User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:NewsAndEventsGuy)
Jump to: navigation, search
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 writing for your opponent.

Feel free to copy reuse trash change distribute. Your mileage may vary.

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.


Civility barnstar.png Civility Award
For your tireless effort to reach consensus on climate change articles Dkriegls (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Quicklinks & text for my quick reference


/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3


Something I wish everyone understood as well as Leonard McCoy (Star Trek)[edit]

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 Spock's World, (Easily googleable... this scene is in googlebooks at the moment)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

25-50-25[edit]

  • 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.


"Edits by block evading socks are revertible on sight"[edit]

I would like to know where that[1] is written in policy. Every policy I am familiar with says, implicitly, that we can not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nothing in WP:PRESERVE has the least thing to say about supposed "block evading socks" -- Kendrick7talk 00:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Per WP:EVADE, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." If you poke around in sockpuppet and block enforcment stuff, you'll find various references to trust being an underpinning of the project, and sockpuppetry to do block evasion is such a violation of that trust that the block-clock can be restarted. In the case of the IP, they have had multiple concurrent blocks on different IP accounts since I started following the matter around 3 years ago. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Proper Interpretation of Talk page guidelines[edit]

In my view, it was the topic you were discussing about changing the lead sentence as well as use of "unequivocal." (the topic heading). It is why my comment was placed there. You are actually violating the talk page guidelines by manipulating the meaning or intention of what I write. Please stop. I don't post material that is not relevant to the topic being discussed. If you think it is, post it as a question. Don't move it under a new section or refactor entire sections based on on your own belief that it is not relevant. --DHeyward (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No current smoke, no fire. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Too much[edit]

Between Arbcom clerk responsibilities, OTRS backlog, COI backlog, and a bit of real life, I'm stretched too thin. I've removed global warming form my watchlist, at least for now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go; a lot of work is going to happen to address lead bloat. If you have serious RS based criticisms I'm hoping you'll still make time to bring them up during the talk page collaboration, instead of after it goes live. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


test[edit]

Does this work before anchor was archived? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it did.

Does this still work after thread with anchor was archived?

No, archiving broke the connection to the anchor.

(Rats) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sincere apologies...[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I am using this template on my own talk page per WP:OWNTALKNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears that you feel I am harassing you. I am not. I am also not stalking you to locations. I am very active in DR and editor retention and have mentioned this to you more than once. These seem to be areas you have now taken an interest in. However, let me be clear. WP:WER, WP:BRD and WP:DRN are areas I am very active in and have been for some time. They are all on my watch list and I have invested a good deal of time and energy collaborating with other editors on these pages and I feel that a collaboration with you has resulted in accusations against me several times over the last few days (and in turn, you feel accusations have been made against you).

I admit, I do not support almost any of the recent proposals you have made and I also admit I am very concerned with the manner in which you have discussed an article which is contentious, and where the Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing the page or associated pages. It also states that discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. I am concerned that you may not be aware that creating discussions in multiple venues where you have added the link to or mentioned with a link, the issues you feel are all related to Global Warming have crossed the line of Wikipedia:Canvassing. I seriously urge you to understand my concerns.

You have made some serious allegations on my talk page. I have removed all of them but have not asked you to refrain from posting on my talk page, just requested that you not discuss the BRD issue further there because it is my feeling that they constitute a personal attack. I now also request that you refrain from further accusations of any kind on my talk page because I also see them as personal attacks without foundation. If you feel anything I have done requires intervention , I suggest you make a formal complaint. Your recent behavior has most likely been a result of your honest feelings and beliefs, but that is no excuse for not trying to take time to better understand the areas you are making proposals for and having more patience with editors you are dealing with.

However, I do apologize for not being "nicer" to you. I certainly could have been but I felt I was not getting that from you so, I just stayed as civil as possible without caring if I was being all that "nice" or not. The situation between us is a conflict. There are many ways to move forward here and I cannot tell you which one to pick. You must make that decision for yourself. But I am prepared to move in any direction you take this, whether that be AN, ANI or ARB COM Enforcement.....or just trying to collaborate and learn to get along (the last one...I am more hopeful for than the others and would be the better practice).

So, I leave this to you but, please understand, I will not avoid you because you are now editing areas I am involved with but...I wont be going over to the global warming article. I have interest in the subject, but not the Wikipedia article.

