User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

DS alert notes

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% 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)


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.
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 CO2 levels. Therefore science is Wrong, and we don't need to worry about reducing CO2 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)

SpeedyDelete proposal for User talk:Niccolo[edit]

Sorry, that user (for User talk:Niccolo) does exist and is active on the Czech Wikipedia et al. (If you click 'Contribs' and then look for SUL at bottom right, you get the whole wiki picture of editing.) Hasn't edited here, and the welcome template looks to have gone wrong, but I can't think of a speedy for it. Is it worth taking to MfD, and if so, for what? He probably doesn't know it exists - I sometimes find I've got talk pages in places I've never been to before. Peridon (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh. And thanks for your looking into it. Yes, its MFD material as a matter of general housekeeping. Dust bunnies pile up if you never sweep or vacuum. FYI, I did click "contribs" for the EN wikipedia, and there were none, nor were there any logs as performer or target nor any ANI hits. I don't know about these things, but seems to me an editor at the Czech wikipedia who has never been here is certainly entitled to a user talk page at the Czech wikipedia. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello NewsAndEventsGuy, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list


This is about thisNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate an answer. I don't think it's civil to accuse other people of ulterior motives. EllenCT (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:DROPTHESTICK. As the Dread Pirate Roberts said, "Get used to disappointment". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Follow-on Q's[edit]

Thanks for the comments on GWP. I could use a few more vectors though. What is "RS," from your comment "Or so says the RS," and has someone done the calculation for the 2-3x GWP that can be referenced? I hope I am not out of line with this post.GESICC (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)GESICC

Constructive efforts - even when its to express constructive disagreement - are essential! So welcome!
RS = what Wikipedia calls a "reliable source"; When there is doubt, visit the reliable source noticeboard to discuss the source's merits
See also the WP:Talk page guidelines to help get started interacting with good habits (not that you have shown me any bad ones)
As for a numeric value for the GWP of water, beats me. The source we discussed says it varies according to accounting method. No doubt you could start pulling on that string and get into some heavy reading. You know about "google" of course.... have you tried "google scholar"?
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Humboldtsches Bildungsideal[edit]

You are right that English titles are preferred in the English Wikipedia. If you look at talk and history, the article had an English title, however, that was only a translation (and a misleading one, as Bildung = education, but the concept is strictly for university education, and Ideal can't be captured as ideal), nothing used in sources. We should not invent titles. Ideas welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My only current input is the form of two questions
1. Are there any reliable sources that were originally written in English that establish WP:Notability?
2. If 1=Y then what term was used in those sources; otherwise if 1=N then does the topic have sufficient WP:Notability to be included in the English Wikipedia?
This is the first time the question of notability for foreign topics has crossed my path, so I don't know the hypothetical answer to the latter part of question 2.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I (German) write on many topics with German titles, including all Bach cantatas. The question of notability never came up. - I am only a copy-editor to the article but had no problem accepting the concept of the founder of the Berlin university which was later named after him, a concept still valid in our time, as notable. We have so many articles on less notable subjects, such as toilet paper orientation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm surprised you picked that particular example to sniff at.... for US divorce attorneys that particular issue plays a really substantial roll.that was not a typo! Ha ha I have no knowledge of the subject matter. Based on your description one would expect there to be plenty of reasonable English language sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
(I remember the infobox discusion on the example.) Take the name discussion to article talk, please. One English name seems to be Humboldtian Model, but that would not even suggest education. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification Request[edit]

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. This is a courtesy notice to advise that I have closed and archived your request for clarification on the "Climate Change" arb case. You can find the discussion here. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

Great, thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi NewsAndEventsGuy,

I've placed a question for you on my page as follows:

Thanks for your note. I would appreciate if you could explain how what I added was new. My input was an objective point in clarification of this part of the quote: "The fact is that it would be difficult or impossible to explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without CO2 changes."

This "fact" is neither defended nor explained yet represents a key reason Gore's use of ice cores came under scrutiny. As noted, I fail to see how this is "new", and would appreciate your input, perhaps on my page.


Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cb25 (talkcontribs) 05:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


It would have been far more useful for me if you had provided a link to the section I had missed rather than a link to the guideline. -- PBS (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry and glad to see you got there anyway.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
it is better left as it is because my construction of my comment would have been different had I seen the previous discussion. -- PBS (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
So fix it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment committee[edit]

You had previously commented on the possibility of a "comment" committee at the idea lab. At Talk:Landmark Worldwide, I have started a discussion regarding possibly starting a "trial run" of such an idea. Your input in the discussion would of course be welcome. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

good luck, but I'm too busy to do more right now.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Conversation with 2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3[edit]

Note, this is in regards to my edit summary under this revert and/or this talk page comment NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

In regards to your complete misunderstanding of my activities here, especially in regard to your summary remark that i am resuming an edit-war after coming off of a block, please just stop with me. That was in no way meant to disrupt-it was exactly what I said it was on the TP. RM an edit due to perceived editor behavior is not really fair when you have a chance to discuss your objection to that particular edit on the TP. Just knock-it-off please. I mean that in the most polite way that you could take it.2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

When one's edit-warring block expires they could
  • A) Use the talk page to work out the solution to the perceived problem
  • B) Cite incomplete consensus to hack at the article yet again
Query, which of those is more consistent with WP:BRD and the overall message in WP:ARBCC.
Speaking of interrupting one's activities... now you've distracted me from the AE complaint I was drafting seeking a renewed 1-week block.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW, this has nothing to do with your edits or reasons. Whether I agree or disagree... I have not yet said. Rather, I'm opposing your process. Work together to improve the thing, within our behavioral guidelines, or cram your views down everyone's throats. Even when I agree with some POV-crammer's views, I still object because I am opposed to view-cramming. Use the talk page after you've been reverted, without insulting others or their motives, and all is well. Do otherwise, and expect a different response. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


Please don't copy paste entire threads (which I deleted here). See WP:TPG especially the part about WP:MULTI. Instead, just ping other eds with a link to the thread, such as this for example. To pipe that link I entered [[Talk:Feeding_Everyone_No_Matter_What#Spamming|this for example]]. Read more at WP:EFAQ#LINK NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. But could you please respond to my comment that I was improving articles, not just plugging a book? Thanks. Stonejm9 — Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
PS You have indeed started some good improvements at Food security. Please see my changes there, and discuss on that talk page if you like. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve SolaRoad[edit]

Hi, I'm Fisheriesmgmt. NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for creating SolaRoad!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Great start! I look forward to seeing this article expanded to better explain the notability of the SolaRoad. Let me know if I can help!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page[edit]

You've left comments on my talk page. I responded there (I don't know if you'll get a notification in that case). Feel free to delete this section once you've seen it. Thank you. - Embram (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

OK NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you receive a notification when I respond to a reply of yours on my Talk page? Just wondering. - Embram (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no "Notification" as in a yellow bar at the top, but I do get notified via a bolded entry in my WP:Watchlist NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

DS Alerts[edit]

I think this refers to this comment about DS alertsNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

INDEED -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't, unless you ask me to here, however, could you explain how I find out if you've had one in the past year or not? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 02:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(A) Lemme have it! Seriously, its good practice and I don't mind. just do a new thread by copy pasting this
== DS Alert (psuedoscience) ==
{{subst:alert|ps}} ~~~~ ::
That might produce a pink box (designed to help you check someone's alert record), or it might not. The pink box is a little confusing at first. Let's just see what happens.
(B) To check someone manually
  • Manually look up user's DS Alert log..... talk page, version history, in tag field type "discretionary sanctions alert" without the quotes
  • If "no" then thru May it is also a good idea to look in the old notifications section, for psuedoscience that would be here. Old-system notices are valid until sometime in May.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Aha, just noticed this, sorry. Am going to follow your instructions, cos I didn't do it that way last time! Check for a new warning. If it doesn't appear, you've already had one within the last twelve months. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing Notifications[edit]

