User talk:DHeyward/Archive 14

wrong subsection

Hi, at Global warming conspiracy theory, my edit summary pointed at a sub-subsection. But important argument begins at the top of the whole thread which is Talk:Global_warming_conspiracy_theory#Problems_with_the_article; I wish there was an easy way to edit editsummaries, but alas. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries. The GW articles are a quagmire of responding to quackery instead of the science. The sceptical needs to be separated from the conspiratorial while the science needs to separate itself from responding to the conspiracy. None of the science arguments need to be polemic or antagonistic. science speaks for itself. The politics needs to be removed. That's why I think it's important to remove non-scientific, polemic points and language from scientific articles.

years ago, there were basically two groups on solar physicists that debated what SC24 would be. All scientists had their theories. One camp predicted record sunspots, the other predicted record low. There was no political undertones though so while disagreements were strong, there was no "denier" claims made against the minority view or "conspiracy" claims against the majority. This is sadly not the case with AGW. There is quite the difference between active, respected researchers in climatology that seek knowledge vs. activists that seek to discredit anyone that disagrees with their own ideology. It doesn't help that a number of scientists have assumed advocacy roles as well as being targeted by advocates.

like I stated on the deletion page for the "list", Einstein said "God doesn't play dice with the world." That doesn't make him a QM denier, an intelligent design advocate, or any number of labels. The personal views need to be removed from the science articles. Notwithstanding his discomfort with the implications of whether the the world derives from probability theory, he won the Nobel prize for early work on QM principles. Our articles on climate simply haven't risen above the personalities to the science and it should. --DHeyward (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Somehow, I doubt one sunspot camp produced nearly all the peer reviewed literature, and the other was hosted mainly by blogs, Limbaugh, and Heartland. I'm all for good weighted coverage of it-ain't-happening/it-ain't-us professional peer-reviewed science literature.... the only trouble is, it is nearly non-existent. Thus, equating the sunspot guys with this issue is a bit of false balance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC) PS I agree the general tree of climate articles is poorly conceived. I've been trying to untangle some of it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually they did only because of money available. Hathaway at NASA had a much larger budget for his sunspot theories and dominated the literature and the buzz. Lot's of people bought solar telescopes in anticipation. But I'm not talking about non-scientific persons, more like Curry and Pielke (and they only come to mind because they are more vocal). Just like Mann, they are experts in their field and recognized by their peers. Marginalizing their science because of disagreements is just simply wrong. Hathaway is still a solar expert on sunspots and helioseismology even if his prediction was wrong. He is not marginalized because of it, rather, his research continues with new data. --DHeyward (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

half vs MORE THAN half

D, you've convinced me to pay attention to the "more than half" question. But your statements in various places are starting to drop the "more than". If it isn't predominant it's more than half, not just a measly half. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

They use "more than half". I try to say more than half (or > 50%). The reality is that the test used for the hypothesis starts with 95% confidence, then they check their model runs against it. 50% is the passing criteria without any sensitivity. The distribution at the 95% confidence level starts at 50% and runs up to a point that I haven't seen. I presume all ensemble model runs pass 50% anthro caused when tested against the 95% confidence mark. There is most likely an upper bound (the tail) where the 95% fails as well as a range of possible anthropogenic temps at 95%. There's not enough detail to say more than >50% at the 95% confidence level, though. 50% and 95% are the dial though that get plugged into the binning test and we aren't privy to different settings. --DHeyward (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S., climate models aren't quite Monte Carlo method runs but they are similar. --DHeyward (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

My point is that when you truncate "more than half" to just "half" it looks very POVish, and I didn't read the rest as it was your opinion - which could be excellent but still your opinion - instead of discussion of an RS. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

AfD

While the discussion is closed, and you are not supposed to modify it, I am aware of an outside researcher who may be planning to cite some of the material. In that light, you might consider an edit to change "pubicly" to "publicly"

your edit--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Not a good way to misspell it. Let me know if you see the publication as I'd like to read it. --DHeyward (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The researcher is working on a book, not a paper, so it may be some time. I don't know for certain that any of the AFD will be quoted, but the researcher asked for information about the deletion process, which is why I was reading it. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits at Global warming

