User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy

Tricks for consensus in a heated environment

Always assume its possible there's an ambiguity in the text that makes sense one way to you and makes equally good faith sense in a completely different way to someone else. Don't shoot back. When others try to make it personal remember that they are saying nothing about you and are instead telling the world they either lack discipline or else are consciously manipulating you to change the issue. So a personal attack by your assailant is nothing more than their own self-destruction. Smile to yourself, feel sorry for them, and move on. They are creating their own sanction by destroying their own editor-image. If you must stick with it, try very hard to avoid saying "you" and instead say "I" and "me" and stick to the subject matter. Then you don't have to get hot yourself. Often a magic bullet is to ask the other editor for permission to try to repeat back their own argument as neutrally as possible even if you don't agree with it. That instantly tells them you are listening and does 99% of what is possible (at least on your part) to cool things off. Besides, the exercise uncovers simple misunderstanding the majority of the time. If they just stay hot and bothered, there's a good chance they've got some compulsory emotional stuff or else lack good faith, either way... know when to politely quit trying and stick to that decision. Don't waffle back and forth about it or you'll really get bombarded when you try to end it. Just don't shoot any parting salvos and leave the door ajar. (I don't know why doors like to have the company of jars, but it seems to help.) An interesting essay along these lines is writing for your opponent. Feel free to copy reuse trash change distribute. Your mileage may vary.

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

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

Quicklinks & text for my quick reference

• WP:WikiProject Inline Templates
• michigan-based Ext link spammer
• Block evading IP sockpuppet; see [[User:Arthur Rubin/IP list]]

/Archive 1

Something I wish everyone understood as well as Leonard McCoy (Star Trek)

When planet Vulcan debated a proposal to withdraw from the Federation, Starship Enterprise was sent to represent the Federation, and humans specifically. At the planetary debates, Leonard McCoy took center stage. Audience outbursts were permitted, and so here is one of McCoy's answers to his main heckler:

The data about Earth speaks for itself-” Selv’s thin, angry voice came back.

“No data speaks for itself,” McCoy said, forceful. “Data just lies there. People speak. The idiom ‘speaks for itself’ almost always translates as ‘If I don’t say something about this, no one will notice it.’ Sloppy thinking, Selv! You are dealing with second- and third-hand data. You have never been to Earth, you don’t understand our language – and this is made especially clear by some of the material you claim to be ‘translating’ from Earth publications: an Andorian spirit-dancer with a Ouija board and a Scrabble set could do a better job. Though I must admit I really liked the article on the evolution of the blood sacrifice in Terran culture. That is not what major-league football is for…”

From the novel Spock's World, (Easily googleable... this scene is in googlebooks at the moment)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

Michigan global warming external link spamming IP

Attempts at communicating with the IP and other details of this story have been moved to their own page.

Also,

• Raw data, IP sock's editing sessions - Thanks Arthur!
• Quickie analysis of raw data for Jan - June 2012
• My first ANI (August 2, 2012)
• My second ANI (August 20, 2012)

IN SUM, too bad the IP doesn't just pick a single article at a time, and spend a little time to actually make it better instead of just sticking in newslinks all the time. He is distracting other editors from making substantive improvements. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

PS A play-dumb exchange April 2013 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

WP/AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Done been closed :) Vsmith (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Global warming controversy

Am I to understand that the case is closed, and no mention of the controversy is permitted on the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWorshipMe (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss desired article improvements at the appropriate article talk page. Since this is my talk page I control the content and I do not host protracted subject matter debates on my talk page. Per WP:OWNTALK. If you continue trying to soap box here I will likely just delete it NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Global warming controversy". Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!

