User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy

Recent indications suggest the onset of a Wikipedia hiatus for this user. They say it is too early to project the phenomena's intensity or duration.

I'll stop by once in a while to check for messages, but will be mostly AWOL for several weeks.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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
• Block evading IP sockpuppet; see [[User:Arthur Rubin/IP list]]

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

DS alert notes

25-50-25

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

DS alert stuff

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

Initial test this time

(inserted later) Purpose of this test is to check the log of tags; If you click "save" then the filter log is updated (as it should be) and I wanted to confirm that when you click "cancel" the log is not updated. But I discovered an unexpected glitch. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

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

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

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

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

Repeat initial test

In this test (which is a followup to the test described above), the following alert message posted without ever presenting me with the popup "Are you sure you want to do this" window

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

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

Today I tried to run through the listed steps at the very top of this thread, however, after completing step 1 the alert message posted immediately, without presenting me with the popup window advising me to check whether the user had been alerted in the prior 12 months. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Repeat test, but change the topics area

Same test as prior subsection but I changed the topic area to tree shaping in case the topic area would produce a different result but the same thing happenedNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Tree shaping, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

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

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

• Yes: as Callanecc says, the filter system is designed to ignore alerts left when an alert is already on the page in question. You can certainly use the template more than once on the same page, but it will not be tagged or treated as an alert for the purposes of WP:AC/DS. This prevents the user's talk page "tag" history from begin polluted, which was a particular concern of mine given that it is not possible to redact or remove entries in this history.

  You may in future need to legitimately leave an alert on a page that already has one (for instance, when alerting a user for one topic area when they have already been alerted for another – a rarity but also a legitimate use case). In this case, you will need to manually remove from the first alert the two lines of code that trigger the filter before leaving your own alert. Hope this helps, AGK [•] 23:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• I find the same results as you. If I (i) try to save an alert, (ii) hit 'cancel' at the warning screen, and (iii) try a second time to save an alert, then no warning screen is displayed after step (iii). However, the alert is appropriately tagged, so the template is functioning as expected. Unfortunately, it is not possible to have the filter display warning screens except the once, owing to the design of the AbuseFilter extension, but at the time I set up this system it was in my judgement an acceptable trade-off (there is no point in re-warning editors leaving an alert more than once). AGK [•] 23:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@AGK:, thanks for the explanation; I would like to see a new (supplemental) tool developed. Right now, the "warning screen" has two functions for two different audiences.

• Teaching tool - teaches eds unfamiliar or a little rusty how to do DS alerts
• Research aide - whether ed is DS alert newbie or experienced DS issuer, there are links and insturctions on checking user's past DS alerty history.

Now that I know how DS alerts work, I know longer require the "warning screen's" teaching function, but I rely on it as a starting point for convenient research into the other eds' DS alert history. Going forward, if I want to issue a DS alert to someone, I'd like to be able to call up a tool to serve the research function, without any logging or alerting happening. Is that something that could be done? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If you go to a talk page history at the top there is a "tag filter" section, type discretionary sanctions alert into that box and it'll pull up every edit which was tagged. I then click on the link to that version of the page and search for "discretionary sanction" to find any alert on the page. Likewise on the history page for WP:AE click on "Edits by user" at the top and type in the username you're searching for. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Thanks, but the tool I had in mind would save me from having to remember those things. I only want the info every month or three, and my brain is slowly turning into that of an old fart. It would be nice to have a simple way to request spoon feeding of that information, as a reminder! I stumbled onto this issue when initiating the DS alert process intentionally to get reminded by the warning box, prior to a decision to actually issue an alert. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There isn't really a way I can think of to do it (excepting a WMFLabs tool) apart from using templates such as {{Ds/log}} and manually saving the username each time you want to check, though you can achieve the same thing by bookmarking MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS to remember the pages, but that's likely to just confuse. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Invite someone else to alert me

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

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

No, I wouldn't, unless you ask me to here, however, could you explain how I find out if you've had one in the past year or not? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 02:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(A) Lemme have it! Seriously, its good practice and I don't mind. just do a new thread by copy pasting this

== DS Alert (psuedoscience) ==
{{subst:alert|ps}} ~~~~ ::

That might produce a pink box (designed to help you check someone's alert record), or it might not. The pink box is a little confusing at first. Let's just see what happens.

(B) To check someone manually

• Manually look up user's DS Alert log..... talk page, version history, in tag field type "discretionary sanctions alert" without the quotes
• If "no" then thru May it is also a good idea to look in the old notifications section, for psuedoscience that would be here. Old-system notices are valid until sometime in May.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Aha, just noticed this, sorry. Am going to follow your instructions, cos I didn't do it that way last time! Check for a new warning. If it doesn't appear, you've already had one within the last twelve months. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

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

Well that appears to work except for the pink box. I previewed the page. Now I don't as yet know if you've had one previously this year, as I haven't seen a pink box. If I was just doing this routinely, I doubt I'd look for the editors record of DS warnings. As is, I shall publish, then go and look for your record. I bet it is blemish free! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sad. I am boxily challenged (nothing pink) and I couldn't find a record of any alerts for 2015 for anybody at all. You don't appear to have had an alert in the past 12 months, though that piece of WP:OR may not be accurate. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's broke! Thanks for calling this to my attention. I should have a heap of alerts (that I sent to myself) but they don't appear. I'll look into this more. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I was just reading the rest of the page, and there are three, yes that is 3, DS alerts, further up the page. doh. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is the wiki dream, isn't it? We must be WP:Collaborating. Great, its easy, I blunder around the place, and other people think clearly, and have insights into things. Meh. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Need complete diffs to show at least one missing alert

