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 do 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.

13Y

This Wikipedian joined Wikipedia on May 07, 2011 (13 years, 1 month and 2 days ago).

19,000+

This user has made more than 19,000 contributions to Wikipedia, on over 2,010 distinct pages.

This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This user supports the Wikimedia Sustainability Initiative

This user simplifies Wikipedia referencing with ProveIt.

This user participates in
WikiProject Climate change.

This user considers themselves a participant in all WikiProjects.

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.

Barnstars

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

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Even if we disagree on some content(NASA video) i always appreciate your input. Prokaryotes (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Malheur Occupation Barnstar

For exceptional and tireless work on the Malheur Occupation article and its sub-articles. MB298 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Instructor's Barnstar
		This Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who have performed stellar work in the area of instruction & help for other editors. great work!-Moxy (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Editor's Barnstar for stepping in to back me up with this edit [1] to remove the ridiculous word "paucity" from an article, especially after my initial edit to remove it was reverted. Darkest Tree Talk 22:16, 23 January 2019 (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]

Time to hit the sack for me.

Thanks for cleaning that up before anyone else read it. I need to grab some sleep as I'm obviously too tired to do a decent job. I reverted a couple of my own long edits a couple of months ago, accidentally. Also, I do find the political are an inseparable part of some of these situations which the articles cover. That's certainly the case with the Bundys, as is religion. I don't think any of the players were polygamists, but a great many were close to those FLDS and/or Centennial Park group communities. I haven't seen anyone take note of it in all the coverage. Ugh. Oh, are you going to the Wikipedia conference next month? Activist (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the mormon connection is seriously under told, as is the context in the decades long Sagebrush rebellion. The story of the forest has been lost in the trees. Happy sleeping! I'm turning towards real life myself. As to the conference, nope, not going. You? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, going. Activist (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, enjoy! Ever been to such a thing? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't. I hope I won't be disappointed. Activist (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you post a write up on your talk page afterwards please ping me. Have fun NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy to. Activist (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In going back to review that article, when I noticed it had Finicum's domicile wrong, I noticed that many non-reliable sources referred to his death as a "murder." That even included the obit announcement on Legacy.com So I read it again today and noticed that the weasel word "allegedly" had been used to describe his reaching for gun before his death. I read the sources cited for the standing text and the word wasn't there. So I took your advice, wrote a TALK explanation, and changed the word to "apparently," and provided a definitive source. I posted to the article's TALK page and then made the edit. I expect I may run into a shitstorm. We'll see. Thanks again for the advice. Activist (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like careful editing, thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

housekeeping note, the following refers to this edit NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you got me bent out of shape when you accused me of inserting factual errors into the Ammon Bundy page and harshly criticized my approach to the differing viewpoint on the G4S penalty. I am very careful about what I write and took your charge as attacking my honesty. I left a long response as soon as I read your ping, reverted your undo, then went back and did a couple more additions. I'm cooling off a bit as I've gotten off my chest and out of my system. As with ParsleyMan, I've had a lot of respect for both of your work on difficult (high interest, fast breaking, multitude of editors, complex, etc.) articles and was astonished that you would make those accusations. I hope this doesn't affect our future Wikipedia relationship, should we be editing the same articles. I wrote this many hours ago but had to run off to be with friends doing a housewarming, neglecting to hit "send," so I don't know if you've posted anything about this in the interim. Activist (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a good idea to write that sort of thing but then get a good night sleep before sending. Sometimes, I write in Notepad just so I don't hit "send" before I can calmly consider the benefit and goal of my words. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-administered DS alert for 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 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of file you uploaded

A tag has been placed on File:LaVoy Finicum - Truck stopped by Oregon State Patrol during failed arrest attempt's truck at the first traffic stop.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Majora (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help Majora, copyright is a foreign land to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you send me a DS alert

I got a DS alert from you. What is this? and is it because Im conservative? --Zgrillo2004 (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DS alerts are, by definition, no fault / no blame / no shame. They are FYI. Since you're making edits and/or comments about politics in the US, such as the Orlando shooting, I felt it appropriate to call the special rules about US politics to your attention. You can read about those behavioral rules in the links contained in the notice I left on your talk page. In particular, you seem ready to pick sides, or at least make assumptions about other people picking sides. See also WP:NPA and WP:AGF. If you decline to read those things and modify your approach your stay here will likely be brief instead of effective. Your choice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (to Wikihounding inquiry related to edit at Wikilawyer essay)

Reply to this. No, we are on the same side if you want to improve WP. We just happened to disagree about one minor thing. Make your argument on the content. My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the essay talk page thread you started eventually; I'm more interested in something else right now, but I have already pinged you where that's being discussed and decline to start it up here too. See WP:MULTI. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to make such a big issue from a single edit in essay? And what exactly do you expect from Bishonen? I do not think you understand the policy. It tells about actions "to repeatedly confront or inhibit [your] work". I did not do it. Even if you think I tracked your edits, it is allowed as long as my edits can be reasonably viewed as improvement of content. My very best wishes (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those who do not engage in Wikilawyering might reasonably disagree as to the spirit of the Wikihounding policy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for archival purposes making a note of an edit conflict exchange in case it comes up again

Edit conflict.... MVBW first said, and then deleted the following Just keep in mind that modifying comments made by other contributors (as you did) is against the rules and might be considered a blockable offense. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 1 Jauary 2017 (UTC) That was first typed as I made a reply at the wikilaywer talk page, after which I saw it and as I was typing the following reply it was deleted. My reply would have said Please provide a diff to where I modified your comment and note that the WP:TPG explicitly says that no one owns section headings so the heading you use (or I use) are not part of our comments, and can be changed in good faith by anyone for housekeeping purposes. If I changed anything you said other than a section heading, it was an accident and I will be glad to self revert to restore your original wording. I'm just making a note here for archival purposes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Looking at your interests here, I think you will find this amusing. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't read. My interests (in terms of wiki process) is more about prevention of edit wars, amicable WP:Dispute resolution, and retention of a diverse population of editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation with DaveA2424

If it wasn't for the way that the other user spoke to me and threatened me then I would have not responded in the manner that I did. I hope that you have also spoken to him about his conduct. DaveA2424 (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "But DaddaAAAAddddd..... he STARTED it....." wasn't quite what I was suggesting yesterday, when I wrote on your talk page

Dave, please review our policies about how we talk to each other. You can find some of this at WP:Civility, WP:No personal attacks, and the WP:Talk page guidelines. If you decide you crossed the line with anyone, I'm sure they'd appreciate a retraction and apology. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, NewsAndEventsGuy, if you're going to be an immature ass about it then you have no place in this conversation. Secondly, WarMachineWildThing, you quite clearly threatened to have me blocked from Wikipedia and so on. I would also like to point out that, when you removed my content, my 'To Be Inducted In 2017' section was not the only thing that you removed. I had also made perfectly valid changes to the rest of the page as well so you were in violation of Wikipedia's policies in that regard. If either of you don't have anything intelligent to say, then I suggest that you stop harassing me before I take this matter further. DaveA2424 (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Standard warnings were issued via Twinkle, as the history shows I never threatened him. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 12:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you removed my reply to your childish remark so you are clearly not letting me have my say. Your argument is now invalid. DaveA2424 (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alerts

