User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy

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.) Feel free to copy reuse trash change distribute. Your mileage may vary.

This user participates in
WikiProject Climate change.

I've been interested in climate change since first reading about Jim Hansen's work in the 80s, and seeing a US Dept Ag paper that mentioned the possibility of logging old growth to increase carbon uptake by the 2nd growth, and then to prevent the old growth timber from rotting and outgassing its carbon the author mentioned - I kid you not - the idea of pickling them and sinking 'em off the west coast. I wish I could remember the cite. Anyway, back then I lacked mentors who were advocating a career in science, so I drifted off to other things. But I've followed the story of climate change closely in the news, and for the past year or so have started trying to read original research on the subject (a lot of which I don't understand but I try anyway).

Thanks for stopping by my talk page.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radiative forcing

Hello. Parenthetical disambiguation, e.g. "Topic (modifier)", is only used when there are multiple articles that could be referred to as "Topic". For example, Mercury (element) and Mercury (planet). If you feel the name of an article is inappropriate than it could be moved to a new name that is clearer, e.g. "Tax breaks for windmills" might be renamed "Tax breaks for windmills in the United States", but we only use parentheses when there are already several topics sharing the same name. Given that radiative forcing is a major topic in climate science, I would suggest discussing possible renames on the talk page first. Dragons flight (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

an excellently phrased criticism, now I have to put it back in my brain what I did. stand by, editing time is a bit choppy today NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK.... i'm up to speed. Thanks for the education on wiki use of article titles followed by (these things). Other edits in climate change resolve the issue I was concerned about. Thanks for the revert, and doubly so for cleaning my mess with professionalism. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SBHB

Hi, noticed your comment on SBHB's page, have added my own thoughts to say that your work's appreciated, and my understanding is that it's a question of time availability rather than being pushed over the edge: indeed, you were in the right in the questioning that led SBHB to respond rather dramatically, and it's likely that even before that he felt the need to step back a bit rather than making comments without the time to check the issues out properly beforehand.
Knowing how addictive Wikipedia can be, it's probable he'll be back when time permits, but unrealistic to expect early or frequent appearances. Times change for all of us!
Just to add that I've learnt a lot from my interactions with experts, including correcting my errors due to mistaken preconceptions. As long as you're willing to learn, that'll be much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 18:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience. No true scientist, even amateur ones, are unwilling to learn.

My technical writing experience (law mostly, plus some proof reading for scientist friends) inculcated a belief in ruthless top down vetted citations. As my hard science wife said, "Experts are driven nuts by having to cite stuff that's common knowledge within their field." But then its not climate experts that come to wiki to get their information. If a climate science friendly guy like me says "prove it" or "that's ambiguous to a layman" you can bet your bottom dollar the text won't really educate or persuade a lot of lay readers with a first awakening interest. My editing philosophy is to provide substantiated clarity for that audience. If I get in the way of that goal, by all means, please correct me and I will be grateful! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, verification is even more important on Wikipedia as we can't rely on expertise in any field. However, as you'll appreciate, an important qualification is that citations aren't generally needed for lead text that summarises fully cited information in the body of the article. When it gets too tedious we often do add citations, but that's an optional extra. So, I'm sure from now on you'll check the body text for citations. . . dave souza, talk 20:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About my re-sectioning a talk discussion on article for global warming

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Global warming, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Atmoz (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling attention to the bad practice page. Turns out what I did to was justified under four examples for appropriate edits of another's comments, including (1) Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read; (2) Fixing layout errors; (3) Sectioning; and (4) Section headings: It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate. I'm sure he didn't mean to inject chaos into the 3-issue drive for consensus, but to use a technical editing metaphor, that was a difficult run-on sentence. Now each issue can be evaluated on its own with clarity as to which issue who is talking about when. So I gave his 3 complaints subsection headings without modifying ANY of his text (or yours) and that will facilitate the consensus process. They were all LEDE-neutrality challenges, as was yours, so it seemed logical to include yours as a subsection also. I apologize if that upsets you and bad practices does say stop of objected to, so I'll try to remember not to do that to yours again provided the discussion isn't at a standstill due to chaos.

I welcome education about using Wiki please keep it coming. Meanwhile, have you had a chance to look at my response to your neutrality challenge on Talk:Global warming yet? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, while the guideline suggests these as possible justifications for minimal refactoring to simplify relating follow up comments, it's always important to realise that people can be offended. A good idea is to offer to undo the change if preferred, it's always an option to leave the original post alone and duplicate it with indented answers. It's also clearer to replicate the original author's signature and date stamp on each subsection, showing the sequence of threaded comments much more clearly: I've done that and alerted Enescot to the change, giving the option of undoing it. Tact is of the essence! [hope I don't get into trouble now!!] . . dave souza, talk 18:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get in trouble? Heck no, that is excellent advice! (((HEY ATMOZ))) I'd be happy to undo the subsection for your comment if you like. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Headlines I care about

Current Carbon Dioxide Emission Higher Than It Was Just Before Ancient Episode of Severe Global Warming That's the headline for this news story, with journal link at the bottom.

Thank you for your recent comments on Talk:Global warming.

Thank you for your recent comments on Talk:Global warming (Talk:Global_warming#Add_comparison_shown_in_Scientific_American.27s_article_The_Last_Great_Global_Warming_by_Lee_R._Kump_June_29.2C_2011.). 108.73.114.77 (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (",)

Thank you NewsAndEventsGuy for your contribution to Climate change mitigation. (",) 99.112.213.202 (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I question your addition Special:Contributions/NewsAndEventsGuy. 99.35.12.88 (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EGG

In this edit, you add an internal link to [[Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios#A2|"A2 scenario"]]. With no prior explanation of what "A2 scenario" is, or SRES for that matter, this constitutes an easter egg and needs to be avoided per style guidelines. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I linked to A2 instead of the wiki SRES article specifically to head off griping from you based on a prior headbutting. I guess I agree that the attempt was misguided and defeated good writing. Oh well. Thanks for keeping it polite this time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change

<< this thread was moved with permission of all participants to the Talk:Climate_change>>

Odd "merger" proposal

I see you are getting a taste of dealing with an active editor many others have found difficult to deal with.

You may want to keep track of his behavior that seems to go against such Wikipedia policies such as WP:Civility and WP:NPA. A number of editors who have had unpleasant encounters with this individual are doing so. See, for example (link deleted from my talk page to not fan flames with the editor in question) Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain but life's too short and my dedication to constructive consensus elsewhere speaks for itself. Besides, if I'm on the receiving end of a formal complaint from that editor, something tells me his contrib history will readily supply more counter-complaint evidence than I can use. 'cheerio NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which kind of editor do you want to be

Hi, I noticed you created NewsAndEventsGuy/Which kind of editor do you want to be in the article space. I assume your intent here was to create a user page, so I moved it to User:NewsAndEventsGuy/Which kind of editor do you want to be. The "User:" prefix (complete with the colon) is necessary for the software to recognize the page as being in your user space. If I have misinterpreted your intent, please let me know. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mucho gracias. Dopey me. 'cheerio NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call

Thanks, shouldn't have done the last response looking back but oh well. Cheers ^Khukri 19:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for affirmation I'm on the right track. 'day NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending ideas I am particularly following

Some of the talk page ideas I particularly want to follow up on are here, and if you want to jump in the discussion please do:

Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming (attribution, graphic, notable)

climate project...

creative commons license....

GWcontrovers....

What kind of editor....

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]