User talk:Nigelj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You have been mentioned on ...[edit]

You have been mentioned on a Wikipedia current climate change/global warming contributors discussion; of interest? (",) 141.218.35.19 (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Solar Roadways[edit]

The Solar Roadways AfD debate and talkpage is turning into an Edit War and an endless circular debate with DreamFocus. Can you recommend someone neutral/unbiased to arbitrate for us. He(she?) has decide that them and one other person (GreenC) constitute a "consensus" and keeps reverting my edits. GornDD (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on Talk:Deepak Chopra[edit]

[1] Thanks! Yes, I wish we could work at that level of scholarship. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Hi Nigelj,

Sphilbrick has expressed concern over the bold "anthropogenic climate change" appearing in the first sentence of the draft text in the grey box. I included it mainly due to a belief on my part that this was important to you. I no longer remember which of your comments made me think that, and of course I might have been off my rocker when I first formed that impression.

Anyway, since this is one of the major sticking points on the current draft, how would you feel if we dropped ACC from the first sentence so that it becomes (more or less) "Global warming, also known as climate change is the warming of the earth's blah-blah and related blah?" It would work for me, and hopefully Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) as well though he hasn't had a chance to reply to my specific Q on that point yet (everyone's busy after all) and the thread is no so multi parted and long that he might not see it, (so I added a ping for him here to help move it along) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. I think you first used it, then I singled it out for bolding as it actually is a redirect to the GW page. I'm happy to drop it, and humbly suggest, "Global warming, also referred to as climate change, is the warming..." but I'm not too attached to that either. --Nigelj (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I'll give that a whirl tomorrow unless something else comes up. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
You're doing a great job over there. Well done. --Nigelj (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and please keep them coming[edit]

Thanks very much for investing energy and time contributing thoughts on efforts to draft a new first lead paragraph for Global warming. Please note I just posted ver 5 of my idea, and would welcome further pro/con criticism. I'm attempting to ping everyone who has taken time to speak up after past versions. If I overlooked anyone, please let me know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have time, what do you think of hatnote suggestion #4, which uses some of your ideas combined with other ideas. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Re #5: Oh no. We're back to GMST again. How did that happen? It's getting late here, and I have an early start tomorrow, so I don't have time to read the reams of new discussion at the moment. I don't agree that that is what this page is about, and actually consider that to be a divisive denialist 'take-out' meme, designed to get the discussion quickly onto the 'hiatus', and then to prove that we don't need to do anything. 'Global warming' is the increase in total thermal energy in a global climate system, which leads to all kinds of things, one of which is a measurable rise in GMST. Writing an article about just one of the observable effects, while taken together all of them are capable of destroying human civilisation, seems negligent to me. --Nigelj (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries, it's true I added #5 (GMST) but I only did that in an attempt at neutral housekeeping. I'm advocating #4, where the first sentence is your first sentence plus the word "system". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I like the addition of the word 'system'. Love it in fact. --Nigelj (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

(e/c) Re #4: I'd be OK with it, but the middle section seems a bit wordy to me. I don't know what this longer version says that the shorter doesn't, that (in context) is important enough to bloat extend the hatnote to the 'Global warming' article over.
""Climate change" can also refer generally to either cooling or warming trends at any point in earth's history. Discussion of that general topic is at Climate change."
"For changes in climate in general, see Climate change."
--Nigelj (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
My trouble with the hatnote in NAEG V5 arises when you erase from your brain anything you know about the articles (like a newcomer to the page) and read the hatnote and first sentence all at once. Ver 5's hatnote reads like this to me....
"This is about X. For this other thing see CLIMATE CHANGE. Global warming, also known as CLIMATE CHANGE is the blah blah blah..."
It sounds like "climate change" is discussed at the other page, but "climate change" is discussed at THIS page. A complete newcomer to these pages and topic would be assisted, I think, with a teensy bit more verbiage. At least, IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. That's a good point - when you take the hatnote together with the opening sentence. You've convinced me. #4 it is. --Nigelj (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Suggest one of us move or copy the part between the breaks to the article talk page for posterity. If you agree, you want to or should I? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Done. I'm not sure if the formatting there could be improved to make it clear that it's a threaded, multi-comment quote. Feel free there if you have any relevant formatting trick to hand. --Nigelj (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification[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.

Please also note that Rupert Sheldrake is subject to a 1 revert per 24 hour restriction. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)