From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A little advice from the brink[edit]

If you're considering editing climate-related articles, you should at least skim this "List of scientists who disagree" deletion "consensus" (Delete: ~36, Keep: ~19. Result: Delete). I saw it several months too late, but it helps crystallize things that were becoming obvious anyway. At wikipedia, the views of sociologists, historians (Naomi_Oreskes), cartoonist/web developers (John Cook), and blogger-environmentalists (Dana Nuccitelli), who study climate scientists' studies, carry more weight than the views of climate scientists themselves. I didn't find that in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories, and it took a young lady like Naomi Seibt to clue me into looking a little deeper below the surface of "Climate change denial." You should too, but that's just my POV, from the WP:BRINK. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-participation at WP:FTN for climate or related biography articles[edit]

The Fringe theories Guideline does not address climate. Where it touches on biography, it mostly refers elsewhere (see section, WP:FRINGEBLP). In WP:ARBPS, "climate" is not found, and "warming" appears only once in passing. In WP:ARBCC, "fringe" only appears once: "There are those who would like to turn this into "science vs fringe", but it's not about that at all. Most of the recent conflicts are on BLPs and other pages which are only tangentially related to the science. There is a group of editors who have a strong POV in this area and who generally refuse to allow changes to the status quo, even if those changes are well sourced and necessary for NPOV." (by ATren) (ATren) I mostly agree with that statement, and feel it remains as valid now as in 2010. So, "fringe" treatment of climate or related biographies is not supported by those arbitration cases or guides. In my opinion, using WP:FTN arguments to influence climate or related biography articles is unfortunate, and seems to lead to increased uncivil behavior. Therefore, I will not participate at fringe "theories" noticeboard, unless it involves a real "fringe" issue, like, say holocaust denial or see the list: WP:FRINGE/PS. There are plenty of other fitting places to take issues: WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, WP:ELN, WP:COIN, or WP:DRN. If an admin/authority has a problem with this position, or could explain another way of understanding Wikipedia's position, please let me know. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Moron Alert, Anybody knows?[edit]

  • Do you know a test in which the theory of anthropogenic global warming could be falsified?
  • What do you think is the proper level of CO-2 in the atmosphere?

What was happening 40-60 million years ago (and how did temperatures compare with now)?

Hall of Fame[edit]

Page view chart (clicking Log scale check box is suggested)

Page view chart (clicking Log scale check box is suggested)

Why I no longer do Did You Know for new articles[edit]

The objectives are good, but results I observed did not meet enough of the objectives to support continued involvement. Sure, there was a blip in page views, for one day. The hope was interested editors would help improve the articles after they appeared on DYK. Actual results were no edits, vandalism[1][2][3] or not much better.[4] Most of the article improvements came from interaction with DYK reviewers, but I found the process to be difficult. "Bring me another rock"[5] is how I'd describe the process, although surprisingly it is not frequently referenced in Wikipedia.[6][7] "Bring me another hook" is a somewhat fun game to play, but it's a variation of "bring me another rock," and it took far too much effort for the short time the hook was used on the home page. So, I thank the editors who helped improve the new articles and create hooks for my 5 DYKs, but I'm dropping out of the league. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hall of Shame (or articles not consistent with "reliable" source coverage, aka FUBAR'd by climate alarmists)[edit]

Page view chart (clicking Log scale check box is suggested)

Other Efforts[edit]

Page view chart (clicking Log scale check box is suggested)


No associations or affiliations to declare. Long experience with several android devices, and computers running GNU/Linux or BSD. Tests services and software from /e/, Purism, LineageOS, microG, and others. Had good, bad, and awful experiences. Tries to be neutral, but dislikes advertising and popularity contests driving Wikipedia. Will support deleting advertising, and adding criticism. The truth shall make you free.

-- Yae4 (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

e ROM and related history[edit]

I hesitate to put this summary here, but because I'm being repeatedly accused of bias or COI, because block logs get re-organized and confused, and because | Caliwing AKA Indidea is requesting Unblock, here it is for reference and background.

Some things I've learned about eelo AKA /e/ and e foundation by participating at Wikipedia:

The renaming of eelo to /e/ for trademark name issues is a repeat mistake by e's founder. Mandrake GNU/Linux previously had to be renamed for the same reason. This is not in the e ROM articles because it hasn't been made notable by reliable sources.

The /e/ ROM article was started in late November 2018 by Mnair69. According to e foundation's about pages and forums, he was and is their "community leader." He was investigated for sockpuppetry (and meat puppetry) in December 2018 during the Article for Deletion discussion. No administrator action was taken:

e ROM Articles for Deletion

Mnair69 Sockpuppet investigation

At that time the suspected meat puppets' associations were not disclosed. Now several likely (Conflict of Interest) associations are apparent. Indidea is likely e's founder, and has been blocked for spam/promotion. One is an active supporter on e's telegram and forums. Another is a developer for e foundation. At least two others are members of e's Board.

Most of those user accounts are mostly inactive since the AfD, but the article, and related articles were significantly edited by Caliwing and Indidea . Indidea was blocked for being an obvious spam ID, connected with e foundation's founder's personal blog (web search "Indidea"). Caliwing and Indidea accounts were found to be sockpuppets, and Caliwing was blocked: Indidea AKA Caliwing Sockpuppet Investigation

IANAL, but this all looks like violation of European Fair-trade law: Wikipedia Conflict of Interest - European Fair Trade Law

-- Yae4 (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC) & Yae4 (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


User script[edit]

  • Notifier: Notifies other talk pages of a discussion on the current page

Task center[edit]

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Task Center for brief guides.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.