I haven't been able to find out whether it is proper etiquette to remove a notification, like bare URLs, once you think you have addressed the issue. Thanks. Stonejm9 — Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I could give a better answer if you provide a WP:DIFF so I can see what you're talking about. Generally, on your own page you can delete what you want so long as you don't change the meaning. Archiving at your own page is preferred, but not required. I delete stuff not worth keeping from my own page all the time. Removing a warning or FYI alert is considered evidence that you read its contents. See WP:OWN. If we're talking about some place other than your own talk page, you'll hvae to be more specific. Hope that helps. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks-it was on Feeding Everyone No Matter What about the references. I put into the talk page that I thought I had addressed it. But it still has not been removed after several days.Stonejm9 — Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
If you'd like me to keep taking you seriously, please demonstrate an interest in skills-building by (A) signing your posts, and (B) providing a WP:DIFF to whatever you are talking about. I'll be glad to help if you keep showing an interest at building the skills required. Recommend studying the WP:Talk page guidelines. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the etiquette page. Here is the WP:DIFF.Stonejm9 (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, now I know what you mean. Yes, if you think you have resolved the issue, just delete the tag. If there is a thread about the issue already on the tag page, also make a note there about your fix. If the other party disagrees they will let you know. Hopefully the other party will initiate or respond to a talk page discussion instead of merely putting the tag back. HOWEVER.... some eds seem to enjoy tagging, then retagging, then retagging... but without ever engaging discussion on the talk page.... some of us call that "drive by tagging". Once you've removed the drive by tag enough times, someone then pounces on you with a complaint about WP:Edit warring, which might lead to your account being temporarily blocked. The system isn't supposed to tolerate that, but its hard to prevent. Point is, if the other person puts the tag back but refuses to engage in talk page discussion, don't get sucked into that delete-theyrestore-youdelete-theyrestore thing. Instead, you could... let it be for awhile; or initiate WP:Dispute resolution; or ask for more help here, or the WP:Help desk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

A real DS Alert (psuedoscience) and also testing the DS system[edit]

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

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, 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.

Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC) ::

Well that appears to work except for the pink box. I previewed the page. Now I don't as yet know if you've had one previously this year, as I haven't seen a pink box. If I was just doing this routinely, I doubt I'd look for the editors record of DS warnings. As is, I shall publish, then go and look for your record. I bet it is blemish free! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sad. I am boxily challenged (nothing pink) and I couldn't find a record of any alerts for 2015 for anybody at all. You don't appear to have had an alert in the past 12 months, though that piece of WP:OR may not be accurate. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's broke! Thanks for calling this to my attention. I should have a heap of alerts (that I sent to myself) but they don't appear. I'll look into this more. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, 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) 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I was just reading the rest of the page, and there are three, yes that is 3, DS alerts, further up the page. doh. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Some others were archived or deleted.... so it's broken! Thanks for finding this error.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This is the wiki dream, isn't it? We must be WP:Collaborating. Great, its easy, I blunder around the place, and other people think clearly, and have insights into things. Meh. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Need complete diffs to show at least one missing alert[edit]