Arbcom was tired of people appealing their alerts, so they made them unappealable. But the concept that they are not given for any reason is hard to follow to its logical conclusion. Should we have a notification bot that alerts every active editor to ARBEE? When you issue alerts yourself, do you do so randomly? EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good question and in the debates during the overhaul I strongly advocated automatic FYI alerts the moment one sticks their toe in a subject area. After all, if the goal was to pull the fangs from these things so as to de-stygmatize them - which was the publicly articulated reasons for the change - then I believed the best way to de-stigmatize them was to make them (A) automatic and (B) ubiquitous among editors in each area. This was shot down on technical grounds - Although some articles are obviously within a ruling's scope (e.g. global warming is obviously under ARBCC), there are many other venues that are not obviously controlled by ARB rulings but can still play host to individual edits that are indeed subject to them. Since there was a blurry line about qualifying venues, the auto-alert idea failed. Randomly? No, I hand out alerts carefully. Wwherever I've gone (climate and US politics), when there's been conflict I usually make a list of involved editors, I strike from that list venue regulars for whom I have personal knowledge they already know about DS, and all the rest I alert starting with myself. The last "batch" I recall alerting was during the Malheur refuge occupation. I follow up with a note saying they're no-fault/no-shame FYI sorts of things, and I even alerted myself at (whatever diff). I still get huffy notes on my talk page sometimes, but when I explain we've (so far) been able to get back to content BRD without muss/fuss. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't always practical (or justified) to close an AN3 case with a block even when the behavior is borderline. If the report is closed with no action, there is a risk that the problem that led to the report will continue unabated. When closing without a block, issuing an alert to one or more parties is an option for the closing admin to consider. (This is only an issue if the area is under DS). It sounds like you would oppose even this kind of motivation for an alert. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

depends... if the act injects an element of fault and/or shame, then in my view that is done in contravention of the consensus adopting the new DS standards. On the other hand, if everyone who was mentioned in the filing and is active in the subject area also gets the notice, then that helps further the explicit goal of changing our culture s that they are viewed as no shame/no fault, which was I think the explicit consensus at the time. I would like to add a thank you for all the hard work you put in on this boards. The whole idea is PREVENTION, and we share that end goal.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you were involved

ANI Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice for everyone

See WP:BAIT, an essay written by one of Wikipedia's most perspicacious and insightful editors. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Boris, know that one well. If I correctly understand the specifics which inspired your remark no worries. In my comments here and here, C is not under my skin, and I made reference to his ad hominem only to introduce the discussion of AGF and fact that evidence of bad faith can defeat it. We have a FORUM problem, not an NPA problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so gratuitous

It's really not very gratuitous to inform someone what sort of "flavor" to expect in an ongoing series of discussions. If you check the recent histories of the editors mentioned above, you will see that there has been quite a bit of pointless drama surrounding what would, otherwise be a rather droll discussion. If that doesn't bother you one bit (it doesn't bother me any, at least not in this case), so be it. But I know quite a few editors who would rather bow out of a discussion than get involved in one that's gotten as colorful as that one, and there are pages which have been removed from my watchlist not because I lost interest but because I grew sick of the drama. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At article talk, summing up the crummy behavior of other eds is still talking about behavior, and that's a failure to abide by focus on content. I agree with your comment entirely, just not your choice of venue. Said another way, if you disllke drama, then work your own remarks to do all you can to increase signal-to-noise. At least that's what I do. I can't tell you how many comments I type, and then let sit before posting, and when I come back to them 5 minutes later I just waste 'em because they fail this self-assessment test. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed my point. I tried to inform you about the nature of the discussions occurring there at the start of your recent participation. Had I wished to discuss the behavioral problems that helped (though by no means exclusively) define that nature, I would not have addressed you, but an admin. Note the lack of names named in my comment. That was intentional. It was purely to inform you of what you were getting involved in. If that conveys the appearance of impropriety to you, then so be it. My concern is not my reputation, but in the reduction of the potential for future drama, something which is not well served by alllowing an editor who is new to the current discussion to be blindsided by the rate at which baseless accusations are flying about. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For someone professing a lack of interest in drama, you're going about it in a very strange way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More directly,

The info you wished to communicate to a newcomer is great, and that's what user-talk is for. At article talk we focus on content.
The thought is appreciated, but unnecessary. I haven't said much lately but I'm an old hand at this article and silence doesn't mean "not reading"
Last, if you don't want drama, just ignore stuff like whatever brought you here because pursuing this is.... well..... drama NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptic v. denier

My understanding is that a scientific skeptic is one who has science backing their view. When the vast majority of science disagrees with one, then the term denier would be the correct term. "When a fact is inconvenient, try denial". Jim1138 (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but let's keep the discussion at article talk, and based on what the RSs say. As an aside, the SkepticalScience website founded by Cook is interesting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus clause

What should we do about it, then, short of ignoring its existence? El_C 17:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the conversation was already started at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus_clause I'll reply there, per WP:MULTI NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weedy mud

" (Undid revision 783237563 by Lulu71339 (talk) revert good faith; This would be great in the Politics of global warming but this is a bit of weedy mud for this top level article, IMO)"

If this is the intent, then the rest of that section should be deleted as being "weedy mud" as well. If the article is doing the history of who advocated the phrase "global warming" versus "global climate change," then this is this relevant. If the article is not doing the etymology of who used "global warming" versus "global climate change, then most of the text of the section should be deleted. Lulu71339 (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I supplemented the quoted edit summary with a courtesy note at usertalk, but per WP:TPG and WP:BRD this conversation belongs on the article talk page so others can agree with you (or not) as well. If you wish, you're welcome to move this entire thread including my comments to the article talk page.

Having studied it more, and going back through versions to 2011, I still think it belongs in a sub article but now I think your edit could be restored to the section and then the entire section should be replaced. Instead of etymology as the final section of this already dense and long article, let's do two things (A) export etymology (including your addtion of the Luntz memo) to a subarticle, and (B) insert at the top a "terminology" section, just like we did at Climate change. We could create Etymology of global warming and other destination candidates for that material might include Global warming controversy, or Politics of global warming or Public opinion on global warming. See also WP:Main article fixation and the last time we debated the Luntz memo at Global warming, now found in the archives.

Thanks for shining some light on that section

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable

Hey! thanks for the advise. glad someone is reading the content!! Made some edits... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and though you're working hard, I'm not really impressed by the content. Looks like a fairly indiscriminate catalog of loosely associated events in the news. See WP:What Wikipedia is not. I'm also not real happy with the article's title but I'm not interested enough to try to work on solutions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just going to get worse. It's a sad story in our American experience. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to try to deal with (whatever). How about finding or starting a group to work on (whatever) in your town? This is an encyclopedia project, and I'm not really interested in discussing current events socially. I move my feet in real life when I want to do that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment of Donald Trump

The content I added to the lead was not featured in the body of the article, but I was just providing a definition of impeachment. I would say /most/ people do not know that impeachment does not constitute being removed from office. Should I add a definition in the body or what would you suggest? Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡ _ᐁT₳LKᐃ 01:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For examples see Efforts to impeach George W. Bush and Efforts to impeach Barack Obama. Notice they use the phrase, more or less, "impeach and remove from office" (paraphrased). We could just wikilink similar text to take the reader to our best article on the impeachment process for US presidents, whatever page that is. But I do agree that readers would benefit if we help them realize they may not realize they don't know what "impeachment" means, and then provide them with the information. Good idea. What do you think about the wikilink idea?

(-)

Instead of answering here, you're invited to just cut and paste this whole thread to the article talk page, so others can also contribute. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert Climate change

yep, i know. answer on my talk page Gem fr (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project namespace