Please stop with removing key information, if you intend to introduce new content discuss first on talk page. Edits from you https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=590825175 Prokaryotes (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That edit added information. Where did it remove anything? --DHeyward (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary in that remark had the real content, which was "The statement in the article directly conflicts with IPCC consensus. It's fringe to think land use change has a net warming effect." Since the sentence you are carping about says nothing about the net effect of all forcings, and instead merely identifies GHG as the single-biggest positive forcer, I think you're hung up on equating the list of GHG emssission sources with other things that are not being discussed. By all means feel free to try to win consensus for your views in the poll now running on this question.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is your edit again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=590825175&oldid=590804120 Ok, you did not removed content, but poorly cited. Please cite exactly rather than "page 8-33 " Prokaryotes (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cannot cite as it is draft, but the draft cites it all. I left it on your talk page. sorry for moving around. Until the final report comes around we can source all the science that led to the draft but that's a pain. I'd prefer to simply remove the "Land Use Change". For NAEG, that statement starts with logical line of reasoning that Global Warming comes primarily from GHGs, mostly CO2 and "LAnd Use Change" contributes CO2. The QED implies is that "Land Use Change" is a significant contributor to Global warming. It does not according to AR5. It's as likely to cause warming as it is to cause cooling. That's a direct statement from 8.3.5 [1]. " There is no agreement on the sign of the temperature change induced by anthropogenic land use change. It is very likely that land use change led to an increase of the Earth albedo with a RF of –0.15 ± 0.10 W m–2 , but a net cooling of the surface — accounting for processes that are not limited to the albedo — is about as likely as not." --DHeyward (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

When Felix Baumgartner jumped, the gravity and air resistance combined to produce a net effect. You seem to be arguing that because the net effect was a gentle return to earth, we may not list his parachute among the various pieces of safety equipment that was used. If land use changes produced zero GHG, then the source in its nutshell bubble would not have listed land use as a major source of GHG. And if (glory be) it were zero GHG for land use but a cooling effect of albedo, many people would be happy for land use albedo to offset smokestack emissions instead of land use emissions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait for the final paper. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually no. I'm arguing that the sources don't support the contention that land use changes contribute to surface temperature as a major component. I'm not arguing, I'm providing the sources that say it. Land use change IS a makor source of GHG's. But our article says it's a main source of global warming. They are not the same. Had they been the same, there would be an assertion that land use change is a main source of global warming. The reference material goes out of it's way to say that it is not a source of global warming. Try this: Trees and vegetation consume carbon during the day photosynthesis. The expel it at night through the consumption of sugars. It's a "net" carbon sink. Should we list it as a contributor because at night it expels CO2 and just ignore the total effect? Global warming and carbon in the atmosphere are measurements of very different things. The statement that land use change is related to "global warming" is wrong. The statement that land use change is related to atmospheric carbon is correct. --DHeyward (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

But since the text in question is talking about something else the extensive repetition of your side of an argument no one else is making is getting somewhat overly redundant..... which is my way of suggesting we chill out to let others see the poll and express their views.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's talking about "global warming" and then attributing it to land use change. You make too many links from "total net forcing" to "greenhouse gases" to "land use" in a way that isn't in the sources. Have you ever thought that the statement shouldn't say "global warming" when the references don't say "global warming"? --DHeyward (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile... I'm all for explaining the notion of multiple pos and neg forcings. Have you looked over the body of the article to see where we might improve? For that matter, I wonder if there might be merit in creating a sub-article just about contemporary forcings? If its done with RS and without UNDUE, I'm all for it. But it might not fit in the lead of the top-level article, Global Warming, due WP:LEADLENGTH. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You are citing pos and neg forcing in that statement. What do you think the section about "total radiative forcing is positive" means? You cite that statement to mean "global warming" but then switch gears to atmospheric GHGs and pretend that only the positive forcings are being talked about. All in that one sentence. It's nonsense. Per leadlength, cut out the "land use" words as a contributor to global warming. Make it smaller and more accurate. --DHeyward (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, chapter 8 isn't about negative forcings, it's the entire physical model. It takes the WMGHG's in Chapter 6 and uses that data for CMIP5 model to come up with the net radiative forcing. That's the bullet you are citing and they already subtracted albedo and concluded land us is a nil effect. --DHeyward (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: Climate change