That was closed as being premature NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion with Nigelj (formerly titled "The upper hand")

[1]. For my own part having lived through WP:ARBCC, I have seen great editors, who had worked tirelessly and diligently to keep the GW articles sane and useful, including throughout the Scibaby era and the CRU e-mail nonsense, pilloried and publicly humiliated using little more than a selection of their talk page diffs. I have therefore tried to become Mr Good Faith Personified whenever a GW edit box is open. I would rather look a prat for having been nice to the devil himself, and still be here to edit the articles, rather than be driven off the project or banned from the subject area like so many good and useful people were at that time. It's hard to be more chatty or more specific as I believe everything here can and will be used against people next time there is, for example a swing to the right in American politics, and these people feel they have the upper hand here again. ;-) --Nigelj (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, though where I can point to evidence and offer a good faith opinion that it is strong evidence of a lack of good faith, I am not terribly concerned I will be damned for that, especially in light of my AGF track record with lots of other folk. Warned maybe, but everyone's mileage can vary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion with Ronz (formerly titled "Huh?")

Re [2]: "Only thing I want to hear from Ronz is his answers posted to article talk page, to Qs on that talk page, per WP:BOOMERANG warning issued to Ronz at ANI he started against WMC"

I'm not sure what to make of your edit summary.

As you are aware, I won't be posting anything further on the article talk page for some time. I'd like to resolve these concerns best I can in the meantime. I contacted you here because of your interjection into my doing exactly that.

So you're not interested in discussing anything with me directly? --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I addressed a discrete list of questions to you at the article talk page, but I am in no hurry so whenever you return to that talk page is a fine time to take them up. Beyond that, I have nothing else to put on the agenda. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile to discuss them here, then we can summarize on the talk page later? --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No, per WP:MULTI. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation. It completely ignores the purpose of user talk pages, and I'd say the purpose of WP:MULTI as well. However, it's your choice. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

So I don't understand your behavior. You won't engage with me here, but you repeatedly interject your comments in discussions I'm having with others... --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

For reference, the last such comment I made was in response to someone else's question, and I interjected my views of effective use of the DR process. Here on my talk page, my prior words clearly state I want to talk about article improvements with you only at the article talk page, and I do not have any other issues I wish to put on the agenda for discussion with you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop interjecting into these discussions. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

On your talk page, I will be glad to abide by your rules. Speaking of wikietiquette ("do not ignore reasonable questions"), please spend less time on my talk page and more time addressing the pending questions I left for you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

< Snip...Unproductive comments from Ronz have been deleted (twice) per WP:OWNTALK > Ronz, please spend less time here on my talk page and more time answering the reasonable questions I left for you at the article talk page. BTW, did you ever comply with this 2012 ANI proceeding by finding a mentor? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You've asked me a question. Do you want a response or no? --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Here on my talk page, I would like a response that addresses the one question I have asked you here on my talk page (did you ever comply with that ANI result by getting a mentor?)? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, User_talk:Ronz#Regarding_adoption. --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOCK

1. The anchor template is part of the section header; I didn't do anything with it. I'm not entirely sure how it works either.
2. The edit summary was the explanation for why I inserted "typically".
3. Occasionally we don't completely restart the block length. Conversely, we sometimes reblock the sockmaster for a time longer than the original length. For example, let's say that you commit sockpuppetry for a sustained period of time and get caught multiple times, eventually resulting in a block of two years. After that, you get caught again. It's entirely possible that the consequences would be an indefinite block, rather than just a block for two years after you get caught.

Hope this is clearer; I'm sorry I didn't make the original statement clear enough. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A belated thank you for the response. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ecofascism

Outstanding job, there. Thanks! Karin Anker (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate Bias

Dear NewsAndEventsGuy, Why in the world would you want to sanction me? What rules have I been breaking? I, like many other people on Wikipedia, think this article needs to be less biased. The only reason no one here agrees with me is that they've all tried before and gotten nowhere. I thought that maybe, since I had some good sources and some sense, that I could get you guys to change this article. Believe me, I'm certainly not one of those annoying radical conservatives who like saying "global warming is disproven" (whatever the heck that means). The only reason I KNOW this page is biased is because I've been researching this paritcular topic for nearly a year now, FOR and AGAINST climate change, and this article I'm trying to edit is an offense to science.

Believe me, If this article, "scientific opinion" had ONE thing, ONE LITTLE TINY THING representing the other side, I would be happy. It's the ONLY ARTICLE I've ever sen that is so inappropriately biased.