It's great to finally see someone interested in helping workout the meaning of our administration pages. Been a long time since an editor seems to care about this. Would love to hear your main concerns and how they can be addressed. WP:RULES lists the types of pages with a brief explanation....we should look at this page as the start point.--Moxy (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm equally impressed with your gratitude (instead of outrage) and the obvious attention you have been giving the matter over several months. Look forward to your further comments at the thread I just started at the VPump Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Have_some_essays_unintentionally_been_given_quasi-rule_status. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a different name before....you don't seem familiar and I can't believe I have not talked to you before. Your the kind of editor I love to engage with. I have written a lot of pages that link from our P/G as well as the P/G themselves. If you ever have time would love your input at Wikipedia:Administration it's a page linked from our main P/G page.....have only ever gotten 1 person to review it. Lots look at this page and would love a good review of it. Not sure you have noticed my talk page grammar and spelling all off....I have MS and don't bother fixings typos on talk pages as I would with articles. PS again great to meet you again if that's the case.--Moxy (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why thanks! No, I've been NewsAndEventsGuy since I got interested in editing in 2011. I only watch a few admin pages. Mostly I pay attention to science and climate articles, some politics. I'll take a look at it, but not promising speed. Feel free to remind me in a month if I haven't said anything. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see not much interest in our problem. Perhaps its because the current template explains things in a reasonable manner so no one really cares. What do you think would be best....should we make a separate section for the supplemental template. ..or move it to the essay section? The only real problem I see with moving the template to the essay section.....is that these pages generally do supplement things in a neutral way and are edited by the community with RfC to determine there content. We are lucky that the template is hardly used. Perhaps a sub section under essays explain more about them...how they are edited by the community and detail information about a preferd method of dealing with a specific situation....yet do not have full community support or deal with a process that is just the community norm and have no need to be detailed in a policy or guideline.--Moxy (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, on different issues I've banged my head on this same wall before. Please see the first part (above the first outdent) of User:NewsAndEventsGuy/BRD; maybe a place to start is to chart the evolution of the ideas, and organize the crumbs chronologically. If we spend gnomish hours doing that, the result might inspire ideas, including pinging eds who cared at one time (if they are still around) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Later) TWO-PART IDEA, goal is to resolve ambiguous status of essays and create more transparency. First, we should make two tweaks to Template:Supplement. For starters we could change the optional parameter for naming the relevant policy(s) or guideline(s) to a requirement. Then, since we provide insturctions to only use it after strong consensus, we should require at least one link to one thread showing this consensus. Otherwise, the "Supplement" tag should not be allowed. Second, all essays tagged with Template:Guidance essay should undergo WP:USERFICATION after a reasonable process of notice at the relevant policy/guideline talk pages in case someone wants to advocate for elevating them to "Supplement" status. Thereafter, Template:Guidance essay should be converted to a redir pointing at Template:Supplement. An open question is what to do with other similar essays that have no tag, but in reality if they have no tag they probably don't have any impact so who cares? That said, I suppose people running across an obscure essay that is presently missing the "guidance essay" tag could be nominated for userfication if anyone cares enough to bother. If we did this, we would resolve the paradoxes and contradictions we've been discussing, and ensuring "supplemental" essays really do have backing of a consensus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE Instead of userfying "Guidance essays" that don't make the cut to "supplement" status, we could replace the "guidance essay" template with a new "Draft supplement essay" template. Good drafts can bubble up into suppelements, bad drafts that fail to keep the community's attention eventually turn into stale drafts and become ripe for MFD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my view Guidance essays and Supplemental essays are 2 very different things. We also dont userfy essays just because there not widely seen. Plus Category:Wikipedia guidance essays contains both project and user pages. Your proposing alot of change when really very very few pages use the "Supplement" tag. To be honest I am thinking of proposing a merger of templates .....drop the "Supplement" tag all together. Not to many will go for more bureaucratic creep for pages that are not P/G.....would be very hard to convince the community to have 3 levels of pages VS the longstanding norm. Will explain more in a bit.--Moxy (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: we think in the same basic direction! If the supplement tag gets the ax, what do you propose we do with the essays that are already tagged with it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tag them with Template:Guidance essay.....Category:Wikipedia supplemental pages has very few essays and would not change there status as in there not a P/G. Some seem to think only pages linked from a P/G have this.....certainly not the case thousands of essays not tagged as "Supplement" are linked from P/G. As seen at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.--Moxy (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, if the idea to delete template supplement comes up elsewhere I will support unless something changes my mind.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How-to template

Good proposal for the name change. This is the type of proposal that will get attention I think. Been writing on G/P/I pages for a decade now and find that if you don't propose a solution or solutions to a precived problem the proposal goes nowhere. I was thinking of nominating the suplement template for merger...but noticed your taking the time to review where it's placed etc. You want me to leave it be for now?....see if others raise a concern? What your doing in reguards to changing it in places looks good to me.-Moxy (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, as I have spent time loading it in my brain I keep being surprised at the things I have never seen after years here and just ho much creep has crept in. Thought we could whittle on that a bit. I don't see vast numbers of pages linking o most of these and doubt anyone has made systematic attempt to validate the template choices. Guess my thought was to clean up the low I,pact items as much as we can and then take stock. Expect ending the supplement tag will generate lots of strong though poorly reasoned opinions, and while I think that's a good idea it might help matters to clean up the little stuff as much as possible. Should be a long process I would expect. At any rate I appreciate the note, I probably would lose interest much faster than you if I found the task as lonely as you have. Definitely pulling oars same general direction here. Let's see how how to goes then take stock. 12:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

MoS has the biggest creep problem....when I first read the MoS it was only 5 or 6 pages.....now over 75. Stick around the topic of P/G/I pages....very few of us that work on these pages.....but we are all very level headed and support common sense changes by editors to these pages.--Moxy (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help Project

Instructor's Barnstar .....great work!-Moxy (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; There sure is a lot of overlap between templates and namespaces. As you probably noticed from my contribs or otherwise, I experimented moving a couple low impact/low traffic "wikipedia how-to" pages from Wikipedia namespace to Help namespace. That seemed to go OK so later i started moving others. BTW, Moxy, is there anywhere in the rabbit hole you haven't been? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol....big hole.....perhaps time for new reports? They be of use to you...... Wikipedia:WikiProject Essays/Assessment/Links and Wikipedia:Help Project/page statistics.....will look into this in the upcoming weekend .--Moxy (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as dustballs go this housekeeping task is on the large size, for sure. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy:, those are great tools. Is there a tool that will report on help namespace pages that do NOT have template Foo? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no....but you can look one by one.... thousands special help namespace.--Moxy (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self, I'd like to suppress subpages on that tool NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. That would be a great tool for cleanup projects NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hard to keep track because of all the redirects between help and project namespace. .....that said I can delete pages if you need to move stuff....just ask.--Moxy (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found it odd that policies and the guideline and the MSO don't have their own namespace. This would also help with searching the topics at hand and would also help distinguish pages that are official vs non-official. it has been proposed in the past but for some odd reason the community doesn't want it but yet we have a help namedspace so editors can search things easier. Wikipedia space should be for process pages only.....but my understanding is this is just how meta software is set up all over outside Wikipedia. We are lucky that the MSO has a prefix that allows for searching.--Moxy (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's odd as well. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re: New Pages Fee

That would be one way of supporting the project, charging a fee for new pag.. oh.. never mind. :) --☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Did I make a funny typo someplace? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, indeed I did. Since this is my idea, I'm willing to license it to the Foundation for 1/1000th of 1 percent royalty. Whoooo hoooo, I'm rich!! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Hi, I approved your request for AWB. Check out the manual for how to use it! Malinaccier (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARB Notification

Hi NAEG, is this notice here enough for a ARB warning, or do I have to use the template (can you link to it?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarioProtIV#Your_fringe_claim_at_Hurricane_Harvey Thanks prokaryotes (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we used to have a warning system but emphatically rejected it in about 2013 or so. Now it is a no fault FYI "alert". anyone can give them to anyone else as soon as the recipient makes a topical edit, even a good edit. It's just FYI after all. Search on "discretionary sanctions" and read the general info for details. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the info, found the notification. prokaryotes (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply repeating the code is now what we do

This seems to be a unilateral decision on your part, as I'm unaware of any discussion or consensus to repeat sections of US law verbatim. I went ahead and changed it to "Simply repeating the code is not what we do" over at Talk:United States Flag Code. –dlthewave ☎ 17:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny! Thanks for the correction and subtle humor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip on course assignment design

I appreciate your comments on the course assignment I designed. I like your idea of having students post on their own talk page. I am still very new to using Wikipedia for teaching, and I'm not a contributor myself. So, I certainly have work to do to learn the norms and practices. I apologize if I caused you a headache. Ian Porter (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and I'll be glad to help if you have specific questions. The idea of having students graded on their participation in WP:dispute resolution has always intrigued me. The response from other eds in a dispute is unpredicatble... some will be (or become) professional and civil if they think constructive effort is being made. Others won't. But of course that shouldn't matter. Its how students deal and respond that I find pedagogically interesting. By analogy, in a human development class I once had to parent a virtual child from gestation to age 18 over a semester. For fun, at each chance to input a parenting decision I tried to be the most horrible parent possible, and by the end of the semester my kid was addicted to crack and had been in jail multiple times. I was graded on assessment reports I wrote from the perspective of a case worker on the outside looking in. That would be really interesting to do with our dispute and consensus processes. Anyway, soapbox off. Drop me a note here if you need additional input beyond that of the editor that's helping with your project. You can also embed a "ping" for anyone at any talk page anywhere in the English encylopedia using the syntax {{Ping|UserName}}. Have funNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was contracted by an IP address out of the blue...

