User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy/Archive 6

My DS alert workflow

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. I happen to have watchlisted a few of the user talk pages on which you've posted DS alerts and gotten some negative reactions. I wanted to share my workflow in the hopes of minimizing the backlash: Check the user talk page history, filtering for discretionary sanctions alerts. Check the user's contributions, filtering for discretionary sanctions alerts. Clear the filter and check the user's contributions in Wikipedia space. I expand to results per page and then Ctrl-F "Arbitration" to see if they've participated in any cases, requests, or enforcement actions. It takes a bit longer, but I find it to be worth it. I still do get pushback from people who don't like the alert language or think it mean they've been sanctioned. If I'm posting it on the page I've someone I've been in a disagreement with, I like to include some intro language like: "Please see the standard notices below about heightened conduct standards in sensitive topic areas. I know we're involved in a content dispute right now, and it's therefore hard for notices like these not appear hostile. I want to emphasize the "does not imply that there are any issues" part of the notice." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC) I noticed the same. Some folk react negatively to these reminders, some don't. Of course, more likely if you happen to be in a discussion with an opposing viewpoint, which should generally be avoided in my mind. Regulars may think of WP:DTR, which does not apply to DS templates. When I was an editor, I always added a comment that it was just a required annual refresher instead of a bare template. Complaining about a bit of humor in DS articles is also not generally well received. Of course, I felt left out when you recently templated everyone but me in a recent discussion.:) O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC) Folks, I was an active editor-participant brainstorming ways to defang the prior system in ... was it 2013? And offering input for creation of the new DS alert system. I religiously check the system log every time I hand one of these out, and the DS system in hot topics works the best .... for prevention.... when everyone has had a notice within the prior 12 months. As you may know, at AE there are other ways to show "awareness" of DS, but the template may be given 12 months after the prior one. If you are fielding complaints from people, then don't complain to the issuing editor UNLESS its been less than 12 months. Instead, help teach people to chill-lax by helping them understand the meaning of the no-fault FYI alert system. You might also suggest they read the principles section of the ARBCOMM case, which requires *me* to also be grown up and play nice. Send those folks my way with their annoyance and questions. If they present them as ARCOMM expects, I should be able to resolve it to a happy ending. If they don't, well, that's why we have AE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC) PS the only person I know who has complained had his facts wrong, and I replied at their talk page [1] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I moved this to the right thread. It was originally placed under "DS review process 2021" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

As this is a new thread, not sure who "you" is. My closed point is there is a way of templating regulars -- particularly when it comes to annual DS alerts. Mr. Ernie and some others are *******s when it comes to this. That's life. But, this problem can be reduced either by humor or just saying, sorry, your annual reminder. Indeed, humor, disliked by some percentage of editors, is a valuable lubricant, particularly on DS articles which some editors approach as if they are existential in nature. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Eds that respond in the manner you refer to may have some WP:CIR issues impeding their ability to cooperate in a collaborative endeavor, regardless of their other skills. In my view, instead of enabling this problem to hide just beneath the surface, it would best serve the longterm goal of preventing problems for these kinds of eds to get admin warnings and/or baby-blocks as a wake-up. Some will learn and improve. Those that don't will eventually find themselves being reviewed at ANI/AE etc, and the diffs of the warning and short blocks will be useful in establishing a refusal or inability to change. Humor is great, I agree. But that's only when things are going well. To me, what you suggest would make me an enabler, helping a behavioral problem hide just beneath the surface. The FYI alert is so trivial to get that worked up about is.... well you said it just fine. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC) (a few minutes later) actually I want to disassociate from your description as that comes close to an NPA vio and I didn't connect the dots when I endorsed your description. So instead I'll say to get that worked up about something so trivial is a WP:CIR red flag. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits at Attempts to overturn the 2020 US presidential election

I noticed your huge blankings, but am traveling and was about to go to bed, so did nothing. I now see that Anachronist restored the content, and I share their opinion. (I am not saying that none of the blankings were justified. Some quotes could be shortened.) Such blankings without a discussion or consensus is highly unusual, and if I didn't know who you were and have great respect for your excellent work (I really mean that!), I would have thought it was vandalism. Part of what we do is to document history as it unfolds, and unless there is very good reason to do so, it's good to keep that "picture from that moment in time", so that we actually document the learning curve of events, rather than just present the final picture. We need to document how we got there.