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Climate change. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

I'm warning you about the possibility of discretionary sanctions because another editor asked me to on my talk page, with reference to edits you made to Global warming that appear relatively confrontative, if not edit-warring. Please make sure that edits you make to controversial articles do not violate the policy against edit warring.  Sandstein  12:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I was the requesting editor, and I got "warned" too recently, just for restoring a stable pre-edit war version of another article. I requested your notice in the same spirit I accepted mine without protest... just to support ARBCC down the road. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

NAEG, your're a troll. Outing and harassment is not allowed. None of my edits were edit warring. And occurred over multiple days. You knew I was a aware since I posted at the arbitration enforcement page. You also know I discussed my edits and you added edits that had material I suggested. --DHeyward (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the flap is, but I apologize. If you feel a need to visit ANI or AE, I understand. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC) PS D, in case you don't know, old talk threads at a certain page were not changed. I've never run across this phenomena before and it confused me greatly. I guess its old stuff to longer-timers. Anyway, there are a lot of crumbs still on the server. I'm expressly and intentionally not providing a diff to not compound the issue, but if you want more info in the form of a diff I can certainly supply one of the many samples. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did you and how would you know.--MONGO 16:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear why you have decided to interrogate me over the matter, Mongo, but in any case, it doesn't seem conducive to producing an encyclopedia to respond further. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That's up to you...like a good lawyer I don't ask questions I don't already know the answer to anyway.--MONGO 17:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

J. Edgar Hoover

Heads up: A few days ago I reverted your reversion and started a section on it on the talk page. Best wishes76.218.104.120 (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Your e-mail

Sorry, I can't act on your request. You need an editor with the oversight permission, see WP:OVERSIGHT.  Sandstein  18:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

correcting a statement you made on global warming

Hi there. Not sure if this is the appropriate place, but I wanted there to be a record of something you said regarding global warming that wasn't right. Here, you said: "From you source Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels. is accurate though I would either delete burning fossil fuels. (leaving by people) or add cement production which is very close to fossil fuels in terms of contribution to AGW. Singling out fossil fuels over cement seems unwarranted. Land use change is an order of magnitude less than fossil fuels and cement. --DHeyward (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)." Cement production is responsible for around 5% of the TOTAL carbon emissions from fossil fuel and cement. To see this, download the data from the CDIAC Global Carbon project. There, you will see that for 2012, cement was 509 MtC/yr while the total for fossil fuels (including cement) was 9667 MtC/yr. Therefore, singling out fossil fuels over cement seems very warranted. Bobbywego (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Progressive Collapse page

There seems to be confusion on the grounds of terminology. "Pancake theory" was a specific version of what events transpired in order to *initiate* the progressive collapse of the World Trade Center towers. "Pancake collapse" on the other hand is an entirely different term, long used as a synonym for progressive collapse (due to the fact that buildings experiencing progressive collapse behave like vertical dominoes, with upper layers affecting lower ones, and resulting in a layered mass of debris, similar to the layering in a "stack of pancakes"). I tend to discourage the use of the term "pancake collapse" on the progressive collapse page however (outside of the terminology section) specifically because people often confuse "pancake collapse" to be the same as the post-9/11 term, "pancake theory".

To clarify, "pancake theory" as used in the context of 9/11, was a specific version of what events took place to *initiate* the progressive collapse. Specifically, the NIST was addressing the idea that the collapse was initiated by one or more floors *breaking free* from their welds to the vertical columns and collapsing on to the floor below in order to *initiate* the moment when the progressive collapse began. NIST later concluded that the moment of collapse was initiated instead by the softening trusses sagging and pulling the columns inwards, leading to the misalignment and subsequent failure of the vertical columns. Once the collapse began, it behaved like any other progressive collapse.

