Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:25, 28 August 2016

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 Award
		For your tireless effort to reach consensus on climate change articles Dkriegls (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quicklinks & text for my quick reference

WP:WikiProject Inline Templates
Block evading IP sockpuppet; see [[User:Arthur Rubin/IP list]]

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

DS alert notes

25-50-25

25% of people will be mad at you (or unteachable) no matter what you do, so don't waste your time trying to change them.
25% of people will be thrilled with you (or self-directed learners) so don't waste your time trying to change them.
Just focus on the 50% where you can make a difference.

DS alert stuff

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

Initial test this time

(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)[reply]

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.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Repeat initial test

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" window

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

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.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Repeat test, but change the topics area

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) [reply]

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.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Special:AbuseFilter/602, the reason it's doing that is because the filter is coded that it won't trigger if there is already an alert on the page. Removing that would solve that issue, probably best to talk to AGK when he gets back or make a request at either WT:Arbitration/Requests or WT:ARBCOM. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs • logs) 02:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" bookmarking MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS to remember the pages" Good idea! (duh to me) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invite someone else to alert me

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

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.

Template:Z33 Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC) ::[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Some others were archived or deleted.... so it's broken! Thanks for finding this error.

WRONG - I get the wrong thing when searching via my talk page version history
PART RIGHT - I get correct but incomplete info when searching via the system log
MISSING - there should be two entries from today (is there a delay on the server's end?)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Need complete diffs to show at least one missing alert

Hello NAEG. The log of all alerts you've issued yourself is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=NewsAndEventsGuy. 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)[reply]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=_________________ 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

86.185.215.94
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)[reply]

After perusing your filter log, I think that two alerts you gave on March 6 did not leave a talk message. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/11709737. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy&action=history&tagfilter=discretionary+sanctions+alert

. In the system log (and in the filter log of the person giving the alert):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=602&wpSearchTitle=User+talk%3ANewsAndEventsGuy

. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Self notify DS alert (Arab-Israeli)

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.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is there really DS for "tree shaping" or are you just pulling our leg above? Capitalismojo (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe, but yes: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was inevitable, as those people regularly got all bent out of shape.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, unbelieveable. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One might even say "unbe-LEAF-able" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IT

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

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

Thank you

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nomination of SolaRoad for deletion

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)[reply]

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

Parsing?

I am still perplexed by your request and subsequent complaint.[1] 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 foxnews.com et al. It shouldn't be surprising that my changes reflect that. Manul ~ talk 17:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See WP:OWNTALK.

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)[reply]

Surface Stations Project

You might be interested to know that this "project" appears to be moribund. If you look at http://www.surfacestations.org/ you'll see the "news" was "Updated" in 07/30/2012; and that concerns a paper that still hasn't appeared [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussion

Hi NAEG, You might be interested in this deletion discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reiner_Grundmann prokaryotes (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PC was down for awhile. Assuming you weren't canvassing, thanks for note, and I'll pass. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

An article you contributed to has been suggested for a merger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sea_level_rise#Merger_proposal prokaryotes (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look and reply there if I have anything to say. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Scientific opinion on climate change

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, thank you for your attention on the article. I initially assumed good faith to MissPiggysBoyfriend after she messaged me so I reverted my reversion of her removal of content, but after reading the ArbCom inforcement I decided to go back to the pre-removal state, but you have done it. Thank you for your attention on the article. Optakeover ^(Talk) 14:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. As you probably know, the new system DS FYI alerts are merely FYI and mean nothing by way of innuendo or implication like the old warning-notifications under the old system. As for the proposed split.... it might be a good idea, just needs discussion first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

move thread

Were you suggesting the whole thread should be moved to Talk: Climate change? I'd have no objection to doing that, but I want to make sure that is what you are proposing.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you should inquire at the original venue, because other people may wish to know about any proposals and comment as well. See WP:MULTI.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem, as you are aware I have a history of thinking people want something moved when they don't; hence the need to check :).MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allen quote

I just meant to eliminate the subhead. He wrote that as an analyst, not as a reporter. I would like to get other voices in there as well, but not necessarily journalists. Besides, when there is only one of a particular sub-group, I don't think it needs a separate subsection. Perhaps if we got a couple different journalists' takes then a journalist subheading would be appropriate. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC

It's so new, I'll just step back for awhile. May revisit. Personally, I think there's big UNDUE and POV issues there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come back soon

...you'll be missed. Hope everything's OK :-) Best wishes, Nigelj (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm very excited about some real life projects and there isn't nearly enough time for the outdoor parts before snow arrives. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto William M. Connolley (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be back. Good William M. Connolley (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but you should expect only a rare comment here and there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blueberries

I laughed at your edit summary here. For the last week and a half, any time I've gotten frustrated with WP (or work, or whatever), I've gone out to pick blackberries around my house, I'd say about every day. So here I am wrapping a few things up, feeling a little antsy to move around, and your edit summary pops up in my watchlist: "wouldn't you rather be picking blueberries?" Ha! I think I would, thanks ;) Thanks for your comment, by the way. See you around! :) — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement Notice