Hello NAEG. The log of all alerts you've issued yourself is at Some entries in this list have a 'diff' button and others don't. Those where there was a diff caused an actual message to be written on a page. When you hold back from the second step of the alert, there is no diff (I believe). Can you find any entry in this log where you perceive that an alert should have resulted, and did not? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.
First, exploring your implied question, "When you hold back from the second step of the alert, there is no diff (I believe)." I did some testing, by initiating the first step of the DS alert process for a couple single-use accounts in the climate pages. Initiating the first step produced the pink box. For each test, I then canceled the process. Next I went to for each account.
If I understand what you said, and if you are correct, then there should be an entry with no diff for each one, right? Nope! There is no such entry for either one. However, there could be delay so I'll have to look again tomorrow to be sure. The two unwitting single use accounts to appear in the climate pages were
  • The edit master 123
I'm going to let this perk and will ping you with whatever followup when I look again. Thanks again for your reply NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
After perusing your filter log, I think that two alerts you gave on March 6 did not leave a talk message. For example Are you aware of whether you successully left a talk message at User talk:The edit master 123? That page doesn't exist and it doesn't look to have been deleted. The code of the filter is in Special:AbuseFilter/602 and it appears to be public. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
A) "I think that two alerts you gave on March 6 did not leave a talk message" Correct, and I meant to not leave the msg on the talk page. As stated, I hit "cancel" at the pink warning box both times.
B) As mentioned, just after my test neither account had an entry showing the filter triggered, when looking using the url above. However after 2-3 hours they did.
C) CONCLUSION SO FAR - Hitting 'cancel' at the pink warning box still creates an entry in the filter log, even though nothing was posted to the user's talk page. However, there is at least some delay before it shows up.
D) I have more to say and I'll ping when I post about it. No time to write it up just now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There has always been a double-entry pattern: when you issue an alert, you make entries in the system log twice. But the user's talk page only perceives a single message, which is tagged with 'discretionary sanctions alert'. The first entry is "Actions taken: Warn" and the second one is "Actions taken: Tag". It's happened that way since the beginning (29 March 2014). But User:Dragons flight made some changes in filter 602 on 17 February 2015. I haven't noticed anything different since 17 February, myself.
These are the two ways of searching for alerts. In the user's talk page, use In the system log (and in the filter log of the person giving the alert): The code of filter 602 suggests it is trying *not* to notify the person again if it perceives a previous alert still visible on their talk page. It searches for the string '-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --' on their talk page and if it finds the string it doesn't give the alert. A few other times I've noticed the alert doesn't fire where I can't explain why not. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ed, thanks a ton for all this. It may take a day or two to find time to digest it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

PS Ok, make that a week to a couple of months. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Appreciation appreciated![edit]

Thank you for taking a few seconds to say "thanks" regarding that oy-vey-I-still-have-a-lot-of-work-to-do-here nuclear winter article—you effectuated a significant improvement in my less-than-auspicious Friday the 13th! (For what it's worth, I'm not any kind of Big Ol' Wikipedian—just a random OCD-afflicted teetotaler way more amused by nit-combing an article about existential threats to humanity than by watching my boyfriend shoot nine-ball at some biker bar.) Best to you for a fine Saturday the 14th— Julietdeltalima (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


Ok, thank you for your advice. I corrected that, important are the papers in Energy Policy. Andol (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

List article[edit]

How does one create a "list article" as you mention on Arthur Ruben's talk page here? Is there a template which displays an article's current edit stats? Much appreciated! Jim1138 (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Create a user space page. I typically do that by going to my sandbox, and then manually replacing "sandbox" with "whatever" in my browser's address bar. You'll be asked if you want to create the page. Say yes.
  • Fill your blank page with your list. In this case, links to pages you think the IP might visit. If you want to also monitor the associated talk pages, in the way I do it, I have to add the talk pages as a unique entry.
  • Optional, but consider adding Template:Noindex to the top of your list
To use it for the purpose I described, open your list and then under tools click "related changes" (on my screen its to the left of the editing frame). Note that this is not "recent changes" (third link in sidebar) but "related changes" under Tools. Here is my test sample. You are invited to tweak my test however you like and I'll enjoy seeing the results.
That's all there is to it! Good luck NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and fast response! Like this User:Jim1138/list? There wouldn't be a template that would take an article as a parameter and display it like a line on one's watchlist? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me and I don't know about such a template, but that means little since I don't know much about them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. I moved your AN/I thread to WP:COIN. Additionally, I notified the user because both ANI and COIN require that if you're discussing a user's actions that you notify them. Sam Walton (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, half thanks. I did not realize or had forgotten we have a COI noticeboard so thanks for telling/reminding me. However, I'm disappointed that we're now jumping on a specific editor, because I had not yet attempted a friendly 1-on-1 approach, and my posting was only intended to prepare me to deal with these situations. There have been and will be others and the issue as I stated was about teaching me. Now suddenly we're thumping on this subject matter expert instead of training a willing editor (me) to work with them in a DONTBITE way designed to further their constructive participation in welcoming way. No wonder we have a retention problem! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Well unfortunately that's the rules for these boards where user conduct is discussed. Honestly though I doubt they're going to read the post and be discouraged, you've obviously been very careful to say that it's not the case that we're jumping on them or having a go at them. FWIW I think their conduct is worth discussing at COIN but the COI talk page might have been a better place to ask questions and avoid the notification requirement. Sam Walton (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Tobis graph[edit]