I specifically addressed the cause of initiation already (the NIST's findings, summarized by FAQ 6 on the page you supplied). Your addition to the page seems to confuse pancake collapse (synonym for progressive collapse) with pancake theory (the claim that the collapse was initialized by a floor falling onto a floor below). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbat92024 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure your account is accurate or your postulation that pancake collapse is synonymous with progressive collapse. Nevertheless, the NIST quote is exact. I will read more about the phrasing but your account is odd. Normally, the floor steel would always be tensile with columns. It sags when heat expands it and pushes vertical columns out of alignment. The vertical columns then fail and it collapses. It would always be tensile with the columns though so as long as the are attached they pull inwards. The first structural failure was the exterior vertical columns. That was not particularly clear as it appeared to place the initiation on floor systems failure which was not the case. --DHeyward (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The NIST quote is exact, but in relation to another argument with similar-named variables. The WTC's tube-in-tube design acted similar to rope bridges (or a "firemans net", as others have categorized the designs behavior), in that fire didn't cause the floors to progressively collapse "down" but to instead progressively collapse "in", which then caused the building to collapse "down". This was only uncovered by the NIST later with the aid of computer modeling and video of the outside warping curvature of the building leading up to the initiation of the collapse. This is also why NIST seems at first glance like it's contradicting itself between FAQ's 6 and 8, with 8 saying failure wasn't caused by the floor systems, and 6 saying the failure was caused by the influence of the floor systems on the vertical columns. In essence, NIST is saying "C wasn't the result of A, but was instead the result of B, and B was the result of A". Thus, they're more addressing the semantics/order of events, rather than saying A had nothing to do with C (but it never the less often results in confusion).

I understand your issue though and what you're trying to address (you're focusing on what happened after collapse was initiated, rather than what caused initiation), which is something that NIST didn't summarize in the FAQ section. My assumption on why they didn't address the post-initiation behavior of the floor systems was because progressive collapses almost never halt in mid-collapse (with VERY few exceptions, none of which applied to the WTC). Thus, attempting to describe the post-initiation behavior of millions of individual failing elements as they snowballed into a "falling wrecking ball" wasn't the aim of NIST FAQ #8. Chrisbat92024 (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I only categorized what failed. It wasn't the floor systems. Columns failed and the structure collapsed. "Pancake" appears to refer to a mechanism where upper floors impact lower floors and the impact causes the floor to fail and separate from columns. In the WTC collapse, this did not happen. The floor connection to columns was not severed and the floor did not fail. --DHeyward (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That is correct, again, if we're talking about initiating factors. The debate early on, which became coined as "pancake theory" by some, was that the collapse was initiated by an upper floor releasing from the vertical beams, falling on a lower floor, and initiating the final collapse. Later investigation by NIST found that the burning floors actually sagged and pulled the walls inwards, which initiated the final collapse. The debated "theory" aspect of this particular pancake collapse/progressive collapse that was addressed by NIST was specifically what initiated collapse, not what sustained collapse. Saying "don't confuse this with pancake theory" on the PC page is analogous to saying "don't confuse the collapse being initiated by the trusses sagging, with the collapse being initiated by an upper floor of trusses falling on a lower floor". We've already established in detail that the collapse was initiated by the sagging trusses directly on the summary portion of the incident.

If you insist on making sure people don't confuse the initiating factors with something else in a contextual/clear way, you might say, "not to be confused with the collapse being initiated by a floor collapsing onto a floor below", but still this seems both irrelevant and redundant, since we've already said what did initiate it. This leads into the question, "if we're going to list all the things that didn't initiate the collapse of the WTC (after saying what did initiate it), should we then list all the things that didn't initiate the collapses of all the other examples on the page?" Chrisbat92024 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Climate change v. Global Warming

It may help you understand why you feel like you are banging your head on a wall on the global warming article is because the editors there are largely insiders from the climate "science". In other words, they are not only writing their propaganda on wikipedia, but they and their chums actually write the "scientific" papers which they insist you quote in order to make any changes.