I am making a submission, regarding your comments about me in the last few days, at WP:AE#NewsAndEventsGuy. You are invited to join the discussion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the goal is constructive collaboration wouldn't that energy be better spent taking me up on my pending offer to do DR at the DR venue of your choice? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement/long wiki break

I was very sorry to see the Arb filing, and sorry (but understand) that you're sick of the whole thing. We've had our differences, but I've always felt you are a conscientious and diligent editor. Good luck with the sewer project. Maybe you'll realize you just can't miss the Project a few months down the line? Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny.... I think roots from the animosity tree have created a total blockage even that far down the line, however. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sankey diagram of Earth's energy budget

Hello, NewsAndEventsGuy. You have new messages at Cmglee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Complaint

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't, unless you're posting as I type. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here is the filing and discussion so far. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping some additions, here is the closure NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert (Climate Change)

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 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.

Template:Z33 SageRad (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't mind. I already sent this to myself multiple times. In contrast, you have failed to read the instructions for the DS tag and have exposed yourself to my complaint that you are abusing the alert system for purpose of harassment and battlefield mentality. I have no immediate plans to make an issue of it, but if your behavior becomes an issue at ANI/AE, I may choose to mention this in a list of DIFFS. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self alert DS climate change (to make a record in the server)

Come to think of it, I may not have received one of these in the last 12 months so I want to refresh it. Sage appears to have just copy pasted the one I gave him (as evidenced by the server's log not detecting it). So to set a record on the server, here is one again.... hey NAEG! You BOZO! Don't you know that.... that was humor

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 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.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello N. I saw your ping of NeilN at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 124#Consensus is not working and I wanted to let you know that he hasn't edited since Dec 24. You might have already noticed this but, in case you hadn't, I wanted to let you know so you'll know why he might not reply anytime soon. Cheers and have a good week. MarnetteD|Talk 22:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert - US Politics - sending to myself

@Guy Macon: Hey Guy, what is the abbreviation for DS template applicable to the Malheur chaos? I'd like to use to self alert but it wasn't obvious from the template documentation what abbreviation to use, unless I just read too fast. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC) OOps. sorry to bother you ,but I found it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave him

I notice you replying on the policy page to B's silliness. I really think it is best to just leave him alone as far as possible. I'm wondering if he is going a bit off the rails with the paranoid stuff and it's best not encourage that if so. I don't think reasoning or pointing at the policies is going to get him on track, especially from any of the ones he calls bullies. Dmcq (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaine Cooper

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaine Cooper. Thanks. Reinoutr (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48 --07:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

here it comes

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

LavaBaron (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, I needed that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I give you some unsolicited advice? Asking for a review of your own actions at ANI is akin to insisting that the firing squad use 50 Cal machine guns. It just makes a bigger mess and the outcome is the same.

That being said, best practice for what you were trying to do (which was a good idea BTW) is to limit your messages to the talk pages of the WikiProjects following the article and using a completely neutral script. What I do is make the wikilinked talk page section the title of my posting and use this script: "There is a discussion (linked above) which may be of interest to your project. Please join the discussion."

And if you ever feel the need to self report yourself again, feel free to message me instead. I am more than happy to review your actions quietly. Good luck on that article. Not my cup of tea particularly but I cannot ignore it as I live in the area. Oy. John from Idegon (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! When the admin in question initially opted to not explain I almost put the spam vs noncavnass-appnote question to some other admins who have known my work for a long time but ironically I was trying so hard to not canvass/gamesystem I thought that might be inappropriate! Please take a bow for erasing some of the bad taste this experience left in my mouth. Nice ed retention work, there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ward (sheriff)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ward (sheriff). Thanks. Reinoutr (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Thanks, you beat me to it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

your edits

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

In this edit [3] you added content sourced to Russia Today which has repeatedly been described in the RS noticeboard, and elsewhere across the vast expanses of WP, as non-RS. Here [4] you inject content that, though supported by RS, constitutes original analysis of the topic as the sources have nothing to do with the subject and their connection seems to have been inferred by you. You reworded this source [5] as "authorities have said ... low-key approach" when the source itself never quotes a single authority. You are editing way too fast and sloppily and rewriting the article as though it's your master's thesis instead of an exactingly accurate summary of the exact content reported in RS. LavaBaron (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any problems you have with content and sources should be addressed on the article talk page. Meanwhile, as I have already alerted myself that DS applies, I will take time to make sure other eds the last day or two have all been equally alerted. If RT is considered non RS, I'm extremely happy to have that pointed out. Good eye. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The functional problem in question has to do with your editing specifically, and is not an issue of larger applicability to the group. This is why you are being informed on your personal Talk page, instead of the article Talk. That said, I have also pointed-out the issue the community is experiencing with the disruption created by "guerilla deletions" on the article Talk page and I strongly advise you review that as well. LavaBaron (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll file this under "behavior complaint too vague, ignore". If you'd like a measure of my willingness to work together, note my response to your comments at the Sherriff's AFD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry this is the direction you've chosen to travel. Best of luck on the road ahead. LavaBaron (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The direction I plan to travel, to the best of my abilities, is the Principles in the ARBs' US politics case, of which we are both already on notice. If you would like to cite a specific provision from that decision to see if we can do DR informally, by all means, feel free to start a new thread here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hammonds and clemency