I noticed that the graph you posted on Arthur's talk page is licensed as NC-ND. That's not actually a Wikipedia-compatible license. You might email Michael Tobis and ask him to release it under a more open license (e.g., with a link to OTRS). Given the simplicity of the graph, he might be amenable. Guettarda (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I have pinged Tobis a couple times, no reply. His original hand drawn image was posted in his blog, which I think becomes CC 3.0 after passage of a year or so, which is long past. Not that my ambiguous ramble resolves the technical issue you've raised. I'll look into it further, eventually. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Self notify DS alert (Arab-Israeli)[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

These alerts are No-Fault FYI alerts, and since I may start giving them out in this topic area I thought I'd start with myself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Ocean Acidification[edit]

Wasn't sure if I should post this here or on my talk page. Hadn't heard anything from you, so I thought I'd try here.

Hey, sorry about that. New to all of this, just trying to positively contribute. I am fairly certain that the idea of cultivating algae could be a viable method to remediate ocean acidifcation, distinct from iron fertilization, but am unable to find research that directly addresses the subject. I thought research that showing that algae raises the pH of water it is grown in would be sufficient to support the idea that growing algae could theoretically abate ocean acidification. So in the absence of research that addresses the subject directly, how do you think I should proceed? I do intend to do original research on the subject once I've gotten to that point in my career, but I'm unfortunately not quite there yet. Thanks for your input. --Robgohome (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome. Please read the instructions at WP:Original research. When you say "I am fairly certain that (xyz...) but am unable to find research that directly addresses the subject", that is pretty good indicator that you can't add it. No one here really cares that much about all the things I'm "fairly certain of". What they all are about is summarizing the WP:Reliable sources in a neutral manner with appropriate due weight NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh‎ page[edit]

You were right, and I was wrong. I struck what I wrote there and apologized. I also emailed Jeroen and apologized. I apologize to you too. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and water under the bridge; however I have a keen interest in fostering civil collaboration even when diagreeing - especially when disagreeing - in the future. Got plans along those line? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
are you asking if i intend to behave better in the future? Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Rhetorically only, I ask myself the same question regularly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
then i will forgo answering. again, my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for your support. I am learning slowly how this Wikipedia system works. Please have a look at, item "selected papers". As explained there in detail, my concern is general (for articles about scientists) and particular (for the respective WP article on JCJM van den Bergh), namely that one needs to allow some space for noting the most relevant work from scientists, not limiting to the (coincidentally most cited) works. I also argue that a narrow citation focus is ad hoc, beause not (or not frequently/systematically) used for motivation a short list of selected papers in articles on scientists elsewhere in WP. Would be good to add another opinion there, perhaps by you (or is there a better way to invite opinions if one gets stuck in a discussion?). I am open to any suggestion.Research83 (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll consider renewing my efforts at Wikipedia mentoring when you do something besides your own self-promotion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue in a cli fi nut shell[edit]

The issue in a nutshell, talk from dan bloom Chiayi77 re and if wish to chat priveatelyu by emaik email me at danbloom@ in the gmail accounts I will take "Cli-Fi (disambiguation)" as a title for a new stub, and I will stop pestering the learned professor W here whose views i respect but disagree with. Can't we all get along? Yes do reply to me not here byu at email. Dan (Chiayi77 (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).(Chiayi77 (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).(Chiayi77 (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).