I'm pinging a few people who may be involved with this [[2]]. Springee (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To best of my recollection I haven't interacted with the IP, or the new username they flagged, and haven't talked to the old/former editor for a long time. Good luck. As an aside sometimes I think its easier to forget the LTA and just proceed simply with the current diffs showing (alleged) crap. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming is real

Context, I reverted a new section at an article talk page, with edit summary saying simply "spam". I also marked the users post as 'unsigned' since their signature violates signature NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it spam? It’s my opinion on global warming. And that’s the truth, that is what could happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IloveRumania (talk • contribs)

promoting external links without intending to discuss article improvements is not what we do; I'm not inclined to parse hairs over the words we use. See WP:SPAM WP:TRUTH and WP:NOTHERE just to name a few. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move "Ice dam" to "Ice jam"?

There is a discussion at Talk:Ice dam#Move to "Ice jam" to move "Ice dam" to "Ice jam". You may be interested in offering your opinion. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome at Talk:Ice jam

Hi Guy, thanks for working with me at Talk:Ice jam. I was a bit confused with your last edit, wherein you caused a lot of the record of the discussion to disappear. Was that intentional? I thought that generally one does not delete the record of discussion on a talk page and especially not what another editor wrote, per WP:SIGCLEAN. In any event, I understood you to be OK with my boldly editing the lead. Confusingly, you deleted from the discussion the portion that I thought best reflected where we were headed. I'll wait for a reply here, for a while. Absent one, I'll restore the missing text and add your most recent contribution at the end of the restored text. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Error on my part, thanks for calling to me attention. I think I fixed it. You're welcome to move/tweak my comments there to clean up if I did not fix it 100% NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

What is your opinion on this AfD? @William M. Connolley:prokaryotes (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I answered at the AFD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot decide. He is however often mentioned on social networks, or blogs, when discussing his denialism. prokaryotes (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Swarm ♠ 03:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Swarm NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polar amplification

Copy and paste from Polar amplification's talk page:

You didn't explain why the subsection has been allowed to stand for over 4 years. That doesn't make sense; the article's been edited hundreds of times since then. YoPienso (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sort of irrelevant, and if you're implying a lack of good faith please post to my user talk and we can discuss it there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not implying a lack of good faith. Very often I have seen the argument made against removing longstanding content, with its tacit consensus, and the argument typically prevails. I think it's important to an article called "Polar amplification" to include both poles. YoPienso (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. Instead, I think its important for such an article to discuss polar amplification at both poles. The disputed text in this case is stand alone text talking about projections of sea ice extent. As I've said (more than once I think) that is a stand-alone discussion of sea ice extent, not a discussion of polar amplification (which is about temperature). It can certainly be in articles where it would be appropriate, and if the RSs are there, and someone who knows the RSs wants to write about it, maybe it will be part of an antarctica polar amplification discussion also. But as stand alone text, its just a sea ice discussion, not a temperature discussion. Are you volunteering? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re, the long-standing text wrinkle... see policy WP:Consensus can change and essay WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Unchallenged material (or content age). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know those pages. My question wasn't whether consensus can change, but why it did.

OK, in my mind the sea ice is so basic to amplification I saw it as the same thing. I get your point now. I was thinking of something like "Previous studies have attributed an overall weaker (or slower) polar amplification in Antarctica compared to the Arctic to a weaker Antarctic surface albedo feedback and also to more efficient ocean heat uptake in the Southern Ocean in combination with Antarctic ozone depletion" from "The polar amplification asymmetry: role of Antarctic surface height." Otherwise, we could redirect to "Arctic amplification," which is also used in the literature. My personal preference would be to explain that the phenomenon is far more prevalent in the Artic than the Antarctic.

I should probably state those ideas on the article talk page. YoPienso (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Please do. I don't think "weaker" is the right word, would be interested to hear the specific comparison words used by RSs. Agree its time to move back to the article and its talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interactions with a certain user

Since I and another editor have both been editing in the climate pages for a long time, and since many threads of content and behavior issues kept popping up, I organized them here. I think there might be some of my commentary mixed in, I don't remember. But since this way of organizing this material has just been complained about, I thought I should add an explanatory note here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral heading

Housekeeping, the OP called this section "stalking me" and I changed it to a neutral heading per TPG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please read WP:HOUND, since you seem to follow most of my edits on the topic of climate change, and start or engage in discussion related to my edits, or revert a considerable amount of them in the past few days. prokaryotes (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read the entire policy section. I'll quote and bold part to call to your attention.

(A) From WP:HOUND, "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." The key thing here is "no overriding reason". In my opinion, there is a higher than average rate of error in your science page contribs, so I watch to fix what I can. Often I think you may not be following the RSs, or have a very thorough understanding of the subject, or made edits that are poorly executed in the context of other articles and text. Examples include starting (in good faith) an article on the European heat wave when there already is one (nice job resolving that) and (in good faith but carelessly) re-reverting someone else when they appeared to delete a study you liked but you hadn't looked at the full context and so you ended up restoring the second iteration of the parpagraph plus a line with just a wikilink floating in space. I don't watch your climate and science edits to harrass you, only to make sure our article are well written and follow the sources. That leads us to the second criteria for being guilty of "hounding", doing it in a disruptive manner Read on...

(B) Also from WP:HOUND, "If..... following another user around is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, (then.....) it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." You have not shown the existence of any sign of disruption (see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, a shortcut I created because I try hard to call people on disruption myself). You have only said I watch your edits. You have not shown that I do it in a disruptive way, nor "for no overriding reason". If I were doing it to get at you personally I would watch ALL your edits, not just the ones that deal with climate related items. You've been around a long time with many other subject areas of interest. If I were after you personally I'd be looking up the other subjects and undoing your work there also. Sure, you haven't been to some of these in a long time but they'd still pop up a notice that you had been reverted. I'm not doing that am I? I doubt you can find a pattern in my comments of even rude remarks. Have a complaint beyond mere fact that I showed up at the same place you were and we can talk about it. Can you find examples where you asked a reasonable question and I just blew you off? There's probably one or two that I overlooked. Good luck showing a pattern.

(C) Wrap-up..... Follow the sources, place text in proper context, write well, follow MOS, and read the surrounding text to see how it all fits together, and you'll hardly ever see me tweak your contribs. If you want to know why I tweaked something, ask and assume good faith and I'll explain. If you disagree, there's always dispute resolution. I'll be glad to join you in any of those processes at your request. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual notes to self in case this becomes a bigger issue.... awhile back (after a GMO TBAN) Prokaryotes requested a block on their account in an apparent wikibreak and earlier this year requested the block be removed so they could edit again. So far so good, once I also took a long break. The last few days P did a lot of work done at featured article Global warming. It was fast, and there were things that needed discussion even as more edits appeared. If I understand 3RR I could have reported P for edit warring or asked an admin to apply DS under WP:ARBCC because we both meet the technical "awareness" criteria for imposition of DS. Instead of doing either of those aggressive things, I left what I thought was a friendly comment about paying attention to 3RR and slowing down at P's talk page. In part, P told me to "stop interacting with me". The thread is here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a weird complaint. P edits popular articles that you've been editing for ages; so obviously you'll notice. And a complaint that you engage in discussion is double-weird; that's generally considered good William M. Connolley (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks William. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Climate doom

Recent article here outlines coverage of media in regards to new PNAS Steffen et al. study, there are many other discussions along the way, including from scientists, media, and in the public. My idea is to create a new article along the lines of Climate doom. What do you think? prokaryotes (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good name for a personal blog maybe, but it would take a fair bit of persuasion that "climate doom" passes our naming policy (see WP:NPOVTITLE). Apparently we've both been reading a lot of the coverage of the Steffen paper. The particular one you cite here ("Terrified by ‘hothouse Earth’? Don’t despair — do something") is from Grist, which reads to me like a fair bit of opinion from the Grist author laid on top of the scientific content of the Steffen paper. This body of writing, coupled with the extreme weather and fires, can easily lead some to feel a sense of doom, but we still have to be neutral about it.