As for my sources, I have mentioned many times that they are indeed self-published, but THE IPCC QUOTES ARE ALSO SELF PUBLISHED! My petitions are fine, my surveys are fine. My sources are just as good as the sources in the "consensus" section. None of them have "secondary sources" that prove they're scientific. Therefore, I dont' need any.

I am convinced that most of the editors, unlike me, care more about their personal opinion than anything else. If I brought up a peer reviewed, published survey sent out by the IPCC and signed by 5 million meteorologists, somebody would still find fault with it. If people are really so biased that they would sanction me for merely stating facts that they disagree with, I suppose I'd better leave, but I hope that Wikipedia is not that unfair.Cybersaur (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In the above comment, you wrote "most of the editors, unlike me, care more about their personal opinion than anything else." Wiki policy includes assume good faith, and in my view this comment is an example of a battleground mentality... something that the ARBCOMM decision explicitly condemned. But in any case, nearly all of your posts lack RSs and in my view are WP:SOAP. Often they disparage living people, or groups of people, contrary to WP:BLP. I don't want to have you sanctioned because that too is battleground thinking. The purpose of sanctions here at wikipedia is not punishment but prevention. The only thing I want is for WP:CIVIL discussion, based on WP:RSs, about how to improve articles. If you work a heap harder at that, then sanctions probably won't happen. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand perfectly why you think I am doing WP:SOAP. I believe you are 100% mistaken, but I still understand. Most people just don't seem to understand my point: I don't CARE if the article says global warming is a fact! I just want to be fair to the many dissenting organizations out there. As for the criticism of organizations, I will do my best not to criticize any of them. However, you have to admit, most people were not setting the best example for me...they did they said all sorts of terrible things about the ICSC and especially the Heartland institute, talking about how it was a propaganda organization funded by petroleum companies, and bringing up "examples" of how it has lied in the past. I don't know why you don't give those guys a hard time, but I at least will be careful in the future.72.80.192.180 (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your promise of increased civility; the bigger problem is your lack of WP:RSs to back up your opinions. In reply to your comment I don't know why you don't give those guys a hard time, a partial answer is that I am not the playground attendant; if you think there is cause, you can initiate the WP:DR process yourself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand EXACTLY how my sources are unreliable...I mean, people keep attacking them using these ridiculous conspiracy arguments, saying "they are oil shilling companies run by morons who don't care about science" and all that garbage. I could easily come up with absurd statements about the IPCC, too. I mean, WHAT on EARTH am I supposed to respond to all that stuff? They don't have any sources to back up what they say, they only have these misguided conspiracy theories. The reason I havn't been bringing up any NEW sources, is that I STILL havn't heard any good reasons that my sources are bad72.80.190.67 (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If you just keep going on about them without doing anything substantively different, people will complain that you are engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to a disruptive extent. The next thing for you to do, in my view, is to ask for some outside advice from editors who hang out at the reliable sources noticeboard, and there are other options for you under WP:DR. After so many people have said they're not reliable and some of those people have attempted to say why, if you just keep asking us to rehash that same ground someone will likely study the ARBCOMM climate decision a bit more carefully to see what provisions apply to that behavior. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Climate change mitigation

I do not understand why you reverted my edit on the page. In the edit summary you ask for 'single' changes, yet the article as it stands now presently is infected with many falsehoods and required a substantial change, the article gives undue weight to a widely discredited publication by an anti-nuclear advocate- Benjamin K. Sovacool that stands apart from the findings of respected bodies, such as the IPCC. Now due to your revert, the article once again presents a single discredited source as fact. This is giving him undue weight. So I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to revert your censoring of actual rigorous science.

If you have a problem with any of the reference, can you please just discuss it first on my talk page, before moving to do a blanket censor?

