User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy

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


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.
6Y
This Wikipedian joined Wikipedia on May 07, 2011 (6 years and 2 weeks ago).
15,000+ This user has made more than 15,000 contributions to Wikipedia on over 1,560 distinct pages.

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

25-50-25[edit]

  • 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[edit]

Civility barnstar.png Civility Award
For your tireless effort to reach consensus on climate change articles Dkriegls (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png 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)
Malheur Refuge Occupation Article Award.png
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)

Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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.

HighInBC 00:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@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)
Okay good to know. Thanks. HighInBC 00:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Time to hit the sack for me.[edit]

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)

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)
Yes, going. Activist (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, enjoy! Ever been to such a thing? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I haven't. I hope I won't be disappointed. Activist (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
If you post a write up on your talk page afterwards please ping me. Have fun NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Happy to. Activist (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── housekeeping note, the following refers to this editNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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)
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)

Self-administered DS alert for climate change[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of file you uploaded[edit]

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)

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

Why did you send me a DS alert[edit]

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

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 (to Wikihounding inquiry related to edit at Wikilawyer essay)[edit]

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)

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

Conversation with DaveA2424[edit]

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)

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

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (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)

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)

Alerts[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

As you were involved[edit]

ANI Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 01:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Good advice for everyone[edit]

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)

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)

Note to self[edit]

Banedon Dave_souza Denis.g.rancourt Hob_Gadling Markbassett MjolnirPants MPants_at_work Obsidi Shock_Brigade_Harvester_Boris Stephan_Schulz William_M._Connolley Yopienso

Not so gratuitous[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
More directly,
  1. 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.
  2. 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"
  3. 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)

Skeptic v. denier[edit]

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)

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)