About 7 years ago, someone did force a change - but within weeks a new paper had been written and published just to ensure that change had to be removed.

The only saving grace, is that these editors are so appalling biased in their edits - that most reasonable people can spot that it is propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.50.16 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If you say so. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not correct. The scientist in that area that I am aware of editing is WMC and he no longer is a scientist in that area, though he is broadly an expert in mathematics. There are many editors with broad expertise. The issue with the articles is that they are too attached to the debate between advocates and sceptics when it should be much more detached. The way to toe the line is to keep to the science. That means the lexicon of science should be maintained. The cutting edge debates on whether there is missing heat and where it might be is interesting but has no bearing what global warming or what climate change is. Scientists in the literature are very clear in the differences in global warming and climate change. Wikipedia should correct the misuse of the terms and inform the reader as to what the correct terms are. It's very difficult to cover the suggestion that surface temp datasets are incorrect (global warming) or that heat is being stored in the ocean (climate change). Terms like "unequivocal" have been rejected by scientific societies and scientists because it is antithetical to the scientific method but is much in the political arena. Secular use and arguments should be removed and corrected from all articles in the broad arena of climate change. --DHeyward (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

"Terms like "unequivocal" have been rejected by scientific societies and scientists because it is antithetical to the scientific method" That ignores fact that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" is verbatim from the largest of the scientific literature reviews anyone does on the subject. But I'll forego further debate here now, since it really belongs at talk:global warming attached to a proposal for article improvement. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It's only used by scientists when talking about historical record (i.e. GMST rise since the 19th century is unequivocal). Mixing it with terms like "continuing" is where political meets science. You won't see many scientific organizations talk about whether the present has any "unequivocal" components let alone the future. --DHeyward (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Template:Infobox person/testcases page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page sectioning and headings

You said "You have a bad habit of altering location and headings of other editors comments.". I do have a habit of following the talk page guidelines, but reject the claim that it is a bad one. The WP:TPG says,

• Start new topics at the bottom of the page

And you tacked a new topic at a midpoint subthread, to ask to expand the longstanding topic from the current climate change earth is experiencing to the narrow defintion of GMST

• Make a new heading for a new topic

You didn't make a new heading for your request to change the longstanding article topic

• Create subsections if helpful

So I did that

There are also paragraphs devoted to sectioning and section heading in the discussion of editing other's comments, which I complied with. In my view, its ineffective to try to change a years long consensus about article topic by injecting that argument into the discussions about carrying out the current consensus. You should do a threadfor that express goal, maybe RFC it and invoke DR, and live with the result. There's little liklihood the years long consensus on article topic will change, of course, but you might persuade people. Instead, you seem to be interrupting other discussions with this argument.

I'll leave the current example the ineffective way you want it, but I reserve the right to continue doing sectioning and headings as described in the TPG and we can clash about what's most effective the next time, too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, if you noticed that NAEG was editing the location of my comments, I specifically gave permission. That said, I have some sympathy for your concerns that someone is acting like they are in charge, which can be a good thing if it moves things forward, but problematic if it means dismissing legitimate points. (Don't read too much into this, I'm mostly interested in the points I care about, and so not fully following the interaction between you two.) As a generic point, I'll say how amazed I am that our implicit model (no one is in charge, it will all work out) manages to work at all. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sphilbrick.... in my view, intermixing topics produces a dysfunctional quagmire; and not participating in new discussions out of fear that past experiences of quagmire will repeat is also no good. So I attempt to implement the TPG to move things along in a methodical fashion that eases interaction for all. I don't think I'm in charge.... the TPG is in charge. I'd be glad to share the collating facilitating and organizing chore with the whole world. Of course, some like the noise more than expeditious resolution of differing points of view. Thanks for your vote of confidence regarding your own commentary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In my view, it was the topic you were discussing about changing the lead sentence as well as use of "unequivocal." (the topic heading). It is why my comment was placed there. You are actually violating the talk page guidelines by manipulating the meaning or intention of what I write. Please stop. I don't post material that is not relevant to the topic being discussed. If you think it is, post it as a question. Don't move it under a new section or refactor entire sections based on on your own belief that it is not relevant. --DHeyward (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Siphon