I know that "size" is often used as an argument for deleting content, and there can be some legitimacy to that, but it's often better to split off content. We are not paper and have no space constraints other than download time. By preserving all we can, we also honor all the good faith efforts of loyal editors per WP:PRESERVE. Deleting such content is a slap in the face and saps the initiative and energy from even the most experienced and productive editors who work hard to research and build content. When they see such deletions, they get depressed and think "What's the point of apparently wasting my time here? Maybe I'll stop creating content and just fix typos." That's really sad.

This attempted coup is one of the most significant political and national security events in U.S. history, and, IMO, if Trump is elected again, that will be the end of American democracy as we know it. The next time will succeed beyond our worst fears. He will never leave power again if he can avoid it. He's happy to use democracy to gain power but totally ignores it to stay in power. He'll end freedom of the press and use the military and intelligence agencies to keep any opposition in check, thus fulfilling his dream to be like Putin, his hero. As long as he lives, he will be a serious national security threat, and the GOP's mentality is learning from him. That's scary.

We do not write summaries here. We document everything. We need to document the shit out of every twist and turn in this unfolding drama. We are writing the definitive history book, so instead of deleting content when size constraints become an issue, let's consider other options, such as legitimate forking. That way we can go into real depth with events, then fork off sections that get too large, thus leaving an overview mother article with sections based on the leads of the resulting daughter sub-articles where history nerds can find the nitty-gritty details of who said and did what, and when and why they did it.

Otherwise, carry on the good work. I thoroughly enjoy watching your skillful editing. Along with Soibangla, you are one of our best mainstream editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 09:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll be glad to discuss different ideas for article improvement at article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

PS Thanks for the compliment and enjoy safe travels NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason you posted two notices on my talk page one of which makes no sense at all.

If this was meant to intimidate it didn’t and it doesn’t appear you’ve read my response. Before posting did you actually determine if I had made any edits or was that an assumption on your part? Please see WP:NDR, WP:BLUD and WP:BITE. Assume WP:GF and reframe from acting like a hall monitor also check your notices if you are cutting and pasting because one of them is missing info.71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You obviously know wiki WP:P&G so I'll just redirect you to the various items linked in the DS Alert templates which should explain everything. If you are still in doubt, please direct questions to the WP:HELPDESK or WP:TEAHOUSE.

-

Please stay off my talk page. I've rarely said that to anyone, but your approach isn't welcome here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy: you are a stinky nincampoop

This is a demonstration message, showing how a problematic heading for a new section can be partially camouflaged so it does not appear in the OP's list of contribs. This was done with the newish visual editor. I may be mistaken, but don't think this was possible with the classic view. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Using visual editor,

1. I made a personal attack (at myself) in the section heading box.
2. Then I typed the text of the message.
3. Finally, in the last box where the software had populated the proposed edit summary with the heading of the new section (containing the NPA vio) I simply changed that so if anyone looks at my contribs they'll think I gave myself the Barnstar of Awesomeness instead of a personal attack. (Obviously, me being a jerk will be apparent to anyone who looks beyond just a list of my contribs, where they would see

• 13:32, July 1, 2022 diff hist +453‎ User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy ‎ / Barnstar of Awesomeness / new section (bold added)

instead of the insult I actually posted NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Michael Shellenberger TEd Talk

However, I did want to ask you an honest question since it relates to a topic you seem to be very active in. I saw this recently (literally within the last day or two): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w Now, my question (again an honest question) is this guy full of bs? I mean this is a Ted Talk, so I would give what he says some credence and I have heard some of the issues he has touched upon bought up before. Public policy in the US is being built around this issue so the question is whether or not these elements should be a part of the discussion. You can delete (undo) this and answer at my talk page if you want but I was curious as to your opinion on this as someone who presents as very involved in the topic.71.190.233.44 (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC) I deleted a bit of this IP's opening words, which involved a different thread, so they won't confuse anyone now that I gave this a separate heading. The IP had invited me to delete the whole thing, so I took the liberty of only partial deletion, to make it easy to read.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Well we don't blog or soapbox or do a lot of WP:FORUM discussion on our talk pages but I do have an academic background (BS level) in EVST so here's what I think.... the stuff Shellenberger talks about is (A) vitally important (B) hugely multi-faceted. I agree with him on some things, and not on others. To make my point here, allow me to bring Greta Thunberg into the mix. These two are on opposing sides of an environmental/economic debate..... can we have perpetual economic growth without breaking nature so badly that nature can not support our current civilization?

