don't help because the article doesn't stay in place long enough for facts to be sourced. And I can see that you're not impressed with his notability, but how does any of that help the reader to find out what Tim Ball (for example) has said or done to make the climate dudes get so agitated that they delete any mention of the man? The whole world knows he exists (over 2 million Google hits, plus articles in foreign Wikipedias), and we can all see that he was deleted from WP by a small group that simply doesn't ''like'' him. They've found a way to effectively censor Wikipedia. [[User:Santamoly|Santamoly]] ([[User talk:Santamoly|talk]]) 04:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC) :::::I spend time talking to people who want to improve the encyclopedia. What I said applies to ''those'' people. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 08:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC) == Berkeley Earth == Would you mind taking a look at my edit request at [[Talk:Berkeley Earth]]? I have a COI that limits my willingness to edit the page myself. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) :{{User | Dragons flight}}, I will be glad to think about them sometime during the next week. Please ping if I appear to forget. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC) ==On user talk notices== On [[Talk:Global warming]] you wrote: : ''I know we don't usually talk about behavior on article pages but thought I'd mention, FYI, that this user has previously deleted an ARBCC head's up from their talk page.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=585369194&oldid=585365344] If they deleted it, that means they read it. It's up to them how they manage their talk page. In the interests of keeping talk page discussion focused, perhaps it would be better to remove that comment. It may be better in future to discuss such matters on user talk pages (either mine or that of the editor whose behaviour is in question, in this case). --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 17:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC) :Deletion of a notice does indeed indicate that the user read it, according to [[WP:TALK]]. I'm happy with saying such things on articles' talk pages, for benefit of other editors who may be interested in enforcement. However, our of respect for yourself, and since you ask nicely, will do. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC) == Article titled "Global warming controversy" == Hi there NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for for your recent comments to me regarding the Global Warming Controversy. :-) I just shared with 'Gaba' my views on what I think the tension might be in my edits regarding Global Warming Controversy. I was interpreting the article to be a balanced presentation of the arguments for and against Anthropogenic Global Warming. However, it would seem, as recent edit reversions would suggest, the article is about presenting the resolved scientific consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming, and the scientific arguments opposing Climate Skepticism. This for me at least seems to be a drift away from a purely neutral presentation of the Global Warming Controversy, with the article making a relatively poor presentation of the Climate Skeptics' viewpoint. I think maybe there is slight tension in the article title, Global Warming Controversy. My suspicion is there would be a number of people coming to the article to get a reasonable articulation of each side of the debate, but they might be a little bit disenchanted with what is presented. My suggestion and solution therefore, would be that wikipedia develop a separate, genuine article focused on 'Climate Skepticism'. That way wikipedians wouldn't have to exhaust themselves with NPOV arguments regarding the presentation of a Climate Skeptic's POV. At the moment a wiki search for 'Climate Skepticism' is re-directed to 'Global Warming Controversy' which leaves the reader wanting for a better articulation of the minority viewpoint of the Climate Skeptics. So what do you think??? A new article dedicated to discussing Climate Skepticism would be much more useful in my humble opinion....rather than people getting stuck in endless debates about NPOVs....??? Kind regards :-) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gfcan777|Gfcan777]] ([[User talk:Gfcan777|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gfcan777|contribs]]) 13:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :Pursuant to [[WP:TALK|the talk page guidelines]] the best place to suggest these things is at the article talk page. One specific proviso in the talk page guidelines that is currently a problem is [[WP:MULTI]]. At my last count there are four threads on three users' talk pages, plus the article talk page, all relating to your ideas about how our coverage of the topic might be improved. :Since you appear to be relatively new, here is the basic idea. Discussion about proposed :::*ARTICLE-IMPROVEMENT and :::*VALUE/MEANING/USE OF SOURCES ::all belong on the '''article''' talk pages. Since a lot of other editors are interested in this topic, I am going to refrain from commenting on such suggestions until you propose them at the proper venue, i.e., ''article'' talk pages instead of ''user'' talk pages. :That said, it is OK to leave FYI notes on user talk pages. For example, at your talk page I might say "Hey {{User| Gfcan777}}, did you see the discussion I started at [[Talk:Global_warming_controversy#Paleoclimate_records]]? Your input would be appreciated." That said, you also have to be careful to keep it neutral and honest because we frown on [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing to drum up support]]. :See you at the article talk page, mate. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 14:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC) == Focus == on [[Wikipedia:Purpose]] NEG. [[Special:Contributions/141.218.35.129|141.218.35.129]] ([[User talk:141.218.35.129|talk]]) 20:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC) :Excellent advice. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 20:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC) == Regarding Copyright issues== My apologies. The intention was to share some of the world's most interesting knowledge with the public. At your request, I will indeed put your message back on my talk page. And, in the future, I ensure you that I will create my own work based off information I obtain, [[User:Jwratner1|Jwratner1]] ([[User talk:Jwratner1#top|talk]]) :That will be great, and we really love enthusiastic new editors. First, please clean up by deleting all the copyright protected imagery you uploaded. You are welcome to ''truly'' design your own [[WP:IMAGES]] but copying textbooks doesn't count. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) :So, it turns out that the book I cited is entirely available for free on Google Books. Does that change anything? [[User:Jwratner1|Jwratner1]] ([[User talk:Jwratner1|talk]]) 00:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC) ::You've been here long enough now to know there are lots of guidelines. They are not hard to find. You'll get the most encouragement if you demonstrate at least some effort to look stuff up yourself, for example.... please see [[WP:Copyright violations]], and if there's something ''specific'' in there you don't understand I'll be happy to help find the answer.[[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC) ==Disruptive Editing== This is a warning that your editing of the Global Warming Talk page, appears to be contrary to WP:DISRUPT and to NPOV. Attacking other editors for disruptive editing without strong evidence and compressing talk discussions on the false claim that no specific proposal had been made makes it difficult to have coherent productive discussions. [[user:cwmacdougall|cwmacdougall]] 13:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC) :I'll be happy to have this discussion at [[WP:THIRD]] or other [[WP:DR|dispute resolution forum]] of your choice. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 13:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC) <small>(Note to self: This thread was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGlobal_warming&diff=587740217&oldid=587738250 initiated within minutes] of my replying to the OP at an article talk page. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 14:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC))</small> This is a second warning that your editing of the Global Warming Talk page appears to be contrary to WP:DISRUPT and to NPOV. For a second time you have compressed a talk discussion on the basis of a false claim, hiding crucial statements in an ongoing discussion, and inserting a biased incorrect editorial judgement in the explanation for the collapse. Such behaviour makes it difficult to have coherent productive discussions, and calls into question the neutrality of your editing of the article itself. [[user:cwmacdougall|cwmacdougall]] 0:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC) :The best place to file a formal complaint would be [[WP:AE]] (since the article falls under [[WP:ARBCC]]), but beware of the [[WP:BOOMERANG]] risk. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 01:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC) == BLP vios == Restoring them, not a good idea. Please stop. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 19:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC) :I admit I have mixed feelings about [[List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming]] but my feelings about [[WP:CONSENSUS]], [[WP:BRD]], and [[WP:DR]] are crystal-clear. Take your concerns thru proper channels, don't wage [[WP:BATTLE]] over your own individual views. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 19:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC) == ID == Hey. Just some backstory on the ID article. We've been discussing the issue you brought up for the past 6 or so months. The last 3 months or so have been solid discussion, non-stop. Consensus has strongly supported the current version of the article (with some minor adjustments) in all that time. The point of confusion is really just article scope. Some editors (two in particular) feel that the article scope should be some broad conception of intelligent design which includes historic figures (i.e. the [[teleological argument]]). The current article scope, however, is not that. It is currently written about a very specific form of the teleological argument which is promulgated essentially exclusively by the Discovery Institute. All the sources we have available back up that definition, and support the notion that the DI's version of ID is a unique concept. If you feel the article scope should be broader, then we would need new sources which showed that ID extended significantly beyond the DI... but honestly, I don't think now is the best time to start that, given the old discussion must have ''just'' been archived. It's been a really long issue, and I think we're all glad it's over without having to be escalated. Anyway, I hope that's helpful. I reverted the failed verification tag just because consensus has pretty strongly supported the current wording for a while now, and I think it should probably be discussed first before we start tagging away. Thanks. &nbsp; &mdash; [[User:Mann_jess|<b>Jess</b>]]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; [[Special:Contributions/Mann_jess|&Delta;]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|&hearts;]]</span> 00:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC) :Thanks... most of this might be most useful on the article talk page for the sake of any other newcomers. You have my ok to leave it here, or move it, with or without this comment. But if it were me, I'd move it. Anyway, thanks very much for a gentle explanation. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 00:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC) == Thanks for the hat/redirect.... == -- at the $1 biilion (or a lot less) thread. I can never remember how to do one of those hat/hide tricks! Interesting how these things get puffed up, even in places that should know better: SciAm, Nature Climate News, etc. etc. And, for all his protestations, Prof Robert J. Brulle, PhD (sic)'s news release is full of dubious puffery too -- though in fairness some of that could be his employers PR dept. Ah well. Best for 2014, [[User:Tillman|Pete Tillman]] ([[User talk:Tillman|talk]]) 01:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC) :"''I can never remember...''"; Me neither, which is why I take time to look it up when stuff like that is necessary to keep the discussion efficient. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 08:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC) ::I'm cursed with a *very* slow connection here (ISDN, long way to telco switch), which makes rouine stuff like that tedious. ::BUT -- we just ordered cable net service (+phone), which will -- I hope -- dramatically improve our speed. Best, [[User:Tillman|Pete Tillman]] ([[User talk:Tillman|talk]]) 18:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC) == Discretionary sanctions notification == ''I was templated with the ugly ARBCC warning and deleted it for looks. Here is the ensuing discussion'' [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC) :Fine, but would you mind explaining with diffs the reason you felt the need to template me? [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 15:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ::In terms of template or not template, the discretionary sanctions system doesn't give use the option. The reason for the notification was the edit to [[List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming]]. All of the users who made an edit on the 31st have been notified which makes dealing with anything which comes up later much easier. Basically the purpose of that template is as a cover for later. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 15:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC) :::Fair enough, I've passed out enough of the same warnings myself, though I have preferred to write original text most of the time. I once asked for ARB clarification if I, a regular editor, could hand out notices and log them as you have done, but the answer was that DS was under general review and I should await the outcome. Do you happen to know what developed in that effort? I haven't checked lately. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ::::[[WP:AC/DSR|Still going]] it's a job for the new Committee, once they get their heads around the job. In terms of [[WP:AE]] a warning which meets the requirements at [[WP:AC/DS#Warnings]] and [[WP:AC/DS#For administrators]]. {{tl|Uw-sanctions}} is considered to the warning which should be used. And the draft discretionary sanctions or more restrictive about {{tl|Ds/alert}} being the only thing which can be used to notify a user on their talk page. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 16:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC) :::::So I've been telling others about ARBCC for the same purpose you templated me. For example, see these three from the last 10 days. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkness_Shines&diff=prev&oldid=588404764 here] and [[User_talk:Punksta|here]] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cwmacdougall&diff=prev&oldid=587587164 here]; I'm just a regular editor, and for a long while now I mainly edit in climate change area. My objective in telling people of ARBCC is prevention, and I'm just a regular editor. Do my notices have "stick" for action at AE? In legal terms we would say the recipient of one of my notices has "Actual Notice", but the receiving party might try to argue for summary dismissal on grounds I lacked jurisdiction to serve notice and the notice was just as void as a non-existent notice. In street terms, do my notices have enough "stick" for follow thru at AE <ins>without undue worries of a boomerang</ins> ? Thanks for advice.... any help in keeping discussions constructive in the climate pages is appreciated. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 16:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC) {{od|:::::}}As long as it meets the requirements at [[WP:AC/DS#Warnings]] and [[WP:AC/DS#For administrators]] which {{tl|Ds/sanctions}} is designed to do '''and''' it is logged on the case page then I don't really care who issued the warning (if it's by a sockpuppet it gets difficult). Re your three examples, even if they were logged, I would say that Cwmacdougall and Darkness Shines would meet the requirements but Punksta may not. My standard is (which is my interpretation of [[WP:AC/DS]]): #Does it link to the decision authorising sanctions? #Does it tell the user what they need to do? #Does it suggest possible consequences for not following policies? This one isn't as important. So overall, I have no problem with a non-admin issuing the notification as long as it meets the requirements and it's logged. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 16:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC) : I think I was told that for now regular eds should not be logging. Which is why I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change&diff=543728765&oldid=543722653 reverted the log entries I had made] including my self-notice. If you know of anything on which I can hang my hat to log notices in the future, please let me know! Thanks for the supportive discussion here. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 16:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ::Not sure why, there are a few non-admins who log warnings. I had the same feeling before I got the mop. I don't think the Committee has made a decision as to whether non-admins can log but in the mean time as far as I am concerned a logged notification is a logged notifications. As long as you follow [[WP:Involved]] (ie you aren't warning everyone on the other side of disputes) I can't see a problem. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 16:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC) :::I usually thank people on the other side of disputes if they have presented reasoned discussion, RSs, and work within the process. But I have little patience for SOAP and FORUM, which is what we usually get. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 17:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ::::Hence the need for DS. Thanking them should be fine, but warning them about DS while you are engaged in a content dispute for example would not be okay (and would probably get you sanctioned). <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 17:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC) :::::What I was trying to say is that someone who posts RS-free SOAP and FORUM in the climate articles is not really engaged in a climate-related ''content'' dispute. Rather, they are soapboxing. Hence, I feel that INVOLVED, hinging on it does on there being a ''content'' dispute, does not stand in the way of a climate page editor delivering the notice. But I do try to tread lightly and rely on other climate editors also ringing the SOAP bell, because sometimes someone else might see something I don't, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=587832386&oldid=587830011 as recently happened]... and then, after a lot of further discussion, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=588538821&oldid=588492354 another opined it was still soap]. Seemed appropriate for me to deliver the notice in that case. Just for example purposes and not meaning to argue, do you agree ? [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 17:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ::::::Yes and no. The notifications aren't necessarily (although in practice that's how it works most of the time) intended to be used after editors agree that they are breaching policy. How I see it should work is the user makes an edit, the user is notified of discretionary sanctions and that's logged, the user makes edits which are against policy (RS-free SOAP and FORUM) and an admin warns/sanctions or the user is reported to [[WP:AE]]. So as far as I am concerned, as soon as they made their first edit to the climate change topic they could have been notified. Does that make sense or have a just muddled it all up? <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC) :::::::In theory that works fine, but in practice that would create an enormous secretarial headache. One solution would be to explicitly demarcate the pages where ARBCC applies, and to let the server pop up a warning box when such a page is edited. But I don't see that happening either. A better solution is to encourage anyone to pass and log these notices emphasizing that doing so is not evidence of a BATTLEGROUND mentality.... ''which is consistent with the disclaimer at the bottom of the template saying the template is not to be taken as an accusation of wrongdoing''. In other words, '''If ''getting'' the template is no evidence of wrong, ''giving and logging'' should not be evidence of wrong either!''' Such an action would enhance prevention by protecting good faith editors from fear of backlash if they try to mildly referee their own subject areas prior to formal complaints being filed. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 17:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ::::::::There was a discussion on the DS review about whether editing a page with an editnotice was enough but it was decided that it wasn't. I think once the new system is rolled out it'll be clearer that they don't imply wrongdoing. But the problem is always going to be the perception that it's being used to intimidate another user. Regarding non-admins giving notifications and logging, {{tl|Ds/sanction}} is coded so that it can be issued by non-admin - have a look at the template's documentation. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 00:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC) :::::::::Thanks for a great discussion, which I think has come to a close. I will check out the template doc and ping your talk page if I still have questions after. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 00:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC) ==Question about a source and [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]]== Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a question I raised [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources here]? Thanks. [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 21:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC) :I'll look and if I have anything to say and don't think I've been canvassed I'll be glad to opine. Thanks for asking. I think this is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=589665584 the pinpoint diff]. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 22:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC) == A barnstar for you! == {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png|100px]] |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence''' |- |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Even if we disagree on some content(NASA video) i always appreciate your input. ~~~~ |}'

'@@ -202,3 +202,12 @@ ==Question about a source and [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]]== Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a question I raised [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources here]? Thanks. [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 21:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC) :I'll look and if I have anything to say and don't think I've been canvassed I'll be glad to opine. Thanks for asking. I think this is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=589665584 the pinpoint diff]. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#top|talk]]) 22:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC) + +== A barnstar for you! == + +{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" +|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png|100px]] +|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence''' +|- +|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Even if we disagree on some content(NASA video) i always appreciate your input. ~~~~ +|} '

[ 0 => false, 1 => '== A barnstar for you! ==', 2 => false, 3 => '{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"', 4 => '|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png|100px]]', 5 => '|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''', 6 => '|-', 7 => '|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Even if we disagree on some content(NASA video) i always appreciate your input. ~~~~', 8 => '|}' ]

0

1389626190