Please feel free to delete this post and not reply.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, any RS-based/AGF/FOC comments from anyone at any articles I edit are welcome, and if you appear there with such comments that would be constructive editing and not hounding as far as I am concerned.
For archiving reference, your post above relates (I think) to
* A thread at Talk:BRD which led to
* Thread at your talk.
* After that I posted an idea I've been thinking about for awhile in this thread at Village pump. The idea relates to improving non-article pages. I probably used the wrong venue (proposals instead of ideas) but in any case, there was no fingerpointing at any ed or any particular non-article page.
* Later I started a thread at Editor Retention about something else , which led to another thread at your talk page and this one here.
In the future, if you feel compelledinspired to comment on any of my ideas, that's your right but please limit your comments to the substance of the ideas and that will be great but stop talking about my behavior.... except at ANI. If you feel compelled to attack my behavior, do it formally.

If I appear at DRN please do not take the case. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not know why you keep demanding things about DRN. You have no pending requests there and if you took a minute (again) to check our policy you would not be asking this as if there was a legitimate threat of such. That is behavior and it is incivil, because it makes an accusation where there is no action, no situation and no need to make such a demand. I will make no promises to not discuss your behavior or any other limit on my commenting on you when there is a legitimate reason to do so.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
For example, The above section "Something I wish everyone understood as well as Leonard McCoy (Star Trek)" contains a non free snippet from the book "Spock's World" by Diane Duane. It is a copyright violation to use non free snippets in the user space. It is two years old and yet it seems no one has even noticed the violation. However, per WP:NFCCP: "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace...".
This is just a small example of how you seem to be violating Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I wont have my hands tied to not make the request to you directly as that only seems right. I should not have to report such a blatant "misunderstanding" of copyright or any other procedure or guideline because you should be willing to AGF yourself, but you don't. You accuse me of harassment.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
<dead end> NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I have asked about the snippet and am told that it is "probably okay". I cannot promise that it is, but the best editor on the subject thinks it should be alright as long as that is the only snippet from the book in the user space.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
DRN has a guideline that states that volunteers that have had interactions, either positive or negative with the filing editor (or other participants) should recuse themselves from such requests. It need not be stated anywhere, just that editors should not involve themselves with disputes filed by editors they interact with. I would not have taken a case you filed, and will not should you have a dispute that comes to the board.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Test new alert system again (what if you cancel at the duplicate alert check window?)[edit]

(inserted later) Purpose of this test is to check the log of tags; If you click "save" then the filter log is updated (as it should be) and I wanted to confirm that when you click "cancel" the log is not updated. But I discovered an unexpected glitch. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I ran this test with these steps
1. Started new thread at my own talk page to test the new alert system. Thread consisted of

{{subst:alert|cc}} ~~~~

2. At the pop window warning eds not to re-issue an alert in under 12 months, I clicked "cancel"
3. Inspected my talk page; the new thread referenced above had not been posted
4. Started a second new thread at my own talk page with the same string.
5. OOOPS!!!! I expected the pop up window to re-appear, but instead the alert was immediately posted to my talk page.
DISCUSSION
This is bad because someone unfamiliar with the system could easily click "cancel" when confronted with the pop up, go away to read about the new DS system and consider whether they really want to issue an alert, and then start over. In this scenario the alert would instantly post to the target ed's talk page, before the issuing ed does the 12 month check. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Repeat test[edit]

In this test (which is a followup to the test described above), the following alert message posted without ever presenting me with the popup "Are you sure you want to do this" windowNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Today I tried to run through the listed steps at the very top of this thread, however, after completing step 1 the alert message posted immediately, without presenting me with the popup window advising me to check whether the user had been alerted in the prior 12 months. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Repeat test, but change the topics area[edit]

Same test as prior subsection but I changed the topic area to tree shaping in case the topic area would produce a different result but the same thing happenedNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Tree shaping, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


  • Yes: as Callanecc says, the filter system is designed to ignore alerts left when an alert is already on the page in question. You can certainly use the template more than once on the same page, but it will not be tagged or treated as an alert for the purposes of WP:AC/DS. This prevents the user's talk page "tag" history from begin polluted, which was a particular concern of mine given that it is not possible to redact or remove entries in this history.