Before we get to the debate, what do the two sides agree on, for the most part? (Yeah I know, there are loads of people who do not perfectly fit my generalization here). Well lets go back in time a bit.... the classic debate is between Cornucopianism (believing that human ingenuity will always figure out how to keep increasing economic growth and the human condition) versus Malthusianism (believe that limiting factors prevents perpetual growth in these things)

Now I'm going to say a personal belief.... it would make a good literature review paper, if anyone reading is looking for an idea. (And if you know of a paper on point please send a link my way).... A few decades back, the Cornucopians never seemed to admit that limits existed. The philosophy's advocates spoke of the next new untapped resource and the next new technology like there would always be the next one, and we would never run out of the potential "next one". Any problem, the resource or tech solution was right around the corner. Eco collapse was Cinderella fantasyland to these folks. This seems to have changed over the last 20-40 years. Now the cornucopians will(usually) admit that if we are dumb we will suffer Ecological overshoot and increasing symptoms of Collapse of civilization. So the two sides of this debate have sort of come to something of recognition of the problem. We need an economic/industrial/political system that improves the human condition without breaking nature.

Something else the two sides agree (in very rough approximate terms) is the scale of change needed for a fossil fuel phase-out primarily due to Climate change. Suppose we properly air sealed against stack effect and insulated (i.e., ) every single residence in the US? How much fossil fuel would that save? The "wise" answer looks to Life cycle assessment and Energy return on investment but we'll keep it simple and just ask about energy savings at these homes during the lifetime of the upgrades? Its a lot right? Well, if we were to try to do fossil fuel phase out without nuclear, we'd probably have to do this everywhere, not just in the US. And then we'd need to do it to commercial buildings as a second piece of the puzzle. And build that much wind power, that much rooftop solar, that much industrial concentrated solar, and the list goes on. So the two sides agree that the earth's global population needs a heap of energy and building what we need dwarfs the economic retooling necessary to fight WWII, globally. This is the idea of Climate stabilization wedge, if what we need to do is a pizza, we need equal energy output from multiple energy sources, one "slice" each, to make up the whole pizza. I'm not saying Shellenberger wants to build that stuff, only that both sides of the debate agree that its a HEAP of energy, and without nuclear each pizza slice is bigger.

I also think most on the two sides are unsatisfied with our progress.

So those are some of the things the two sides agree on, at least as far as my current understanding goes.

So, what are things the two sides disagree on?

The most important difference is their answers to the question what economic/industrial/political system will best improve the human condition without breaking nature?

Shellenberger is on one side of this, where the notions of Green economy Ecological modernisation and ecomodernism are closely related. (In fact, on my to do list is to research sources to see if a disinterested scholar with no dog in the fight would conclude they are synonymous). These ideas embrace the idea that the human condition will be improved with perpetualeconomic growth but to avoid breaking nature, we need a revolution in technology and urban development that achieves "eco-economic decoupling". They think we can have economic growth and development without increasing our human impact on the environment. One way to get this growth, they say, is to do more with the raw materials we consume from the earth. That would include being more efficient, and adding jobs in service sector, and economic activity in the world of finance. I don't know what Shellenberger thinks of the Commodification of nature. Regardless, advocates (at least in the US) of this school of thought are usually strongly suppportive of capitalism and frame their messages within that economic model.

Greta Thunberg might be a celeb example from the other camp. Different advocates call for various things like a steady state economy, degrowth, population stabilization, and green politics. In broad strokes this school thinks there is only so much we can squeeze out of a given amount of resources doing all those things, and once we max it out the only way to get still more growth is to again increase the amount of resources consumed. Rinse and repeat. Many in this camp believe that earth's finite limits means that perpetualeconomic growth is impossible, and they cite lists of signs that they say indicate nature is already showing signs of breaking. Its common to hear these folks assert that capitalism depends on growth and we can't have perpetual growth so we can't have perpetual capitalism. Some also complain that ecomodernism, etc, only makes room for things of value to humans without placing value, say, on ecosystems, or species and it doesn't seem to address the sixth mass extinction.

Enter nuclear power. Shellenberger says yes, others say no, still others say all of the above. And different people do different calculations to claim what is and what is not feasible. But the question remains, how much of this energy source or that? How much efficiency improvements? Etc. I'm really uninterested in the debate about who is right. I don't think we know enough to know who is right, and in the meantime we should be engaging all of it like it was D-Day. And we're not. But even if we were, what's the end goal? And that's what I'm most interested in, personally.

