User talk:Nigelj

thanks

for moving it to e.boat

UTF-8

It turns out you're right. According to the specification, encoding="UTF-8" is the appropriate thing to put in the XML prolog, not encoding="utf-8". I will make this correction to the other sample document on the Cascading Style Sheets page shortly.

Wildman7856

I am so sorry. I didnt know about how much time it took you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildman7856 (talk • contribs) 15 December 2006

Virtual Ground

Partial-discussion moved to User Talk:Zen-in to keep it all in one place for clarity.

SVG does'nt look nice

Hello, Nigelj. You have new messages at Talk:Scalable_Vector_Graphics#SVG_does.27nt_look_nice.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OOXML

Hi Nigel. I agree that the InfoWorld article you used as a reference (which a certain editor since deleted), was valid material, with a reliable source. It also was correctly worded to attribute the comment to InfoWorld. I can see the frustration caused by the edit wars on that article. I think that those who want to push a minority point-of-view tend to use unreliable sources, either primary sources from those involved in the controversy, or unheard-of news sources. I think that rule should apply to both sides of the debate. Anyway, don't be disheartened about contributing to the article. The current phase of rapid deletions can't be allowed to continue as it has. Cheers, Lester 02:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Lester. :-) --Nigelj (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎

I would warn you, but its too late. If you self revert though, I wont report you. WVBluefield (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I don't like the veiled threat. If you want to discuss the article, please do so on the relevant talk page and don't try to manipulate other people's edits in this way. --Nigelj (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Have it your way, but you did make 10Rv's on that page in 27 hours. Thats not good. WVBluefield (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to thin down the opposition in a POV war? I suggest you discuss controversial edits on Talk before adding them to the article, and abide by the consensus there once something has been discussed. I am perfectly happy to stand by all the various additions and adjustments that I have to that article in the last day. Please do not make it sound like I have reverted the same or even similar things 10 times over! And you begin by threatening me that if I go and put it all back as it was 27 hours ago, you won't report me? Please. Go back to the talk page and stop trying to wind people up around this back way. --Nigelj (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Whilst WVB does not mean well, you should nonetheless take the warning seriously and see [1]. Also, be sure to read WP:3RR if you have not already William M. Connolley (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jones email wording

Nigel, I have changed your "their authors may have threatened to attempt undermine the peer-review process" back to the original "their authors may have attempted undermine the peer-review process". I actually toned down the original quote: "the suggestions [that] climate scientists may have actively conspired to undermine the peer-review process". That just seemed too over-the-top. But let's not get too vague, either. Madman (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This comment copied to Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, where it can be discussed by all concerned. It is not really about me, but the article, after all. --Nigelj (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk on Scientific opinion on climate change

Dear editor, please keep your talk [2], [3],[4] on this article relevant to the points at hand within the thread. There are other active pages for discussing Tedder and the issues you raised. I find this talk to be out of order there. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied into the main discussion - no need to fork it onto my Talk page. --Nigelj (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am amused you [5] cite me for both WP:SOAP and forking to talk pages (above). I shall no longer follow your example. [6], [7], [8]. With kindness Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Potential edit war at Scientific opinion on climate change

Please try not to edit war right after an article leaves protection; diff. Could you please in the future make explicit reference to a specific talkpage section when making reverts at that article, starting a discussion if necessary? - 2/0 (cont.) 15:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack

I made no personal attack on anyone, but your response to me was a personal attack. I'm not interested in escalation, but descalation. If you'll simply remove your post, I'll remove my response. If you'd like to explain why you object to what I said, please tell me what bothered you here, and I'll try to explain. Tomorrow.--SPhilbrickT 02:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

article comment

Nigel, that comment seems a bit excessive. please do not use semantics aginst other editors. Ok, i used the word "believe." Ok, I can change the phrasing to "holds the opinion," or :"believes based on evidence." please, let's not make ridiculous criticisms like this based on individual words. that seems totally excessive. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Types of gestures