I suggest bifurcating this into climate science and mental health.

The best places to cover the content of the Steffen paper are climate change feedback and runaway climate change with shorter mentions elsewhere that include wikilinks back to those two articles. If you haven't already woven Steffen into Paris Agreement and climate change mitigation those are a couple possibilities.

Then there's the mental health side. An article begging to be created is Ecological grief, see paper in Nature. That article should include a few lines about the quandary I've often seen mentioned - should we talk up just how bad some say things are, or is doing that ultimately self-defeating in terms of advancing societal change and mitigation policy? This is a question others are asking and I'm not suggesting we have a discussion about this, only that I've seen that mentioned in many places. It wasn't something I was working on and I didn't compile a bibliography. If research finds this dilemna in real RSs, as opposed to blogs and the like, then it would be good to develop text on that somewhere, including summary and pointer links at places like politics of global warming, ecological grief, public opinion on global warming, climate change mitigation. Etc.

But to the original question, I doubt "climate doom" would survive the inevitable challenge unless going in you had compiled a lot of unquestionably reliable sources to meet the subjective threshold test in WP:NPOVTITLE. But adding the 'doom' part as an element of ecological grief and the scary projections as part of the climate science articles would allow you to proceed on the content, without a battle from the skeptics. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Along these lines, you could also look for sufficient RSs to create an article for the book "Climate Wars" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, climate doom was just a pointer, could be also Climate despair, if you google these two words, lots of results. Currently not sure how much time I have for Wikipedia, will keep thinking about this topic. prokaryotes (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Googling is helpful to see what terms are popular, but doesn't really matter that much. See WP:GOOGLETEST NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this Social media is nice, but probably lacks the mental health benefits of being in a local group, where there is face time. Exerpt

"In a tweet, Diana Liverman, a climate scientist and co-author of the paper called out the media directly: “Clearly people aren’t reading the paper we wrote where our point is exactly that Hothouse Earth is not our destiny and that social system feedbacks are starting to move us to the Stable Earth. But media goes for worst case and makes it sound certain.”NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics

I have to confess, I like your attention to semantics, little details. However, the study you recently cited, is from February 2018, thus not responding to latest Rockström - the new PNAS study which is the subject of that part. And they made an outrages claim, that he was devoid of scientific data. prokaryotes (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and while you were leaving this, I actually compared the lead text in Planetary boundary to the source you added to resolve the CN and .... they did NOT match. Amazing what happens when one actually reads the sources, or at least skims. Beware of confirmation bias. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedbacks in the scripture, are the climate feedbacks.... feedbacks mentioned under section title climate change.prokaryotes (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What scripture? Koran? Bible? Torah? I have no idea what you are talking aboutNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The paper you mentioned above, you actually read. Twenty four mentions of feedback, explicit referring to specific climate feedbacks, such as the ice-albedo feedback. Anyway, added the reference directly now. prokaryotes (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self published

It's not self-published. The report is a high profile compilation on IPCC, Risks, in this particular content addition, the report cites study results from Naomi Oreskes, who published on this very topic. Also from SPB guide, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field" - this report is from the experts. ... prokaryotes (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong spot. Post to article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claims

The following discussion 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.

Please stop making claims on various talk pages that I violate NPOV with my edits, or similar. I have read your input in this regard, and I disagree with your conclusions. I look forward to keep working with your critical input on various climate related topics, but continued claims of guideline violations are on the verge to disrupt the consensus finding process. You can always ask me to provide reliable sourced references for my commentary. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What if it's true? You've already barred me from talking behavior at your talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of discussions we had on talk pages over the years there might be actually evidence which can be construed as being in violation of NPOV terms. However, I usually do not post my personal opinions, and my article space edits should reflect that very clearly, since these are usually uncontroversial peer reviewed studies, or show results from all actors (IPCC, Critical of IPCC, mainstream ...). And yes fine, post on my talk page if needed. prokaryotes (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain that in your heart of hearts you're not approaching climate edits with a "We're fucked if we don't wise up" sort of inner panic, and hope for aggressive policy action? My impression of your GMO topic ban makes me think you kinda shifted the same vibe to a new issue. Even if the answer is yes, that's not evidence of POV violations all by itself. But I suppose it would make it a LOT harder to walk the line. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that my climate edits constitute, "We're fucked if we don't wise up sort of inner panic"? prokaryotes (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since this isn't AE and I'm not seeking admin review, I don't believe a careful contrib assessment would be especially constructive here. Instead I will just observe that if I'm talking smack my comments should make me sound like a weirdo. If they hurt, then remember the adage where there's smoke there's often fire. In the latter case, the better question is one for you... "How would another editor get that impression from my edits?" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Climate science is a fast evolving topic, and projections got more dire in recent years in regards to potential outcomes, and time scales. Thus, it is understandable if someone not following too closely on various topics, that things may sound dramatic or very alarming. However, you should always look at the sources, read author names, journal entries, abstracts or entire reports, or even google the topic, if in doubt - and before you brand someone as alarmist. But the bottom line is that the climate sciences are alarming, but it is something entirely different to claim we are fucked. I hope this clarifies your concerns and we can return to more constructive community editing. prokaryotes (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirmation you yourself are alarmed when you read the sources. I thought your diffs showed this quite clearly and it does help to have that honest self assessement on the table. Alone this doesn't show POV problems but its a piece of that puzzle. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I would appreciate the next time you think an edit is too controversial or alarming, ask me on talk to provide more background informations. prokaryotes (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Return to top of thread. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not wrote that I am alarmed (the sciences are alarming, this according to leading climate scientists), but yes I am alarmed too, but I try to not have this influence my edits because of it. prokaryotes (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:12 above "the bottom line is that the climate sciences are alarming" Reminder to self - When the well is known to be dry stop digging. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2018 (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.

Other threads of note

The following discussion 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.

This section is provided only for navigation. No discussion here please.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2018 (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.

note to self

Check in with File_talk:Earth_heat_balance_Sankey_diagram.svg#Suggestions^{[needs update]} NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming sourcing

Hey NewsAndEventsGuy, noticed your revert from a while back on the Global warming page and had a question.