Your additions to the siphon article have greatly improved the entry. I have been watching the article but haven't been inclined to edit for a while. My main interest has been working toward deleting or reworking the siphon coffee section as it is not a siphon but a pressure pump. However, other commitments have put that effort to the bottom of the list. In a month or so my chedule may allow some time to that effort, in the mean time thanks for what you have done, the article is reflecting current knowledge far more than before. However, I would suggest you examine the role of tensile strength of gas and fluid as this may play a greater part than is stated in the current article. Cheers, Tobermory ^conferre 11:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I think there are tensile strength considerations for most real-world siphons as well as other fluid related physical phenomena like viscosity and laminar flow. For the moment, I was just trying to stick with basic properties of a fluid that distinguish them from a gas like like incompressibility and equal energy throughout the system. The concept that the atmosphere does work as oppose to the atmosphere setting physical limits (like the 0 pressure point for max height) is what I found flawed in the article. --DHeyward (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and please keep them coming

Thanks very much for investing energy and time contributing thoughts on efforts to draft a new first lead paragraph for Global warming. Please note I just posted ver 5 of my idea, and would welcome further pro/con criticism. I'm attempting to ping everyone who has taken time to speak up after past versions. If I overlooked anyone, please let me know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Barnstar of Humour Hires.png|100px]] |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Good Humor''' |- |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I particularly enjoyed "If your body is full of them, that's a sign of a problem, but only like how if your apartment is full of firefighters". It has a nice mental image with it. A large excess of firefighters once occurred inside a facility I was partly responsible for. (The facility automatically summoned all available firefighters, and recommended they don breathing equipment; the access corridor wasn't sufficiently large for people so equipped to turn around or otherwise maneuver other than in unison forwards or backwards...) |} --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and I must say that I appreciate that kind humor and aspire to be as witty, but, alas, I cannot take credit for that sentence. 'Twasn't my edit :( --DHeyward (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

September_11_attacks#Conspiracy_theories

I am notifying editors who participated in the recent discussion regarding the September 11 attacks that a brand new RfC has been created. The RfC was created in a brand new discussion thread. I don't wish to see any editors be disenfranchised so you may wish to comment in the new thread. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 31#Gender dysphoria

Following discussions on Talk:Gender identity disorder on September 2013 and July-August 2014, I have proposed creating a disambiguation page at Gender dysphoria to distinguish between the subjective experience of bodily incongruence and the DSM-5 medical diagnosis also known as "gender identity disorder" (c.f. the distinction between our articles on Depression (mood) and Major depressive disorder). You are invited to join the discussion here. --April Arcus (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wargames

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jul/08/wikipedia-censorship-seth-finkelstein#start-of-comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the guardian was trying to say. I took it to support not playing the game. that would default to not mentioning it either in the context of the kidnappers, governments, families, or other interested parties. Wikipedia can only be manipulated by current events, not cover them, whence WP:NOTNEWS. --DHeyward (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Re-open SPI re Kaletony?