An article that you have been involved in editing, Types of gestures , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate question

Nigelj, you are missing the point. I'm posting here to avoid cluttering up the article talk page. Perhaps it is my fault for mentioning the time line , but I was only mentioning it in passing, in case anyone wondered why I would notice the (arguable) over emphasis on IPCC remarks. I'm not asking for feedback on the time line. There's a separate section to do that. I'm observing that in a fairly short article we have included the reactions of the IPCC in three separate sections. That's disorganized. We clearly ought to include their reactions, but we include their reactions in the scientific org section, we include a different reaction in the climatologists section, and yet a different reaction in the Other Responses section.

If IPCC is best characterized as a scientific organization, we should include their responses in the scientific organization section. If they are more appropriately labeled as climatologists, then their reactions should be in the climatologists section. If they are neither then their reactions belong in the "other" section. But not all three. I'm looking for feedback on which section should contain their reactions (or a strong argument why they belong in three different places).--SPhilbrickT 22:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be about an article, and not about me. If you don't want to clutter up the article Talk page with your comments about its wording, then I certainly don't want to clutter up my Talk page with a separate discussion about its wording here. --Nigelj (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not about an article, it's about you. Sorry to bother you.--SPhilbrickT 00:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Tags on Climate change in the United Kingdom

It is bad form to remove article tags without fixing the problems that they indicate. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss edits to a specific article, please use the talk page provided, so that all involved editors may see your comments. Discussion moved to Talk:Climate change in the United Kingdom#Tagging the article --Nigelj (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit

I think you accidentally reverted an edit I made here. My edit dropped talk of who coined or dubbed the controversy "climategate" and stuck with the fact that it is called Climategate, and included a citation. Would you mind self-reverting that particular edit while maintaining the edit you mentioned in the edit summary? Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't see that change, and I got no warnings of an edit conflict with that edit (unlike with the larger one that I did just before). On the other hand, I am very happy with the wording 'dubbed "Climategate" by sceptics of anthropogenic climate change' and do not see that yours is at all better. If I were to edit to your wording, that would look very much like I endorsed it. Why are you asking me to edit in your wording, that I disagree with? If you want that wording, editing it in yourself would seem far more intellectually honest than asking me to proxy it for you like this. Please do your own edits. --Nigelj (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop, think before importing

See my comments on article talk. • Ling.Nut 00:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: User:hAl

You're exactly correct. I've blocked the IP and made a note on hAl's talk page. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming

Re: this edit - might I convince you to tone it down a bit? Just stick to the policy-based arguments and omit the comments about rational, please. Also, you may want to consider whether there could be a more innocent and productive explanation for the reasoning being presented. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change

Sorry for the confusion. I put the article in an old subpage of mine. I have moved it to the correct title. Please revisit the debate. Polargeo (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Content restriction violation

Hey Nigelj. Would you mind reverting this edit? It was in violation of the content restriction placed on the article, which reads (as can be found in a tag while on the edit page): This article is further subject to a content revert restriction - do not redo any edit that has been undone in the last 24 hours. Editors who fail to adhere to these standards may be blocked from editing for a short period. Seek consensus for any contentious edits at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the restriction as not really in the Wikipedia spirit and unduly burdensome. Thank you for raising the discussion at the talkpage regarding that edit. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Greenhouse gases

I reverted your recent (9/2/09) edit to Greenhouse effect, destroying an edit of mine in the process. You made no contribution in the talk pages on this, any particular reason. Wikipedia contributors should always respect and explain, you have done neither. I think respect and explain is an excellent policy, do you?--Damorbel (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Goodness me. Where to start?