    You may in future need to legitimately leave an alert on a page that already has one (for instance, when alerting a user for one topic area when they have already been alerted for another – a rarity but also a legitimate use case). In this case, you will need to manually remove from the first alert the two lines of code that trigger the filter before leaving your own alert. Hope this helps, AGK [•] 23:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I find the same results as you. If I (i) try to save an alert, (ii) hit 'cancel' at the warning screen, and (iii) try a second time to save an alert, then no warning screen is displayed after step (iii). However, the alert is appropriately tagged, so the template is functioning as expected. Unfortunately, it is not possible to have the filter display warning screens except the once, owing to the design of the AbuseFilter extension, but at the time I set up this system it was in my judgement an acceptable trade-off (there is no point in re-warning editors leaving an alert more than once). AGK [•] 23:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
@AGK:, thanks for the explanation; I would like to see a new (supplemental) tool developed. Right now, the "warning screen" has two functions for two different audiences.
  • Teaching tool - teaches eds unfamiliar or a little rusty how to do DS alerts
  • Research aide - whether ed is DS alert newbie or experienced DS issuer, there are links and insturctions on checking user's past DS alerty history.
Now that I know how DS alerts work, I know longer require the "warning screen's" teaching function, but I rely on it as a starting point for convenient research into the other eds' DS alert history. Going forward, if I want to issue a DS alert to someone, I'd like to be able to call up a tool to serve the research function, without any logging or alerting happening. Is that something that could be done? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
If you go to a talk page history at the top there is a "tag filter" section, type discretionary sanctions alert into that box and it'll pull up every edit which was tagged. I then click on the link to that version of the page and search for "discretionary sanction" to find any alert on the page. Likewise on the history page for WP:AE click on "Edits by user" at the top and type in the username you're searching for. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@Callanecc: Thanks, but the tool I had in mind would save me from having to remember those things. I only want the info every month or three, and my brain is slowly turning into that of an old fart. It would be nice to have a simple way to request spoon feeding of that information, as a reminder! I stumbled onto this issue when initiating the DS alert process intentionally to get reminded by the warning box, prior to a decision to actually issue an alert. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
There isn't really a way I can think of to do it (excepting a WMFLabs tool) apart from using templates such as {{Ds/log}} and manually saving the username each time you want to check, though you can achieve the same thing by bookmarking MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS to remember the pages, but that's likely to just confuse. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
" bookmarking MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS to remember the pages" Good idea! (duh to me) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Global warming hiatus[edit]