I do not understand why Kaletony's SPI was closed by Bbb23 before Kaletony's alternative accounts were identified. Do you? Is it possible to re-open, or, appeal this decision? For all anyone knows, Kaletony many have a number of user accounts -- none of which have yet been identified as socks. Memills (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

They already did. Doxelary II is confirmed sock. Possible to likely that Doxelary is also a sock. --DHeyward (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but who is the master? KonveyorBelt 19:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I dunno. There was speculation that tutelary and doxelary were related but that seems unlikely now. Given the doxelary connection I suspect one of the wikipediocracy members that brought this here. People more familiar with WO personalities might have a better idea.. --DHeyward (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Master athletics

I don't recall seeing your name involved with athletics articles in the past. I'm going to assume you are not very familiar with the subject and the way this is covered here on wikipedia. Particularly I'll assume your ignorance since you misspelled the core subject name. It is masters athletics. Within the sport we have the List of world records in athletics, one of our prime (and most vandalized) articles, which has sub links to the progression of each world record, such as Men's 100 metres world record progression. I guess the phrase for these smaller articles are that they are in support of the master article. Yes these articles are a little more substantial than the ones I created; there is also a history that dates back to the early 1890's, through multiple governing bodies, a change in technology and an almost contemporaneous revolution all requiring learned notations. Theer's more to explain. Still the information is mostly covered with tables documenting the history. If you were familiar with the subject of the masters divisions, you'd know there are up to fourteen divisions per gender and that the history generally only dates back to the 1970's. Add to that mix that there is less documentation to work with, naturally the articles themselves will be smaller. Perhaps you do not know how to trace transclusions of wikipedia articles, every one of the some 240 articles you are attacking link back to the progression link on the master List of world records in masters athletics. Many of them also link back to the athletes involved, exactly explaining the world record these athletes claim to have held. In some cases, that linkage is essential to establishing their notability under WP:NSPORTS. Yes, that job is not anywhere near complete. The articles you have been attacking all evening en masse have only existed for a few hours, so most only have the one transclusion after the list is cleaned up for public display.

As I completed these articles this evening I've watched you start dropping tags into these articles. You obviously picked them up at the new article creation and pardon the phrase, freaked out. So you've proposed several different articles to merge these into. Then you figured out how cumbersome that would be. So you tried again by creating the misspelled article as a random place to put this to solve a non-existent problem. I'll cut you off on one further suggestion, the master list of world records is already so large that it is slow to load. There are other sub-sections to such masters records that will have to get covered in corollary articles. Point is: We've dealt with these issues in other athletics articles, we have an established style. These maintain that style.

Since you took your proposal to the Wikipedia:Proposed mergers page, I suggest you remove it there and stop causing controversy where none exists in a subject area you are not familiar with. Trackinfo (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I am familiar with Wikipedia and the random collection of very specific results do not make good encyclopedia articles. Merge all the individual events into a broader topic. Even the Olympics are not as segmented as what you've done to individual events of Masters athletics. The articles you've created have no context without consolidation and that is a criteria to avoid deletion. Please consider consolidating all the similar sports into a single article unless they can stand alone. Each Masters athletics sport could list the divisions and records in a much more coherent article. Men's 100 metres world record progression is much larger with more history and context that allows it to be standalone and it is also not broken into an article for each section. Why would the Masters athletics M85 shot put be separate from M75? The Men's olympics doesn't have separate articles by age, or drugs or altitude - rather all those results exist in a single article. Alternatively, they can be added to sport they represent. But articles like Masters M85 shot put world record progression is a crap article and the 8+ other articles on male Master athletics shot putters could be merged into a single article with a coherent story on history and meaning. No one reading any of those articles will know what they are and that knowledge is common to all of them. --DHeyward (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm an entirely neutral party on this issue, I just chanced upon the request because I was checking if mine had made any progress. Some uninvited feedback on what impression this discussion makes on at least one neutral party: "going to talk some sense into him" does not sound like Trackinfo is very open to an actual discussion and wants to force his viewpoint on someone else. "I don't recall seeing your name involved with athletics articles in the past." sounds like you want to question DHeyward's credibility / right to make/propose the changes he is proposing, and "we have an established style" sounds like WP:OWN. "is a crap article" (from DHeyward) does not help keeping things civil. As to the actual content, without having looked into the issue in much detail, at least for the mentioned Masters shot put world record progression collection, I don't see how there would be significant expansion of any of the individual pages (with notable content) that would mandate separate pages for each category. --Nczempin (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nczempin: You're right and I apologize for the "crap article" comment. The goal is to improve articles and the proposal in the athletics portal area is really to identify ways to improve them. There may be other ways to do this and I am looking for suggestions from people that frequent that topic. --DHeyward (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Information on progression of masters records cannot be found anywhere on internet, so the data itself is very valuable. There of course are several ways of presenting it, now Trackinfo has choosen one page per discipline per age group. Maybe they could be combined into (rather big) pages per discipline? Weia (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If information on progression of masters records cannot be found anywhere on internet, then isn't what you are doing original research and synthesis? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop it.