This gets me to the Jevons paradox which I'll illustrate with make believe "Bob". He is on a fixed budget and has enough cash to buy one pack of smokes every other day. Naturally he is addicted to 1/2 per day. Miraculously the price drops 50%. Hooray! Now Bob can spend more on vegetables, or college kid tuition or savings!!!! But what tends to happen is Bob starts smoking a full back per day. When things become more efficient, we do more of it so in the end we're more or less where we started. If we design the world according to Shellenberger's vision, including abundant nuclear power (and it comes off without making things worse through accidents, leaks, waste disposal, terrorism and weapons proliferation) well that would solve a limiting factor, the one of limited energy. It's a principle of ecology that when a species overcomes a limiting factor, its population and resource consumption will increase until it runs into some other limiting factor. Shellenberger promises the next untapped resource or technology is always just around the corner waiting to solve our next big problem, to overcome the next limiting factor or whatever. For example, Earth is also made up of a lot of ecosystem services on which our civilization depends. In contrast to raw materials these are things like storm water management (wetlands) or oxygen production (photosynthesis). We need those things, but they're not part of the commodities markets. Shellenbergers answer to overwhelming ecosystem services is technology. Desalinizsation, GMO foods... is he into asteroid or deep ocean mining? If we design the world his way and he's right that perpetual economic growth through technology and urban development can be truly decoupled from harmful impacts, then we can look forward to a world like Star Trek or Jetsons. If he's wrong, it may be more like the Hunger Games or Soylent Green.

I'll observe that his academic credentials are about people: Peace studies and anthropology. His professional experience is PR... marketing ideas to people. So far as I am aware he has no academic credentials in EVST or Enviro science. In the end I agree with some of what he says, and don't agree with some of what he says. Your mileage may vary.

I hope I helped. Comments reopened. What did you think? Meanwhile here are a few reading items

• Asafu-Adjaye, John; Blomqvist, Linus; Brand, Stewart; Brook, Barry; DeFries, Ruth; Erle Ellis; Foreman, Christopher; Keith, David; Lewis, Martin; Lynas, Mark; Nordhaus, Ted (2015). "An Ecomodernist Manifesto". doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.1974.0646. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

• And a response... Crist, Eileen (2016-05-01). "The Reaches of Freedom: A Response to An Ecomodernist Manifesto". Environmental Humanities. 7 (1): 245–254. doi:10.1215/22011919-3616452. ISSN 2201-1919.

• (On the theme of no limits) Shellenberger, Michael (30 June 2020). Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. New York City, NY: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-300169-5.

• On the theme of limits means perpetual economic growth is impossible) Bradshaw, Corey J. A.; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Beattie, Andrew; Ceballos, Gerardo; Crist, Eileen; Diamond, Joan; Dirzo, Rodolfo; Ehrlich, Anne H.; Harte, John; Harte, Mary Ellen; Pyke, Graham (2021-01-13). "Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future". Frontiers in Conservation Science. 1: 615419. doi:10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419. ISSN 2673-611X.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, thank you for taking your time out to elucidate! It’s fascinating really. Personally, I’m more of the opinion the human race is an invasive species as the increase in temperature mirrors population growth but, you bring up interesting points and provide avenues I would not have thought to explore which is great. I do appreciate it. (of course now I’ll be going down more internet rabbit holes looking into some of the things you’ve touched on) 71.190.233.44 (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Watch out! Like Gandalf said, there are fouler things than rabbits in the deep places of the world! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I was serious though when I said I appreciated it because I did start looking around at some of the things you referenced. I had not known about Jevons paradox. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I knew that, I just tried to give a light-hearted "you're most welcome". To be honest, I kinda felt like thanking you for inspiring me to do a bit of heart-brain-soul dump of my own. Good luck to you as you explore these vital, interconnected, complicated, difficult, soul-searching issues!!! If you run into anyone who professes to have "The" answer, check your wallet. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

2021 United States Capitol attack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have reset the page to an earlier point as you made at last one major mistake. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this major mistake and I'm guessing this [2] was also a joke? If not, tell it to the article talk page please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Code tip

To display a category name, you don't have to do things like:

<nowiki>[[Category:Nationalists by nationality]] strangely has no subcat for [[Category:United States of America nationalists]].</nowiki>

Try:

[[:Category:Nationalists by nationality]] strangely has no subcat for [[:Category:United States of America nationalists]].

The leading colon turns off the categorization function. Using this markup also has the benefit of linking to the category:

Category:Nationalists by nationality strangely has no subcat for Category:United States of America nationalists.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: but an advanced search by namespace nails the right category in result #1. Probably your redlink should be a redirect. Mathglot (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Entirely possible. I was not addressing anything about these categories and which should exist, just the wikimarkup used to display their names.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks folks, but I must say.... it sucks getting old. I have no idea what the context for this might be. By the way, do either of you know what I did with my car keys? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Very long lead

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections has a lead with SEVEN paragraphs, some quite long. Can we pare this down? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

we could, but "we" will not include me. I'm already spread too thin. Good luck NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)