1. At first, since you give no diffs, I thought you meant that I had missed or messed up an edit conflict with you by working at the same time. But I see that you have not edited that section since 5th Feb. This is the edit of mine that you reverted.
2. There is no need to start a section both here and on the article talk page every time you disagree with one of my edits. The article talk page is usually enough, as I 'watch' pages I have been editing.
3. Per WP:TPG#New topics and headings on talk pages you shouldn't address me directly in the heading of the section you create to discuss article content.
4. If you want to link to a user or talk page, use wikilinks like [[User:Nigelj]] or [[User talk:Nigelj]] rather than full URLs that then become external links.
5. Have you seen the note that appears under every edit window? It says, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here". This is the basis of WP:BOLD. While you're at it, have a look at WP:OWN. If someone wants to "destroy" an edit of yours, that really is the way things always go eventually on Wikipedia. I have made about 3,000 edits to en:WP articles (you have made about 30) and I think most of them have will been altered by someone or other by now.
6. If you disagree with the content of my edit, then by all means start a talk section discussing the content. But not one talking about me, or my manners, or what I should do on talk pages. WP:NPA is explicit: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."
7. Finally, looking at WP:BRD, we see that I boldly made an edit, you reverted it, so now it is time to discuss the content in detail. This is going to be a pain as it was a large edit where I fixed lots of things: grammar, spelling, capitalisation, linking and the technical explanation with regard to the idealized greenhouse model. But we can have a go. The place to do that is on the article talk page, after I've fixed the section heading there.

See you there. --Nigelj (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - I know that we don't usually see eye to eye on various topics but hopefully we can come together on this. ChrisO, Hipocrite, and I started working on a joint proposal and have been working to gather support for it ever since. Please take a few minutes to give this proposal your full consideration and in the spirit of finding a compromise position both sides can live with. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

The discussions at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement are not meant to be general fora for discussion of other issues. Narrowly targeted productive comment at any thread is welcome, but please confine your comments to the substance of the request and closely related issues. For instance, if a request is made detailing edit warring by one party, it could be appropriate to provide context in the form of links to talkpage discussion or diffs of other parties engaged in the same edit war. It would not be appropriate, however, to bring unrelated issues to an already open request, discuss content issues, or engage in incivility or personal attacks. If someone else makes that you feel merits a reply but your reply would not itself be closely related to the original request, please raise make your reply at usertalk, open a new enforcement request, or start a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Thank you for your cooperation. A few diffs of posts that venture partially or wholly off topic, or would be better suited to other venues: [9]. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Good Faith

I am having difficulty with [10] and [11] [12]. Can you explain to me how your statements assume good faith to Wikipedia principles and policies? I would like to restore the syn tags to the paragraphs. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a full discussion of the matter at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#Statements tagged for improvement, which you yourself started. The consensus between myself, Kim D. Petersen, Hipocrite and Polargeo was that the tags should be removed,which they have been. Please discuss it there if you have something further to add, or questions to ask. --Nigelj (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice job on gray literature

You helped put it in a nice context. SPhilbrickT 23:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to be able to help. --Nigelj (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you attacking me, when it's WMC who is the bad guy here?

"This aappears to have been created with a dubious edit summary and been spammed into articles sans consensus. I've reverted it out again, obviously. Get consensus for controversial changes *first* William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)"[13]. Here he calls my creation of a sub nav template spam (since he himself has removed it from the Global warming template since it should only have high level articles ...). Why do you attack me who is just answering these ridiculous WMC allegations? Nsaa (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not an attack - I was trying to help you by reminding you to stop filling the talk page with WP:SOAP[14], [15] and comments about other editors' behaviour,[16] but to use the time to discuss template content and design. --Nigelj (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

AR4

		The Services to Science Award
		Thanks for all the fish, Nigelj, and for working collaboratively to dispel the yapping terriers of ignorance. Splendid work on sea levels at Criticism of the IPCC AR4! dave souza, talk 21:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave! My first 'award'. I shall treasure it for all time. I must dig out some Douglas Adams and re-read; I so enjoyed it at the time. --Nigelj (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation

I believe that you may have violated the 1RR rule on our Climategate article.[17][18] Can you please self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)