Don't edit war on Arbcom pages. If you believe something needs to be removed, ask a clerk, or at the clerk noticeboard. Worm^TT(talk) 09:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Not edit warring. BLP violations are removed. Feel free to remove them as well. I won't be defamed with false information. That was/is a blatant lie that doesn't stand any scrutiny. --DHeyward (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It was a statement from an unreliable website and will be seen as such. I've told you how to deal with it, reverting is not the way. Worm^TT(talk) 09:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I requested oversight prior. I removed it until oversight happens. I see you have left the material and links and have warned me instead. That's not how BLP works. Poorly sourced and unsourced negative material needs to be removed immediately. Arbcom may view it properly, but readers may not. That's why the policy is to remove it first. I am asking you to remove it, oversight and salt it. Please do so now that you are aware of it. --DHeyward (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to go to that website and check whether the link meets oversight criteria. From what I've heard, it doesn't appear to - no private information appears to be given out. BLP is not a reason for oversight, except in extreme circumstances. Defamation should be removed, and possibly revision deleted - but per WP:RFO, regular reverting to keep it out draws more attention to the information you want removed. Worm^TT(talk) 10:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Instrument of Degradation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Instrument of Degradation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "Click here to 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

David Auerbach

I did ping David. [2] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Really?

Hi. Trying to verify something for a story. You wrote here that the Wikipedia article on "#GamerGate" was "guarded by 5 guys burger and fries."

Could you clarify your meaning? Specifically, did you mean that some of the editors here are those listed (or nameless) on the "zoepost" are editing wikipedia, or did you mean that some of the editors here are having sex with Zoe Quinn? Thanks. Carte Rouge (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've redacted that and apologized. Neither of your suppositions is correct and it was not an accusation. It's a play on "5 horsemen" that was being used by 8chan and I flipped it after one of those 5 brought negative and false 8chan material about me to Wikipedia. It was a direct reply to that editor and your diff reveals the editor that brought the false 8chan stuff here. I don't believe any editors are related to the "zoepost" or even know quinn or any of the subjects. --DHeyward (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you link to your apologies? Are you denying that you are participating in an 8chan thread regarding Wikipedia? Carte Rouge (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I note from elsewhere that you write that "NorthBySouthBaranoff, reposting is a BLP violation... It's defamatory to attack me personally based one a troll post from a 3rd party site that I am completely unaware of. My name is what I protect and will do so from trolls and their proxies." Is it your contention that your real name is D. Heyward?([3]) Carte Rouge (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Apology here[4] as well as removal just before that. I had forgotten it existed as it was nearly a week ago and nobody seemed to have taken offense. When it was brought up, I apologized upon reflection that it was over the top. I don't participate in any forums especially forums like 8chan, 4chan, reddit, tumbler, wikipediocracy, ad nauseum and have denied the accusation that I participate with no reservations. It's 100% false. I never even heard of 8chan until brought here. I don't participate in off-site drama though I do read links that are posted on WP as sources (especially if they are about me). My reputation here is what I protect. I don't participate in outing or doxxing. The things that happened to Quinn, Sarkheesian, Wu, et al is deplorable. I have no horse in the race as I am not a gamer nor journalist nor activist. My interest is WP and it's very difficult to fight defamation which is why Auerbach came to my attention. He was being smeared and for a while it seems that the smear was being protected. Who are @Carte Rouge: writing a story for and why have you picked me for information? --DHeyward (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Who Stole Feminism?. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not but per BRD, you should participate on talk. --DHeyward (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)