Meaningful WP:CONSENSUS isn't forged in backrooms and private side conversations. Rather, it happens through article talk, supplemented by the various tools found at WP:Dispute resolution. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Problems with another editor[edit]

Speaking of user Chiayi77, why are his long, irrelevant walls of text and personal attacks on me, including unsourced accusations, continuing to be allowed on the Talk page? I find it unprofessional that Wiki has been notified, but these attacks haven't ended, and they go against Wiki policies. Is it possible to enforce your rules there? Every single day I read the Talk page, there is a new assumption about me, my identity, my agenda, my purposes, and so on--none of which are ever sourced, and which I have defended against, but seem to be the inane ramblings of an insane person. That the help grievance and official email went in to complain about this, but that nothing has been done, is beyond me. He is purposefully trying to make me look bad, whereas I think I've been objective in dealing with the improvement of this article. I opened official arbitration about this via private email due to the sensitive nature of the wrongful identifications and/or uncited accusations directed toward myself and two other women. What can I do next to prevent this continued harrassement? LynnS79 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

First, at article talk it's best not to discuss another ed's behavior. Save that for usertalk, dispute resolution, or ANI.
Second, usually it's up to the ed claiming harassment (or whatever) to take action. The best approach starts with trying to work it out via the WP:TPG at usertalk. If that's hard and you think it would help, move to the various options at WP:Dispute resolution, or if you think DR would be futile file a formal complaint at WP:ANI. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry about mentioning the user here, but I have gone these other routes, with no response

LynnS79 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

One of those "other routes" is WP:ANI, where a search on your username comes up dry. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(Chiayi77(talk) 04:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)).

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Folks, get a room. Or decide to self-impose one of these IBANs. Or something. But don't do it here, please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@LynnS79:, along the way you have opined that some worthy material from an earlier version of this article was lost. I'd be willing to look at what you are talking about, but you will have to provide a WP:DIFF from the version history.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


I'm afraid that I've lost interest. Sorry. Would like to have helped more.Rwood128 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, it sounded like original research to me anyway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for the ping last night. Sigh. Yes, I had read the Anna Chronicles when you 1st pointed them out to me. I admire her for trying. She inspired me i guess with her courage. I sort of knew it had been about a year without any kind of wp socialization, but I was hoping to hear it from our friend. Sincerely, this situation breaks my heart. There but for the grace of g*d... This is frustrating. Casinos and MMOG companies have come to recognize that sometimes their customers get over involved to the point were it harms them. I feel like we should do something. After a rough night I admit I am sorely tempted to break my own rule about diagnosing. Hugh (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Assuming this person needs genuine mental health care, any activity that delays such care is harmful. Although my heart goes out to such people, there isn't anything we can really do except to encourage treatment without becoming enablers. See "The Impact of Mental Illness Stigma on Seeking and Participating in Mental Health Care". A quick look at the version history at Mental health blew my mind.... hardly any activity in 3 years! And Mental health stigma isn't even a redirect, much less an article. Some returning vet who has benefited from recent advances in this field would be a good person to recruit as an editor in that area. If all else fails, see Serenity Prayer NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of SolaRoad for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SolaRoad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SolaRoad until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 22:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Opposed, for reasons stated at the AFD discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


I am still perplexed by your request and subsequent complaint.[2] Why would you be looking through diffs? If you want the {{cite}} sources for a given revision, just click "edit" to see the code. It should take seconds to grab them, not an hour. On the talk page I have been arguing that scholarly sources should be preferred over et al. It shouldn't be surprising that my changes reflect that. Manul ~ talk 17:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Part of the above message is obscured by the red box "If you leave a new message on this page..." on your talk page. Manul ~ talk 17:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess it's true. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him an effective communicator. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Please be careful not to delete someone else's comment (unless you are deleting a whole thread, of course). I still don't see what the apparent complaint is. On the talk page I said, "The sources are in the opening sentence of this revision." My expectation was that you would click on "this revision", then click "Edit" to get the sources in the opening sentence. There's no need to fish through diffs. Manul ~ talk 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
At the moment I am uninterested in figuring out why figuring out what you're doing at the article is hard, but it was hard. I refuse to spend further time doing chronology analysis to figure out why its hard, it just is. Something about your approach is making you not effective. Reflect on that feedback or not, but this thread is closed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Surface Stations Project[edit]

You might be interested to know that this "project" appears to be moribund. If you look at you'll see the "news" was "Updated" in 07/30/2012; and that concerns a paper that still hasn't appeared [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and though I'm tempted to say more....... I won't. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)