In your summary I saw that you moved the info to the Effects of global warming page, but you also said "Just one single study". I was just curious, what kind of sourcing do you seek out for global warming, climate change and related issues? Any particular outlets you keep an eye on? Thanks! PcPrincipal (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions, thanks. As you probably know, complex topics on Wikipedia are organized in something of a tree, with a main article, and then some "main" sub-articles, which themselves might be fleshed out in sub-sub-article and even sub-sub-sub-articles. At the top articles, its preferred to have high quality WP:SECONDARY sources. These might include "literature review" articles in the professional journals, or quality media, and best are the ones that summarize a lot of scientific work. Its really tempting to add the latest soundbite from the latest paper that catches our fancy, and at main articles some of us - including me - try to keep that to a minimum because it makes for very disjointed and rapidly-dated writing. I'm not sure if this will really answer your questions, but here goes.... one can approach GW wikipedia editing in at least two ways. On the one hand, you watch headlines in something like GoogleNews and GoogleScholar and in fits of WP:RECENTISM try to shoehorn in the tag lines as they appear in search engines or social media. The other and far better way is to read our articles, and where you find a nuance that isn't explained very well start researching that nuance and propose a paragraph or two (or an article!) to improve our coverage of that little piece. If you do the latter you might be looking at old sources as well as new ones. An area where we are really weak is Climate security. That article is begging for well-written cohesive overhaul. Hope that helps! If you want to ask again, or ask something else, please do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I was not aware of WP:RECENTISM, that will be quite helpful to investigate further. Certainly makes sense given what you said about "rapidly dated writing". Thanks for you response and help! PcPrincipal (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions

About this: That sounds quite reasonable to me. I think I would spin it differently than you pitched it, by focusing on lack of process in the one (and the confusion and drama that can cause), and us having a model for the process in the other, so let's apply the latter to the former. Something like that. And now back to my wikibreak. 2601:643:8300:C96D:CD15:305A:C81B:4798 (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, NewsAndEventsGuy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

climate change task force

Thank you for quality articles such as SolaRoad, for administering DS alerts even to yourself, for improving the global warming article in additions and discussion, for adding citations from the start in 2011, for "tricks for consensus in a heated environment", for missing with appreciation, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda (and Boris) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ess ist nie zu spacht, etwas frohliche zu sagen! Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings! – and GW scope...

Hi NAEG, peace on Earth etc., Talk:Global warming is simmering away. Think we need a more focussed discussion on the scope of GW and CC in relation to sources, and your detailed thoughts will be very welcome – perhaps in the New Year? All the best for 2019, . . dave souza, talk 11:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The economist quote

The following discussion 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.

It appears you are operating under the rather ironically humorous and assumptive notion that, as you put it in the edit summary -lots of people "suggest" nuclear phase out. The Economist's opinion went farther and this is a direct quote which elaborates. People who like nukes won't LIKE this quote but that's besides the point in a neutral article.

With the assumption that presumedly I am one?

I wish to inform you that my efforts to reduce the size of the article, are actually due entirely to another editor who chastized me for the length of the article. As you can easily read on my talk page. It is for that reason alone that I'm trying to condense the article as much as possible.

A task that you seem to be undoing. Though I would appreciate if you joined me, now under this true-light you could actually assist in condensing the article. Especially in areas that are transitory, like how some journalist in a magazine went crystal-balling on nuclear power almost a decade ago? We can condense that, if not remove it entirely? Right?

Anyway, thanks for the, unintentional laugh.

Boundarylayer (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our relationship aside, at its heart this is a content dispute. Please use the article talk page and if need be any dispute resolution process you care to invoke. I'll be glad to participate in any. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2019 (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.

Hounding again

Having noticed you are in WP:STALK mode again, following me into articles including the talk page of Energy Return on Investment recently, an article you have never had any involvement in, only recently, to [| insert your admitted troll-like comments which you then revert]. It is concerning and a little-tiresome at this stage. Especially considering your now eagerness to issue threats of sanctions, send me frivolous notices on my talk page and whatever you have planned to do next. I will have to take your conduct to the attention of admins if you fail to desist in your, second obsession with me now, in recent years.

Boundarylayer (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Again?" Are you referring to our interactions in the last 4 week period, or from farther back in time? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to EROI, I have not reverted any of your work, and have offered the criticism to others that they are not discussing content of secondary RSs. We need less drama more collaborative FOC that uses the WP:DR procedures. But let's analyze my contribs to EROI.

I saw it at the NPOV noticeboard and I commented there once then again. I concluded that the study you want to include might be OK it might not, we need better discussion of content of secondary sources. Less smoke and table pounding, more sweatwork with sources.
On the article, I removed a statement of opinion with no reference that was added by someone else years before you edited wikipedia, and I added a CLARIFY tag to unreferenced text that was not yours either.
At article talk, I have no comments. Instead I again restored your own remarks which you changed after someone replied, and I attempted a joke (first version and revised one) which I then removed before anyone replied. I was laughing at the personality type of scientist-researchers who have the egotistical gall to blather about only trusting their own work.... my wife is a research prof at a major university, and we know this type very well. It's funny. But then I realized you were unlikely to see it that way so I removed it - before anyone replied - with an apology (see prior link this thread). And now you're unable to let it remain deleted and shout about the deleted joke actually being intended as a troll even though on my own I removed it. QUESTION, are you sure I'm the one with the problem working in this good-faith based collaborative project?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global catastrophic risk

The following discussion 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.

In this thread, I deleted the superfluous EW template left by User AbrahamCat, who seems to think I was edit warring at this article. I reverted one time. My reasons why the table is inappropriately used can be found at the article talk page.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2019 (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.

Thanks

Thanks for your efforts. --2604:2000:E010:1100:A1C9:3376:1282:532D (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

de nada. welcome to wikipedia. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you look at the entire edit the discussion is about, you will see it is about far more than what the title (as changed) now reads. I had added refs and text supported by refs. The editor deleted those additions. Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:A1C9:3376:1282:532D (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I did scan it and only noticed ref tweaks. Feel free to change it back. No one owns section headings (WP:TPG) but down the road if there is an issue that was hashed out long ago, it makes it really hard to find prior discussions when the headings are vague. Common examples, "neutrality", "sources", "image" that sort of thing.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia Sustainable?

We can make it better! Check out the effort by clicking this thumbnail. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A conversation

I agree that such a conversation should be had, but I don't think it's feasible. ANI is either mob rule where the person with the most people hounding them loses automatically, or fecklessly talking into the aether hoping one of the good admins like Bish or Swarm or (formerly) Alex Shih happen to stop by. MPants's hounds made themselves really obvious by doing things like retroactively editing their user page so they can claim MPants made fun of them for a disability, or suddenly not knowing what "canvassing" means when it comes to MPants, and they still couldn't be dealt with before we lost a good editor. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you've given up before trying. The #1 obstacle to new ideas is old hands like us dominating the conversation. For example, if the status quo now has problems, who are the old hands available to talk about it? ANSWER - Through Darwinian evolution, the surving old hands are us who are already evolved to swim in these toxic waters. Naturally we are going to speak from a paradigm of liking the status quo. Therefore, one idea is to try to have this conversation among "newish" editors, giving greatest air time and consensus weight to their perspectives. The specific idea I would float is that perhaps we need a corollary to WP:Community sanction we might call WP:Community protection. That's a big idea obviously and I've only thought about it for 30 seconds. The idea would be to make a higher bar to get one's foot in the door to complain at ANI and at the same time while someone is basking in community protection status there should be higher-than-normal expectation of civility. This would protect the truly victimized targets while not rewarding those who are most skilled at hiding BATTLE mentality.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Climate system

If you make the article about the climate state (I've often tried to link to this non-existent article): this might be a good basis: https://sciencing.com/five-parts-climate-system-21166.html. Personally, I think the article should not be much larger than summing the five components of the climate system. Less is more :). Femkemilene (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using WikiProject for some of the overarching communications

Hello,

With the huge project that we're now undertaking in terms of merging and updating article, we might want to start using the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force page. As this wikiproject is somewhat easy to find for new users and some sleeping users seem to follow it still as well, this could engage more people with the project.