Thanks, Boundarylayer (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

First, please take your uncivil censor language and burn it. Assume good faith. You are asking me a reasonable question (why) and then punching me in the nose at the same time. Ask first. If you don't like the answer, you should still burn the censor language but take your complaint to DR. As for the question itself, I will be happy to answer a well-formulated question, which this is not. To turn it into a well-formulated question -

• (1) Since it is in regards to article improvement, post it on the article talk page, and
• (2) Since you are asking about a precise edit of mine, provide a Wikipedia:Diff so I don't have to guess which one we are talking about. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I will be glad to answer any questions about my acts over article improvement at the article talk page. After all, others may want to know too.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Could I ask you to comment on the changes I've made to the article Climate change mitigation instead of trying to reprimand me for the manner in which I've made the edits? Or simply reverting the article outright as you have done? I will be more than willing to discuss my edits, and hopefully you'll agree that I have added considerably to the article. Boundarylayer (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to WP:FOC of any changes made within our policies and guidelines at the article talk page. Where changes appear to be made outside of our policies or guidelines, I'll likely address that too. Meanwhile, if you have a specific complaint behavioral complaint you're welcome to ask me here, but only if you provide a specific DIFF so we have a chance in hell of resolving your complaint. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally I would like to know what you think of the changes I've made to the article? Any areas you think could be further improved?

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's ineffective and unfair to frame the question as "what did you think of the entire kit and kaboodle?", and I decline to answer the question framed that way. There are two approaches I like better and they are (A) "Do you think I am doing a good job editing within wiki procedures and policies?" and (B) "What did you think of this DIFF? Overall, I think you should not make a ton of edits all at once because its hard for other editors to keep up, and comes across as an emotionally driven campaign something like ohmigodigottahurryuptochange XYZ because of bias..... only that smacks of other bias. So slow down, for pete's sake, lest people start to think you're just bitching about antinuclear bias so you can inject your own pro-nuclear bias. What we should be doing is injecting neutral discussion of whatever is said in the RSs, with due regard to weight, etc. I think I've asked you three times previously to discuss article-improvement issues on the article talk page, so I trust you will respect that request and stop asking me about article improvement issues here Other editors want to participate too. We are not cooking up consensus in cigar smoke filled back rooms, which is what detailed side discussions at user talk pages sort of looks like. We should be cooking up consensus in the light of day, where all interested parties can learn of the discussion, which is what the article talk page is designed to do. Please use it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Taking your advice

Hey man, trying to take your advice, and seen as you're involved with the ecology aspects of energy production, I thought you might be a good person to ask, if you're willing, for a third party opinion on an edit that continues being entirely reverted by Kim D. Petersen, which is then being followed by odd taunts on my talk page. Speaking of talk pages, could you reply to me there, thanks man.

Here is the edit history of the article page. Personally I believe they are attempting to drag me into a 3RR edit war with them, or something similar. I don't think they understand that if 7 ecologists and biologists publish a peer reviewed paper in 2010 discrediting 1 persons 2009 wind turbine 'avian' death rate(deaths/GWh) per unit of energy generated findings(Sovacool's) and then that same 1 person(Sovacool) later publishes a paper titled 2009 update with the same exact bird death rate, without dealing with the meat of the criticism leveled at him, then the earlier criticism by the 7 scientists still stands. With the 7 ecologists and biologists own bird death rate findings also, obviously, still being needed to make the article more balanced. Here's the peer reviewed criticism of Sovacool's suggestions.- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142150900620X or free full access here - http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/11581 Bats are not birds and other problems with Sovacool's analysis on animal fatalities due to electricity generation. Journal of Energy policy 2010, vol. 38, issue 4, pages 2067-2069.

BL, I'm weighing in here, again, because, again, you don't seem to be aware of the facts. First, the Willis et al. response had a number of serious methodological errors, which were published side-by-side their article. So my study was in no way discredited, and, if anything, Willis et al. made some serious mistakes. See here http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.052,, and keep in mind that this response was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Second of all, the 2009 update was accepted for publication in 2008 but not published until 3 years later, such is the nature of the long peer-review process. So it's not that I didn't take into account Willis et al, I did so (see below), just not in this piece. Third, to see new analysis that incorporates some of the criticisms of Willis et al., though not all of them (since their own arguments were flawed), see these pieces, also peer-reviewed: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2011.09.019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.004, and http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2012.746993. Next time, be responsible enough to check your facts before you start making baseless assertions.Bksovacool (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Would appreciate if you could help explain to them that this material is needed to inject scientific balance. Boundarylayer (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Per your request, I will reply on your talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Climate change clarification request