Why shouldn't you do climate news? The pardon thing is important. The Hammonds have slim to none chance to get one. However, Obama, after some passage of time, could commute their sentences to one or two more years, instead of five. The pardon wipes the slate clean, and they had serious problems. I'm guessing that they're on their best behavior now, hoping for commutation action. Activist (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(A) Because I took a voluntary Tban, and further elaboration might be construed by some as a vio so I decline to elaborate.

(B) You could be right.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conversations with P

Response to EW warning (used to be "Seriously?")

This is a reply to my EW msgs at this user's talk page NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What a ridiculous and rude message you left. Please learn to be civil. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk section

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge#Items_concerning_influence_of_religion_in_general.2C_and_Mormon_religion_in_particular

Thanks Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DS template and EW msg you left on my talk page

Old title "So now you're back to threats?"

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

This was in response to my last ditch effort at the user's talk page before drafting an AE complaint seeking a 24 hour block. They reverted and posted this. You can lead a horse to water....NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until you learn to be civil, I won't talk with you. Get off my talk page. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did start drafting. As the only purpose of AE is to prevent problems going forward, it remains to be seen if the problem I think I see continues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued, at least for my part, at a third party's usertalk NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you. You've consistently been uncivil with veiled and not-so-veiled threats, and when I've pointed out policy you've ignored it. I think your motives are self-evident and I see no point in trying to contribute when it's going to be met with your targeting behavior. If I do contribute again, it won't be on that article, so as I said before: stay off my talk page too. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK... if you change your mind and want to try to work things out I will gladly participate at the WP:Dispute resolution venue of your choice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should have thought of that before coming off as an uncivil asshole and writing up a hit piece as a threat. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a little brush fire. You seem to be dumping gasoline on it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ha. I called it.

Of COURSE you were trying actively to scare or threaten me away. None of you have even bothered keeping the page or timeline up since, and the past 24 hours have been full of noteworthy changes and updates. Congratulations on harming the encyclopedia with your uncivil behavior. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yawn NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

Template:Z33 HighInBC 00:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Thanks, I self alerted at the start of my involvement there, and I've alerted several others, so I'm certainly on notice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay good to know. Thanks. HighInBC 00:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got the Bold Revert Comment

Hi, I finally received your comments on my user talk page about using the bold revert and talk options. I'm new to such things, so I apologize for any ruffling of feathers. HabandMan (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, feathers are only ruffled when problems continue. I'm not perfect myself, still.... I'll be glad to offer suggestions if you ask. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 1 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source

Good evening,

Regarding your comment in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fossil_fuel_divestment#350.org_now_not_mentioned

Would this count as a credible source?

http://news.utoronto.ca/presidential-advisory-committee-recommends-targeted-fossil-fuel-divestment

Thank you,

Milan --Ilnyckyj (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilnyckyj (talk • contribs) 04:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you post this question at the WP:Reliable source noticeboard. The source is the University's own pressroom. Surely its "RS" (a 'reliable source') for purposes of saying the U thinks this or that or a team at the U thinks this or that. See WP:SELFPUB. However, I see there is also some outside journalism covering the story, which is almost certainly RS. Just google ["university of toronto" fossil fuel divest] and see what you get in the first 2-3 pages of hits. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finecum and the Bundies

Hi News And Events Guy,

Let's work together to improve this group of articles. I've "toned down" that one "talk-page" request as you suggested. Your earlier requests for citations were good and helpful. Thank you for accepting this info which tends to shine a less than ideal light on what I will call the Bundy/ Finnecum attempted revolution. I've closely studied their actions, press releases, and writings, and I can confidently say that they were indeed attempting to start a revolution. In fact they have at various points stated exactly this.

I do sense, as you apparently do, that the Federal government may need to somehow be "checked" in it's seemingly never ending accumulation of power, but I do not agree with the Finicum/ Bundy's that the best way to "check" it at this point, would be via a revolution. At this point, it still seems to me that far more dialogue is first necessary, followed by attempts to "check" the expansion of the expanding power of the federal government through legal means and not yet via violent ones.

It is my hope that the Finnicum/Bundy attempted revolution might stimulate such a dialogue. Perhaps through the careful editing of this group of articles, te stimulation of such a dialogue could also be encouraged here. Your interest in this topic is good and I hope we can work together well in these articles.

Thanks,

16:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)