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

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.

Cosmic rays[edit]

Hi, do you have a opinion about the inclusion of CR's @paleoclimatology? See the discussion here, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Answered there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert[edit]

Please explain here what you regard as bad edits, thanks. There are considerable improvements to the article. prokaryotes (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I watch that talk page carefully but thanks for going out of your way to let me know anyway. I'll reply there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I've summarized my main edits, if you take issue with the removal of certain images, we can re-add them, rather than to revert evyerthing. prokaryotes (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
First, paragraph 1 pleaseread my first reply above Edited by me to fix a formatting error from a couple days ago NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you add the video to Earth's energy budget (under external links), since i edited the video i don't want to add it myself, but ask you to do it, thanks! prokaryotes (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
If you feel you can't add it yourself, then I decline to become involved at your request. I'm not sure that WP:CANVASS applies exactly, but I just don't want to go there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


I deleted the templates per WP:OWNTALK There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. prokaryotes (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not the most effective way to deal with a content dispute, but whatever. For posterity the pinpoint link is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_editors_required_for_polar_amplification NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Last watch[edit]

User talk:Anna Frodesiak#The Michigan Kid Smile.svg Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It was nice to have hope (for a nanosecond). Thanks for stopping by, and the pithy summary you pinged about. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I am always hopelessly hopeful. And thank you for being so kind. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Civility Request[edit]

Background: This thread relates to a "civility request" I left for John2510 at his talk page.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. Please refrain from making baseless and unsupported accusations on other editors' talk pages. Thank you. John2510 (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

note in passing...[edit]

And I was worried you were going to beat me to it. !! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your prodding of the talk page essay[edit]

I removed the PROD you placed at Wikipedia talk:Talk page formatting, as PROD is inapplicable in the Wikipedia namespace. However, I have nominated the essay for deletion at Miscellany for Deletion. Please comment here if you wish, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Talk page formatting. Safiel (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, but didn't see anything on point in the doc for that template. Admittedly, I only skimmed it. Anyway, thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


You just did what I went to do and the realised that it was a good edit - just unexplained. I have left a polite message at the IPs talk page that edit summaries would be good. I would suggest restoring the text deletion - it makes better sense after the deletion. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   19:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point; done. For that matter, the entire paragraph is weak in the extreme and essentially unsourced besides.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats made by an IP[edit]

Re: "Anyone can complain about legal threats made against third parties, and.... I intend to do so if you start editing elsewhere w/o deleting that material first", see User talk:JamesBWatson#DRN and legal threats. JamesBWatson hasn't edited Wikipedia since I posted that so I assume that he hasn't seen it. You can do as you think best, but I would prefer that he be given a chance to handle it.

BTW, I loved "The issue is that wikipedia editors have to have a mutual trust and respect.... we can debate vociferously, we can get so fed up with each other we work on different parts of the project without speaking, but talking on the wikipedia platform about litigation against one another is not allowed." Well said. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for ping, I'll reply to your request at James' page so he is also in the loop. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Followup: The IP address is currently blocked and I closed the DRN case. The block log entry says:
"JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) blocked (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 years (Making legal threats: <!-- There has also been much other disruptive editing -->)"
--Guy Macon (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Definition of edit war[edit]

Per WP:OWNTALK, I deleted boilerplate EW warning notice I received from.... Thank you! This is User:CloudComputationUser talk:CloudComputation 02:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(A) New users probably ought not pass these things out, since they likely haven't an appropriate level of experience just yet, and
(B) Chronological analysis of the page and talk page histories demonstrates this is nonsense
(C) If you want to improve things around here, you might try commenting on the merits of the various proposals at the EW talk page instead of looking to stir up drama here
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm an autoconfiremed (Not new) user, A is wrong, and C obviously violates WP:AGF. Can you explain why it's nonsense? Can you assume that I am trying to tell you don't start an edit war instead of stirring up a drama here? I uses an good faith template instead of bad faith. If you still insist that I'm stirring up a drama here I may revert and add uw-agf1. Again, please assume good faith. Thank you! This is CloudComputation 05:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
(A) Unless this is a new user name, your contrib history unambiguously shows you are a relative newcomer at wikipedia.
(B) Actions by admins at the noticeboards are not punitive. They are preventative. If you look at the time stamp of my posts at WP:Edit warring, and the time stamps of my posts at its talk page, you'll see that my actions have focused on discussing the text I think needs improvement.
(C) Please leave me alone.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Solar Roadways[edit]

I am notifying everyone who participated in the Solar Roadways DRN that there is an open RfC at Talk:Solar_Roadways#RfC:_Should_the_cost_to_cover_the_entire_USA_be_included.3F. Thanks. -- GreenC 20:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

thx, goodpingNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What I'm doing[edit]

I'm busy spelunking in wikipedia history charting climate change vs global warming, while prepping a contrib to the thread(s) at [{Talk:Global warming]]. There's a lot to wade through and I have to take it in bites. Anyone interested in chatting about the past evolution while I put my thoughts together.... you're welcome to peruse my notes in my sandbox, and/or opine away.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Threatening cloud[edit]

See my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for ping. Everyone needs a hobby, I guess. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


You recently removed an entry I made, saying it was unsupported. I thought it was supported in the text and links within. In any case, what kind of support do you think is needed? Rbrustman (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If you mean [1] I'd say NAEG was correct William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Rbrustman, you really should study the entry scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change. prokaryotes (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

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

I would like to know where that[2] 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 preserved as an archive. 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)