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, this is a courtesy notice to inform you that the clarification request you submitted regarding Climate Chnage has been closed and archived. The archived version can be viewed here, and the orginal here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)#

Thanks, here's hoping AGK's motion sheds some improved light NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Your request is at the wrong place

You need to make that arbitration enforcement request at WP:AE, not WP:AN/I. Prioryman (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If what I sought were a clearcut matter of enforcement I would agree. However, I only asked for the pre-enforcement warning. I sure could be wrong, but without black and white instructions, I still think ANI is the correct place to request action from any uninvolved admin. Would welcome further comments or wikilinks so we can all learn more for next time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Your Response To My Response to Sailsbystars

Your response made little sense and I'm not sure what to make of it. I can't tell if you're pro-Global warming or not. Other than that, why did you hide what I said and can you unhide please. It was just a talk page not the actual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.157.112.122 (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What matters is that I am pro WP:Reliable sources and talk page guidelines, as well as anti WP:SOAP and anti WP:FORUM. If you wish to argue further, please proceed directly to WP:Dispute resolution. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. No I'm done arguing with people but I was wondering if you could explain what and why you hid what I wrote. I'mProbablyYoungerThanU (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)I'mProbablyYoungerThenYou

No more than I already did at the article talk page itself. If that did not make sense, I can't help you any further. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Climate change mitigation

This is in reply to your post on my talk page and on the talk page of the climate change mitigation article. That New Scientist may not be a RS could be a valid discussion, but just for the record, my edit was concerning adding the para after it. The New Scientist citation was there before my edit. JustBeCool (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

are you talking about this specific edit ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

PS Oh I see what happened now. I hate it when the diff screen displays that way, when a person just removes a blank line. Anyway, point noted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Drought image

Hi there! So I am afraid I'm the bearer of bad news, but I tagged an image you uploaded to commons for speedy deletion. [Link]. The image has a specific copyright text at the bottom that it is NOT public domain, and is in fact not licensed for commercial use (although it is free for non-profit and educational use). While work done by US Civil servants is public domain, I don't think UCAR/NCAR are actually civil servants. While they are funded by NOAA/NSF grant money, they aren't part of those organizations (it's contracted out). I don't think their work is automatically public domain (especially when their webpage explicitly says it is not). I went to update the image because it turned out to be outdated, but in doing so discovered that the licensing terms are not compatible with wiki. Do you know of another source for the image or similar where the copyright is actually public domain? (we might be able to save it that way) Sorry for the trouble, but licensing issues are really important.... and easily messed up. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, however note that I had uploaded to the wiki commons, which has different rules than the English wikipedia. Any problem uploading it direct to the English wikipedia under these different rules? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC) PS After I posted this I saw your remark at GW that there was an error on this set of maps.... aside from the licensign thing, thanks for calling that to my attention! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, apparently they whiffed on the original study so drought maps were running about a decade ahead of schedule (hence the update they posted). Good news for my retirement years, though! Regarding licenses, I looked into it, uploading to enwiki under non-commercial use license still isn't kosher. The only way it can be uploaded to enwiki is under fair use, which means lower image resolution, and justifying it under NFCC #8 "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" (which shouldn't be too hard to sell). Sailsbystars (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, we both suggested uploading under the same policy.... beats me why the text appears on two different pages. But regardless, we can't just rely on #8 we have to satisfy all 10. Where did you get the "lower resolution" bit? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Low resolution, see 3b. All of the others criteria are readily satisfied in this case, which is why I didn't bother to mention them. #8 is one of the most common reason for deletion of a fair use image, hence why I explicitly mentioned it. If #1 could be not be satisfied, that would be ideal, but I couldn't find any Wikipedia-definition-of-free version. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheListUpdater/Anchor list

This nomination was random in the sense that someone got arbitrarily singled out for engaging in a behavior that is widely considered acceptable by the community. To put things into perspective:

• The Anome, a random user, has 3 userpages that are at least six years old;
• JIP, another random user, has 9 userpages that are at least seven years old;
• Jengod, another random user, has 42 userpages that are at least eight or nine years old.