I recently put the splitting of the climate change article on there and immediately people started reacting :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bunny for you

I hope we can put this behind us. Like I said, it was that I felt process was being ignored. If I was wrong, my apologies. My best wishes and respect to you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the bunny. The best way, and ultimately the only way, to put such things behind us is next time just be forthright with the full honest reasons for our editorial choices. See the box at the top of my talk page. I still can't do that for your views in our past head banging, because I still don't know the hows and whys of your belief readers will be misled. And to be honest, I don't want to go into here at all. At article talk, if you want to reopen the question, sure. Otherwise the ship has sailed and the only reason I am mentioning it is to agree it would be nice to put it behind us. The way to do that is next time, let's have each editors full reasons fully explained in constructive concise DR. Then the train will be back on its track. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying. I hope you know that I was being honest and acting in good faith. And I hope you are not accusing me of being otherwise. When I make a change to an article it is because I think it is best for the article. So do you. That is obvious. All I ask is that, if challenged, process is observed. I totally trust the community in deciding whether or not my change is good. As soon as there were three of you saying the naked list should be gone, and no others came to say it should remain, then I realized I was wrong and the list should go. I never fight for content. I always, always ask the community and trust what they say. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the subject at article talk is closed, I'm done here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Me too. Phew. Happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Green is the new Red" from "Climate change denial" talk page

Why was my section "Green is the new Red" removed from the article "Climate change denial" talk page? I used a reputable source and took statements directly from the source. The article "Climate change drnial" is incorrect in many ways and is in great need of improvement. RHB100 (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Talk page guidelines say that article talk pages are only for discussing improvements to the article. Your comment was a general indictment of calls for climate change mitigation, and was not proposing or discussing any part of this article to be improved. I subsequently gave you the formal alert that climate change is subject to DS. By all means, you are welcome to try to propose ways to improve the article. If you post grossly POV general WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM you might get another topic ban to go along with your GPS page restriction. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. prokaryotes (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for record keeping... here is an "old version pinpoint" link to the thread when I posted my initial reply NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A slight modification of your/our Climate change renaming proposal

One of the major elements of your plan has been executed with the climate system article. The next step for me is to write something systematic about climate variability. I've been thinking about this quite a lot and find it difficult to get a coherent definition distinguishing climate variability and climate change. If I Google climate variability, I mostly get pages seeking to explain the difference between the two. Considering they are very linked, I was thinking we could put both in one article: climate variability and change, with information comparable to https://www.pacificclimatefutures.net/en/help/climate-projections/understanding-climate-variability-and-change/. This would also help:

Getting support for proposal. People seem to indicate they want a page about climatic changes in general.
Internal linking problems after move: with this page in existence, we can change articles that correctly link to climate change (most pages linking to climate change are 'wrong' in the sense that they refer to current climate change)and link them to this page instead.

Practically, I think this should be a very condensed merge between Climate change and climate oscillation, with the latter also split off into a list. What do you think? User:Femkemilene (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A) Thanks for asking. I like that "y/our" in the section heading. I especially like having a bit of inspiration and then having such a skilled editor do all the work, thanks!

B) See also, Climate pattern... and list of other related articles in my draft sandbox climate system article

C) Answering your two questions....

C1) this should be a very condensed merge between Climate change and climate oscillation, with the latter also split off into a list. Absolutely! The original idea was to gather up the guts of all these little sub articles and incorporate them into Climate system. I don't care much if the list of Climate oscillations and Climate patterns is embedded list in Climate system or a stand-alone list. My preferred criteria for such questions is what will be easiest to maintain?

C2) I was thinking we could put both in one article: climate variability and change At first blush my thought is that it would create yet another article with "climate... change" in the title, and we're trying to clear up the confusion about "climate change" and "global warming". So my initial reaction is negative. But I don't have my head into all this like you do. Why do you want a separate article instead of adding this to Climate system? When I started my sandbox draft, I thought variability would be an intergral part of the climate system article. At present that article has 16,000 bytes of readable prose, so there's plenty of room before we have to worry about WP:SIZESPLIT guidelines.

D) OK, that's all for now. Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you for doing all this!! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broke my phone screen, so hope my typing still makes sense.

B) climate pattern is a part of variability, which is a part of the Climate system, so I agree this is a level too sub to warrant own article. A three-way merge into climate variability and change is a possibility I'm positive towards.

B) I've looked up what the IPCC glossary has to say about climate patterns. They indeed list it under the heading of modes of internal variability, confirming that this article should can logically be merged into the bigger picture article of climate variability. Their quote (AR5 WG1 Glossary): Mode of climate variability Underlying space–time structure with preferred spatial pattern and temporal variation that helps account for the gross features in variance and for teleconnections. A mode of variability is often considered to be the product of a spatial climate pattern and an associated climate index time series Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C1) I like lists because of their maintainability. Their structure discourages users from adding irrelevant information if it cannot be put in that format, which is often the case.

C2) I feel strong about having an article on climate variability. This is an important and big topic of research. Most sources I found on it immediately and in its definition contrast it with Climate change making the two difficult to separate. I acknowledge that the current climate system can have some more information about internal variability, but even if we condense climate pattern and climate oscillation it would become out of proportion with the rest of the text. Condensing it more means we lose information I think is important enough to be included in Wikipedia. Hence my proposal for a subarticle. Do note that many elements of the climate system article already have a subarticle (atmosphere, carbon cycle..). Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B) Without reading sources my gut says climate pattern isn't restricted to variability; asteroid winter following an asteroid impact is also a climate pattern isn't it

C1) Lists! Great! Have you already seen the MOS sections on WP:LISTS? If not they might help you pick the best structure

C2) New article! Great! I look forward to seeing it. I feel strongly that we hurt our overall goal if it has "change" in the name. Can it just talk about climate variability, and be called climate variability? Seems like the "change" part would still be an integral theme, woven in the text.

New paragraph numbers

D) At Climate system, for forcings, can we introduce that section with text bearing the word "external"? This was part of IPCC AR4 where they contrasted internal variability with external forcings. I think the average high school reader seeing "internal" needs that comfy word "external" to remain oriented, since the word "internal" implies a compare-contrast... so let's make what's implicit explicit and help folks not get lost.

E) Unless I missed it, at Climate system, a section we haven't talked about and is not yet there has to do with Biogeochemical cycles. I think we should add something about this since they play such an important role moving energy around and driving feedbacks.

F) At Climate system, under forcings, there is a section "response". As we know, change happens, cascade effects follow. But wait... if the audience are highschool kids, you can say the same for internal variability. I really think we should have a top level section for responses. Subsection 1) It's a dynamic system where the parts are always change Subsection 2) [{WP:SUMMARY]] of cascade responses when the initial change arises from internal variability with pointer to main article Subsection 3) WP:SUMMARY of cascade responses when the initial change arises from external forcings. .... and since I haven't studied this like you have, part of me is wondering if there is really that much difference between 2 and 3 in this list.

When my thing with P is cleared up I can devote more time to egging you on.....

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a partial response (no computer still)

B) I think you're right and patterns could be part of the response section, as well as internal variability in climate system. What's funny, is that to first approximation, the pattern of warming just after external forcing is similar to the ENSO pattern.

D) I left the words external forcing out because it felt too jargony. But indeed, with the contrast with the previous section, it might actually be the simplest section heading.

E) two of the four paragraphs of the flows of section are about biochemical cycles. Do you have any suggestions how to points readers to them? I could make subsections on that section, but that might make the flow of text more difficult. I always prefer subsections that are more than one paragraph.

F) The initial reasoning behind making it a subsection was following a source (the old ruddiman one I think). I belief structure as well as content should come from RSs. That said, I do think it also makes sense as a separate section, especially since you've given me some inspiration to put climate patterns in there, making it sufficiently long to be a section. I'll look into the other sources a bit more.

F) My old professor in dynamical oceanography would get quite angry at me if I put internal variability under responses (your subsection 1). It's not a response to something, the climate system is internally generating these modes. The differences between 2 and 3 are a highly debated and studied within climate research and it's difficult to make an easy neutral statement about it.. I'd like to keep it simple and keep internal variability and forced change separate, which is quite like many of the sources do. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G) As you're reviewing the article now, would you be tempted to do it officially as well? It's currently a GAN. If you don't have time or don't feel sufficient impartial, that's okay of course. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies my skim read missed your hard biogeochemical work! More next week. Stay safe, have fun! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It will still be awhile before I can/should look at the article. If I do more here in userspace than I have already done, I might accidentally abuse my promise of only working in user space until I finish saying something about P at ANI. The well-intended prolific CIR-challenged editor is the hardest to deal with, by far. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your support for new climate change WikiProject?