I note you have reverted what appeared to me to be a neutral change. The existing wording attributes motives to skeptics which they might not necessarily hold. Can you explain how you know that these people are opposed to action rather than simply skeptical? Skeptic2 (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I self-reverted before you posted here, on grounds that (A) your changes were a better match to the RS at the end of the sentence and (B) in a moment of confusion I thought your edit had injected the discrepancy... but of course you expunged it, thus improving the match to the RS, which improves the article. My error, so I fixed it a moment after I posted it. If you'd like to discuss any content on that article further, please use the article talk page so others can participate. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Skeptic2 (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Same general topic, this edit rather messed up the balance of the article, introducing what the first source calls "a misleading narrative". Since then the article's got more incoherent, and needs a revert to before your edit to restart, or a complete overhaul. The IPCC is clear that there have been multiple hiatuses, this one is still well under the classical 30 year period for determining climate and has multiple causes. So, will see what I can do when time permits, but this may take some unravelling. . dave souza, talk 17:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dave souza: Well, I know we're pulling in the same direction . I see two points in your post, Dave.
  • A That overall the article's incoherency has increased with my edits
  • B That you think the frequency of hiatuses in a long warming trend is less apparent than it used to be
Were there other big-picture goals I can try to help correct?
Re "A", I try to read with a climate-newbie's mind. My edits might not have finished the job, but in my opinion "incoherent" better describes the article's structure prior to my recent edits from the perspective of 7th grader climate science newbie. Sure we have a branching tree of main and sub articles, but this particular article, I think, benefits from including more of the background info than was previously present.
Re "B", I have a further edit in mind. Stay tuned, I'll replace this sentence with a DIFF when I do it.
In general, I think we'd both like an article a 7th grade science class can understand pretty much at a single pass, and one that neither pushes a false narrative nor turns lay newbie readers' brains to mush. Further thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
PS I started to work on "B" but opted instead to wait for you to attempt to articulate (table form perhaps) what you thought the pre-NAEG text said and compare-contrast the specific characteristics of "false narrative" you think I injected. Frankly, I don't see it. It might help get a grip to chart the issues in table form
Concept Pre NAEG version Post NAEG version
Ups/Downs in the surface temp record are common during longterm warming trends Y Y
Existence of any given slowdown/pause/hiatus/vacation/timeout/etc does not negate robust evidence of longterm warming Y Y
Lay climate newbie intro to chaotic interaction of the five named parts of the climate system and RS about fits and starts while seeking new equilibrium Nope Y
(Add yours here if you like) Example Example
Further elaboration please! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks NAEG, to try to put it simply:
Because the temperature record is erratic/has cycles, the classical period for assessing climate is 30 years.
Since around 1900 there has been a long term global or hemispherical increase in surface temperatures, interrupted by [shorter] periods of slower increase: such "Fifteen-year-long hiatus periods are common" [AR5 Box TS/3]
Global mean surface temperatures in the year 1998 were exceptionally warm, and there has been considerable publicity for the period 1998–2012 having a slower rate of increase than the period 1951–2012. To date there is no clear evidence of an end to this slowdown
The slowdown has been called a "pause" in a misleading narrative presented by journalists and "climate skeptics" as evidence that there's no need to do anything about anthropogenic global warming.Mooney
Scientists have identified several contributing factors to this apparent short term change of pace, including the point that most of the heat increase is in the oceans down to 2,000m depth.
The "climate skeptic" narrative is that scientists can't explain this short term fluctuation despite increasing CO
2
levels. Therefore science is Wrong, and we don't need to worry about reducing CO
2
emissions.
That's the overview, the article previously concentrated on the scientific side rather than discussing the "climate skeptic" narrative. . dave souza, talk 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Great, however the prior approach in my view was (probably) incoherent to climate newbies leaving them ill-prepared to evaluate the skeptic narrative. I say "probably" because I have not conducted any Usability testing on either version, and I assume you haven't either. If we review the prior version with "beginner's mind", surely we can present the science in a more accessible way? To that end.... You have opined your conclusions only. It would help to "show your work". If you can point at text that led you to your conclusions that will identify specific text we both think still needs work, if for different reasons. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC) PS I've made an edit to the article. Does that help at all? If no, details please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that's much better: it starts with the central point that the current slowdown is not unique. Have made a couple of tweaks, the first mention of "hiatus" is not supported by the source, which is Mooney on "slowdown", so added ref [1] to AR5 after "hiatus", clarified that this relates to surface temps, and added a link to global warming which wasn't linked in the first para. Lead looks much better, not sure if "scientists say "should be "scientists consider". The body text comes next: to start, the Slower surface temperature increase looks like gibberish and isn't sourced, will have to look at that later. Thanks, dave souza, talk 20:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much[edit]

Thank you very very much for your helpful contribution to the essay at User:Cirt/Gutting.

I'm trying to take lots of suggestions from the community in order to hopefully soon move those pages out of my userspace into main essay space.

I'd appreciate any advice you have on helping achieve that.

Cirt (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit a bit of negative response to the essay title "gutting", which to me connotes disgust somehow. The same topic could be approached from the constructive perspective of "pruning", which to me connotes abundant healthy growth and fruit to come. Instead of starting yet another essay, how about adding your ideas to one of these existing ones? See Wikipedia:Essays_in_a_nutshell/Deletion. Have fun, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I really would like to keep it at this particular title, as both supporters and critics of "gutting" have used the term a significant amount. But if you have any other ideas about how specifically to improve it, I'd love to hear your recommendations on how to modify the existing pages, and still keep them. — Cirt (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Case declined[edit]

The arbitration committee declined the request for a case involving the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, concluding that it was not within the scope of the committee's remit. The arbitrators comments here may be helpful. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, an appropriate result. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Any particular reason for the post on my page?[edit]

I have been editing climate change articles for 7 years with not a single ding, warning, or problem of any sort. Given the lack of context for your post, I find it ...puzzling. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Under the new "alert" system, they are merely informational. No imputation whatsoever. Commonly - but not always - large scale revisions to longstanding climate text augurs a period of vigor on the talk pages. Have at it! Following WP:ARBCC#Principles, of course. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Okey doke. thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)