The catch here is that it takes some serious gall to start launching inquisitions against experienced users because they're either going to persevere or go down kicking and screaming, whereas inexperienced users are easy targets due to usually being unable or unwilling to defend themselves. As such, policy must be adapted to preserve editorial equality and to protect our most vulnerable contributors from fruitless attacks on their productivity.   — C M B J   05:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the real issue for you regarding WP:STALEDRAFT? You know of old stuff you want to preserve, jerks you think are getting by with breaking the rule, or are you upset about treatment of the poor defenseless newbies? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The real issue is that I care about fulfilling our project's mission; therefore, I care about the integrity of our community: that all contributors receive respectable treatment, and that fruitful content is not needlessly expunged.   — C M B J   08:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Arguing by platitude isn't likely to advance your cause very far. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just letting you know what I heard. What I heard is this; STALE-content by new eds should not be removed because STALE-content by old eds is not always removed and this is a problem because we need to preserve fruitful "NOT-STALE" content. So far, I'm not persuaded there is a problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Warming of the planet's core

This edit is not only accurate but really made be smile, thanks. Babakathy (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Its amazing how many folks try to talk about AGW in terms of the ENTIRE EARTH, or alternatively in terms of JUST SURFACE TEMP and don't know that they don't know (or studiously choose to not know) that the RSs refer to a five-part climate system made up of ocean, crust (lithosphere), atmosphere, living things (biosphere), and icy regions (cryosphere). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Line-item veto in the United States

How is List of U.S. state budgets not related to Line-item veto in the United States? They're both talking about state and/or federal budgets. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

First, the list is not "talking" about anything. It's just a list. Second, the list is simply a list of budgets, whereas this article is about a particular type of executive veto. If you think they are so closely connected, how do you feel about adding to the article Heartland Institute a See Also for List of Congressional Republicans? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk Label Ambiguity?

From Wickionary> "...talk (plural talks) A conversation or discussion. ...." [3]

The "Rules" say...

"... Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article...."[4]

If the Label states "TALK" yet the ensuing discussion is limited, perhaps the label should be changed. Wiktionary has a(n) ENTRY DISCUSSION CITATIONS format. Maybe the encyclopedia ought to have a(n) ARTICLE PANEL (as in editorial)FORUMS format.

If the forum entry is sensible then refer it to the panel ask them to include their citations. If the contributer falls into a debating, argumentative, rhetorical and similar pitfall, send them back to the forum?

Wiki is a work in progress, but still.... it may be awkward for new or occasional contributers.

Pete318 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The village pump is a better place to post suggestions for changing how wiki does things. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

CEE

Thanks, Guy, for your edits on CEE. Besides taking a look at the source, I'm glad that you took the time to edit the article. Since CEE is back on my radar screen, I think merging it to Library of Economics and Liberty is a good idea. As CEE is a low profile, unassessed stub a WP:BLAR might work. What do you think? – S. Rich (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the thing to do is propose a merge at the article talk page, using the merge templates....NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

But doing a BLAR is so clean and simple. Anyone who really objects can easily revert. IMO proposing a merge on a low profile article like CEE is just unnecessary work. Please tell me you won't mind if I go forward. If you do mind, I'll just leave the article as is. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I like process because then no one can misconstrue shortcut taking for POV. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Say, do thought experiment with me. Imagine you did this edit: [5]. If someone had reverted your edit and said "non RS" in the edit summary, what would be your course of action? Would you open a discussion and argue that Larry Summers is RS? (I'd think that would be a very short discussion.) On the other hand, wouldn't you hope (or expect) that an edit summary pointing out that Summers has (some) creditability was enough? In any event a discussion has been opened on the Global Warming page. – S. Rich (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Instead of playing what-if over articles and references with which I am not (yet) familiar, I will instead just say that most of the time that I am reverted, if I both disagree and care, then usually I would post a diff to the revert on the talk page, and explain why I think the revert was wrong per WP:BRD. Also, I would usually pay extra heed to this process if the article is under an ArbCom ruling, as all climate change related article happen to be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