Hello NAEG. The log of all alerts you've issued yourself is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=NewsAndEventsGuy. Some entries in this list have a 'diff' button and others don't. Those where there was a diff caused an actual message to be written on a page. When you hold back from the second step of the alert, there is no diff (I believe). Can you find any entry in this log where you perceive that an alert should have resulted, and did not? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

First, exploring your implied question, "When you hold back from the second step of the alert, there is no diff (I believe)." I did some testing, by initiating the first step of the DS alert process for a couple single-use accounts in the climate pages. Initiating the first step produced the pink box. For each test, I then canceled the process. Next I went to

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

If I understand what you said, and if you are correct, then there should be an entry with no diff for each one, right? Nope! There is no such entry for either one. However, there could be delay so I'll have to look again tomorrow to be sure. The two unwitting single use accounts to appear in the climate pages were

• 86.185.215.94
• The edit master 123

I'm going to let this perk and will ping you with whatever followup when I look again. Thanks again for your reply NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

After perusing your filter log, I think that two alerts you gave on March 6 did not leave a talk message. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/11709737. Are you aware of whether you successully left a talk message at User talk:The edit master 123? That page doesn't exist and it doesn't look to have been deleted. The code of the filter is in Special:AbuseFilter/602 and it appears to be public. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A) "I think that two alerts you gave on March 6 did not leave a talk message" Correct, and I meant to not leave the msg on the talk page. As stated, I hit "cancel" at the pink warning box both times.

B) As mentioned, just after my test neither account had an entry showing the filter triggered, when looking using the url above. However after 2-3 hours they did.

C) CONCLUSION SO FAR - Hitting 'cancel' at the pink warning box still creates an entry in the filter log, even though nothing was posted to the user's talk page. However, there is at least some delay before it shows up.

D) I have more to say and I'll ping when I post about it. No time to write it up just now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There has always been a double-entry pattern: when you issue an alert, you make entries in the system log twice. But the user's talk page only perceives a single message, which is tagged with 'discretionary sanctions alert'. The first entry is "Actions taken: Warn" and the second one is "Actions taken: Tag". It's happened that way since the beginning (29 March 2014). But User:Dragons flight made some changes in filter 602 on 17 February 2015. I haven't noticed anything different since 17 February, myself.

These are the two ways of searching for alerts. In the user's talk page, use https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy&action=history&tagfilter=discretionary+sanctions+alert. In the system log (and in the filter log of the person giving the alert): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=602&wpSearchTitle=User+talk%3ANewsAndEventsGuy. The code of filter 602 suggests it is trying *not* to notify the person again if it perceives a previous alert still visible on their talk page. It searches for the string '-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --' on their talk page and if it finds the string it doesn't give the alert. A few other times I've noticed the alert doesn't fire where I can't explain why not. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ed, thanks a ton for all this. It may take a day or two to find time to digest it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

PS Ok, make that a week to a couple of months. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Self notify DS alert (Arab-Israeli)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

These alerts are No-Fault FYI alerts, and since I may start giving them out in this topic area I thought I'd start with myself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

IT

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

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

Thank you

Thanks for the ping last night. Sigh. Yes, I had read the Anna Chronicles when you 1st pointed them out to me. I admire her for trying. She inspired me i guess with her courage. I sort of knew it had been about a year without any kind of wp socialization, but I was hoping to hear it from our friend. Sincerely, this situation breaks my heart. There but for the grace of g*d... This is frustrating. Casinos and MMOG companies have come to recognize that sometimes their customers get over involved to the point were it harms them. I feel like we should do something. After a rough night I admit I am sorely tempted to break my own rule about diagnosing. Hugh (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Assuming this person needs genuine mental health care, any activity that delays such care is harmful. Although my heart goes out to such people, there isn't anything we can really do except to encourage treatment without becoming enablers. See "The Impact of Mental Illness Stigma on Seeking and Participating in Mental Health Care". A quick look at the version history at Mental health blew my mind.... hardly any activity in 3 years! And Mental health stigma isn't even a redirect, much less an article. Some returning vet who has benefited from recent advances in this field would be a good person to recruit as an editor in that area. If all else fails, see Serenity Prayer NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of SolaRoad for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SolaRoad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SolaRoad until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 22:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Parsing?

I am still perplexed by your request and subsequent complaint.[1] Why would you be looking through diffs? If you want the {{cite}} sources for a given revision, just click "edit" to see the code. It should take seconds to grab them, not an hour. On the talk page I have been arguing that scholarly sources should be preferred over foxnews.com et al. It shouldn't be surprising that my changes reflect that. Manul ~ talk 17:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Part of the above message is obscured by the red box "If you leave a new message on this page..." on your talk page. Manul ~ talk 17:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess it's true. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him an effective communicator. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please be careful not to delete someone else's comment (unless you are deleting a whole thread, of course). I still don't see what the apparent complaint is. On the talk page I said, "The sources are in the opening sentence of this revision." My expectation was that you would click on "this revision", then click "Edit" to get the sources in the opening sentence. There's no need to fish through diffs. Manul ~ talk 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

See WP:OWNTALK.

At the moment I am uninterested in figuring out why figuring out what you're doing at the article is hard, but it was hard. I refuse to spend further time doing chronology analysis to figure out why its hard, it just is. Something about your approach is making you not effective. Reflect on that feedback or not, but this thread is closed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Surface Stations Project

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

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

Deletion discussion

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

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

Merger discussion

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

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

Regarding Scientific opinion on climate change

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

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

move thread

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

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

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

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

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

Allen quote

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

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

Come back soon

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

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

Blueberries

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

WP:AE#NewsAndEventsGuy

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