This thread starts with a misapprehension on my part. Cadar is talking about a proposal to convert the climate change task force (now inactive under Project:Environment) into a stand-alone project in its own right. At first I thought s/he just meant renewing the task force. HI NAEG, thought you might be interested in supporting the launch of the proposed WikiProject Climate Change. Still in the draft stage, but I know this subject is one you have interest in.

Thanks! Cadar (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I admit I had less hope than ya'll back in 2011... it looked dead and rather than try to do CPR, I took my name off back then. If I undrestand right, just by adding the template to my user talk the servers will eventually add my name to the project participants list without me doing anything, right? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. I've been pushing this particular bowl of half-set jelly up the hill for a good 10 years or so now. Baby steps, and one day we'll make it

I think it's definitely time now, there's a lot to be done. As a ferinstance, I've volunteered myself to start doing copy edits on all the GW and sub pages, and discovered there are no less than 24 of them. Maintaining this category is going to be a full-time job, but somebody needs to do it.

Regarding getting on board - I think you will be able to add the template, yes, but that will only be the case once the project proposal is accepted and it goes live. In the meantime, if you could add your name under the supporters list on the project page, that would be a huge help. I haven't started the process of advertising and looking for interested editors in earnest yet - right now it's really just a case of noticing good people who are obviously interested and asking them individually.

Looking forward to working with you on it!

Cadar (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

24 sub articles? 24? TWENTY FOUR.... Ahhhhh ha ha ha hooo hoooo ho ho .... that's really funny. The climate pages remind me of the way my kid wants to paint her room, with garage sale paint poured into a blender color by color, and the blender operated briefly without a lid for each one. On a different note, the template instructions imply that the server takes care of populating the participant list once recruits add the template to their user space. I'm waiting to see if that happens. If users do need to take that second step manually, that should be spelled out in the sign up instructions to help the next person. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and I will add the instructions when we get there, but we need to get the project approved and launched before we get there

As I say, it's still in the proposal stage, and we need people just to support its approval. They don't even need to commit to getting involved - that comes later. I don't know how many supporters count as enough to get it launched, but the more the merrier!

And I hear what you're saying about the paint. I haven't had the time to look at the pages in detail yet, but I've already picked up a number of issues just by catching recent edits. I tend to be a bit anal about it, because out in the real world I'm a writer and editor by profession.

Cadar (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved? There already IS one, it just hasn't done anything for a while. Or am I missing something? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This group has existed since before my time here started (in 2011)
If you haven't already seen it the advice on Dealing_with_inactive_WikiProjects might be helpful. It says nothing about seeking some sort of re-approval, in a word it just says... WP:SOFIXIT NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're confusing the Climate change task force with the full Climate change WikiProject which the proposal is (in part) an upgrade to. Go ahead and read the proposal page.

Cadar (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get it now. The project proposal is here, in case anyone else stops by. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, I'm not sold on the Project. It isn't clear that advocates have done a solid study of task force vs project, or have any experience working with one, or have an appreciation of what's involved enough to provide a cost/benefit analysis. Better, and easier, in my view is to just renew the existing task force and learn how it works and its parent project, Project:Environment, works. Then if we are so active and dynamic that we might want to do a standalone thing, we'll have lots of experience and evidence to build on a year or two down the road. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NAEG, thanks for all the input and the discussion, you've forced me to consider some of the aspects which I wasn't previously taking into consideration. And thinking about them and their ramifications has had the (perhaps unintended) benefit for me personally of firming up my intentions and resolve to see the project through. So thanks for that

One thing, though: the decision to advertise the project on the GW talk page is IMO rather precipitous, especially in light of the fact that we haven't yet fully finalised the scope of the project; you've also highlighted a potential NPOV issue. Can we please hold off on getting anyone else involved until the proposal is in a state which all editors are happy with? Especially at this stage of drafting it, the last thing we need is for some of the more sensitive types to throw their toys and decide they will not support it for NPOV or any other issue. And CC editors seem to be nothing if not sensitive

Thanks. Cadar (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well.... no, sorry. It's crystal-clear this push is a response to recent conflict with veteran climate editors. See this common reason for failure which emphasizes that task forces and projects are fundamentally social endeavors. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals (where new proposals start) it says the purpose of making a proposal is to to see if there are enough willing editors to participate in the project, if it should be a WikiProject or task force, and if the scope of the project should be changed in any way.. The whole idea is to improve the work at pages where there are established eds. The whole thing is doomed to fail if you can't get the established eds on board. But it sounds like your bad experience with conflict is seeking some way to balance the terms of the next engagement. Consensus doesn't work like that, however. And besides, the official task force might have been dormant for a long time, but the regulars at the top article (Global warming) make up a de facto task force in practice. It would be kinda odd to proceed creating a project without telling the task-force-in-practice that its underway and inviting their input. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC) PS Please see WP:CANVASSING NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm making myself understood. We need to define the project and iron out potential issues such as NPOV or anything else before opening the proposal up to public discussion in order to avoid needless discussion about aspects which could have been fixed beforehand, and without losing the support of editors because of those or any other issues. I seem to be the only editor actually doing anything with the proposal, hence my single perspective and input - together with the inexperience with projects you've mentioned - means that there are bound to be problems, as already discovered. And I have no opinion on the history of the editors on the task force or any other subject before I came on board, nor do I have knowledge of prior conflicts or interest in engaging with conflicts. I've made my reasons for creating the project quite clear, I think. Conflict has exactly nothing to do with any of them. Having said that, and this is the fundamental reason for this entire thread of discussion - I have been accused of NPOV in the past, by editors who have now been alerted to the creation of a project by me, and who I do not believe will be unprejudiced towards me - and by extension, the project. Hence the fact that I brought this up.

Cadar (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you might want to withdraw the proposal for now and "userfy" it by creating a subpage in your own user space. You can invite people to help you draft a proposal to iron such things out before "going live". That's a fairly standard practice I think. But the proposal IS live and to succeed, veteran de facto task force members need to be not just told but actively recruited. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've moved beyond withdrawing it. We (or "I", whichever) will just have to deal with it as it is now.

Cadar (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch developments with interest and will at least continue to polish up the list of active vs inactive task force eds. I'm concerned, though, that your passion for the subject may be creating consensus/collaboration shoals ahead. Let's close this out here, and continue at the proposal talk page if needed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please post additional comments at the proposal talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert - climate change

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sent this to another earlier today and am about to send it to others, so I figured I should send one to myself too NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done at least as far as the proposed Wikiproject and Global Warming articles are concerned. It's just an FYI remember and now we're all on the same page NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming - lead

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. I hope I have not demotivated you. So consider what we have achieved so far: The lead used to say that Global Warming started in or before AD1750 (pre-industrial), in AD1900, and in AD1950. All in the first paragraph! Only the 1950 date is based on the cited sources. So today we have successfully eliminated the 1900 date. Next we need to eliminate the 1750 nonsense, and the lead will be accurate (scrappy and unbalanced, but at least accurate). Please do not give up now.86.134.18.24 (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in, but no worries. Check the article history. Dave was there when I showed in 2011, and we're both longterm consistent regulars. We sometimes respectfully disagree, just as you and I do. We need more eds of this sort. Carry on! Incidentally, so far as I know, Femkemilene is the only actual climate scientist at the wikiproject. The rest of us are "just" regular eds. Join the party! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem friendly people and I am tempted for that reason. However, climatology is really just a peripheral interest for me. Wikipedia is better served if I concentrate my efforts in areas where I do have expertise. I have become involved in editing Global Warming only as a result of recent media coverage, and when I then consulted the Wiki Global Warming lead, it pained me to the point of taking action. So once the Global Warming lead is sorted out, I will regretfully bid you farewell.86.134.18.24 (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the article on conservapedia, I'm going to give you the option to allow direct attribution to each and every opinion source or else I will place the nomination for NPOV review back into place. It doesn't matter to me which way you would like things, but let me know. Also, remember that attribution IS Wikipedia Policy and not an option, regardless of how "superfleurous" you claim it to be. Therefore, I will also be possibly considering any future reversions to be vandalism. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]