@srich - I have never seen this kind of argument from analogy lead to constructive resolution on WP. Invariably it turns out too much is ignored in asserting the analogy. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of IPCC NASA RCP's from AR5 2013

Hi, explain why you removed the video, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming#NASA.2FIPCC_model_projections_2013_.28video.29 Prokaryotes (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

answered at talk page NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Climate Reality Project

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, I see that you saw my message on User:Sphilbrick's Talk page and took the time to stop by The Climate Reality Project's Talk page. Thanks so much for reading my request and I hope you'll have time to review more closely later this week. Do let me know if you have any questions at all. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Will do; I'll only have snatches of time until after Friday so I'll study it then. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Also, Sphilbrick and I have discussed a few parts of the draft on its Talk page here. I thought this conversation might be helpful to you in case you have some of the same questions. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to look for lost content from orig, RS quality, and NPOV. Sphilbrick I noted made lots of wordsmith comments, and I'm going to skip that...alas, there's not enough time to do it all! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, could you give me a hand? I'm having a very similar issue as that with Embram with another editor at Polar ice cap. I would really appreciate it if you could stop by. Thank you. Gaba ^(talk) 21:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Intending this as a bigger favor than the one you requested Gaba, I think I will decline and caution you regarding WP:CANVAS. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

But wait.... I would not be surprised if the two users are actually the same. Check both user's block logs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted, although I believe I kept the request for assistance pretty neutral. Yes, I was thinking something along the same lines. Since I don't want to engage in an edit war over at Polar ice cap I'll wait to see if the editor self reverts and if not I'll see what next step to take. Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 21:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this specific issue would constitute canvassing. The edits are clearly problematic, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for opining, and I should clarify that I did not say it would absolutely-positively constitute canvassing. I only meant that it exposes the parties to a non-frivolous claim of canvassing. Whether the various "appropriate" exclusions apply can be subjective. Who wants to go there, if it can be avoided? In other words.... stay out of the mud when possible. (Unless you want to kick your shoes off and play in it on purpose) That's all I meant. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Timothy F. Ball

Thanks for the backgrounder you left on my Talk Page about the deletion of the Dr. Timothy F. Ball article. Wikipedia becomes seriously less useful when it's manipulated by a censorship cabal like William M. Connolley/Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Stephan Schulz/Guettarda group. We shouldn't have to go to French or German Wikipedia in order to find what's missing in en.wikipedia because of censorship. And I certainly shouldn't have to "poke" an article like I did to find out what's going on behind the scenes. Unfortunately, those of us facing an information blackout because of an active censorship cabal like William M. Connolley/Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Stephan Schulz/Guettarda don't have much choice. Those guys are doing serious damage to the credibility of Wikipedia. Santamoly (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI ANEW AE

Hi, just to offer a suggestion: Use WP:ANEW when it's edit warring, and use WP:AE when you want arbitration sanctions. ANI is perhaps one of the least useful places to ask for specific assistance on wikipedia when dealing with problematic editors. Only in special circumstances is it useful or necessary. Although fringe topics and CC are under sanctions, they don't get acted on at ANI, only really at AE. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I meant to ask for the official ARBCC warning. Awhile back when I was asking for a clarification at ARBCC it was suggested that (requesting any admin to do it at ANI) was a decent way to go. But of course, I forgot to add that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoever thought ANI was a good way to go has never edited at ANI. AE is by far the best bet. As long as concise dated diffs are presented demonstrating the issue, it generally gets dealt with, IRWolfie- (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh thanks for brining this back to my attention, I forgot about that post. After I said that I was thinking more about it, and now believe I was only told to find an uninvolved admin, but not told how to find an uninvolved admin. So it's on me. Anyway, thanks, I'll try AE next time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)