User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy/Archive 3

"Edits by block evading socks are revertible on sight"

I would like to know where that[1] is written in policy. Every policy I am familiar with says, implicitly, that we can not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nothing in WP:PRESERVE has the least thing to say about supposed "block evading socks" -- Kendrick7^talk 00:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Per WP:EVADE, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." If you poke around in sockpuppet and block enforcment stuff, you'll find various references to trust being an underpinning of the project, and sockpuppetry to do block evasion is such a violation of that trust that the block-clock can be restarted. In the case of the IP, they have had multiple concurrent blocks on different IP accounts since I started following the matter around 3 years ago. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Proper Interpretation of Talk page guidelines

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) 17:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No current smoke, no fire. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Too much

Between Arbcom clerk responsibilities, OTRS backlog, COI backlog, and a bit of real life, I'm stretched too thin. I've removed global warming form my watchlist, at least for now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go; a lot of work is going to happen to address lead bloat. If you have serious RS based criticisms I'm hoping you'll still make time to bring them up during the talk page collaboration, instead of after it goes live. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sincere apologies...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I am using this template on my own talk page per WP:OWNTALKNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

---

It appears that you feel I am harassing you. I am not. I am also not stalking you to locations. I am very active in DR and editor retention and have mentioned this to you more than once. These seem to be areas you have now taken an interest in. However, let me be clear. WP:WER, WP:BRD and WP:DRN are areas I am very active in and have been for some time. They are all on my watch list and I have invested a good deal of time and energy collaborating with other editors on these pages and I feel that a collaboration with you has resulted in accusations against me several times over the last few days (and in turn, you feel accusations have been made against you).

I admit, I do not support almost any of the recent proposals you have made and I also admit I am very concerned with the manner in which you have discussed an article which is contentious, and where the Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing the page or associated pages. It also states that discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. I am concerned that you may not be aware that creating discussions in multiple venues where you have added the link to or mentioned with a link, the issues you feel are all related to Global Warming have crossed the line of Wikipedia:Canvassing. I seriously urge you to understand my concerns.

You have made some serious allegations on my talk page. I have removed all of them but have not asked you to refrain from posting on my talk page, just requested that you not discuss the BRD issue further there because it is my feeling that they constitute a personal attack. I now also request that you refrain from further accusations of any kind on my talk page because I also see them as personal attacks without foundation. If you feel anything I have done requires intervention , I suggest you make a formal complaint. Your recent behavior has most likely been a result of your honest feelings and beliefs, but that is no excuse for not trying to take time to better understand the areas you are making proposals for and having more patience with editors you are dealing with.

However, I do apologize for not being "nicer" to you. I certainly could have been but I felt I was not getting that from you so, I just stayed as civil as possible without caring if I was being all that "nice" or not. The situation between us is a conflict. There are many ways to move forward here and I cannot tell you which one to pick. You must make that decision for yourself. But I am prepared to move in any direction you take this, whether that be AN, ANI or ARB COM Enforcement.....or just trying to collaborate and learn to get along (the last one...I am more hopeful for than the others and would be the better practice).

So, I leave this to you but, please understand, I will not avoid you because you are now editing areas I am involved with but...I wont be going over to the global warming article. I have interest in the subject, but not the Wikipedia article.

Please feel free to delete this post and not reply.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, any RS-based/AGF/FOC comments from anyone at any articles I edit are welcome, and if you appear there with such comments that would be constructive editing and not hounding as far as I am concerned.

For archiving reference, your post above relates (I think) to

* A thread at Talk:BRD which led to

* Thread at your talk.

* After that I posted an idea I've been thinking about for awhile in this thread at Village pump. The idea relates to improving non-article pages. I probably used the wrong venue (proposals instead of ideas) but in any case, there was no fingerpointing at any ed or any particular non-article page.

* Later I started a thread at Editor Retention about something else , which led to another thread at your talk page and this one here.

In the future, if you feel compelledinspired to comment on any of my ideas, that's your right but please limit your comments to the substance of the ideas and that will be great but stop talking about my behavior.... except at ANI. If you feel compelled to attack my behavior, do it formally.

If I appear at DRN please do not take the case. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not know why you keep demanding things about DRN. You have no pending requests there and if you took a minute (again) to check our policy you would not be asking this as if there was a legitimate threat of such. That is behavior and it is incivil, because it makes an accusation where there is no action, no situation and no need to make such a demand. I will make no promises to not discuss your behavior or any other limit on my commenting on you when there is a legitimate reason to do so.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

For example, The above section "Something I wish everyone understood as well as Leonard McCoy (Star Trek)" contains a non free snippet from the book "Spock's World" by Diane Duane. It is a copyright violation to use non free snippets in the user space. It is two years old and yet it seems no one has even noticed the violation. However, per WP:NFCCP: "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace...".

This is just a small example of how you seem to be violating Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I wont have my hands tied to not make the request to you directly as that only seems right. I should not have to report such a blatant "misunderstanding" of copyright or any other procedure or guideline because you should be willing to AGF yourself, but you don't. You accuse me of harassment.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

<dead end> NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have asked about the snippet and am told that it is "probably okay". I cannot promise that it is, but the best editor on the subject thinks it should be alright as long as that is the only snippet from the book in the user space.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

DRN has a guideline that states that volunteers that have had interactions, either positive or negative with the filing editor (or other participants) should recuse themselves from such requests. It need not be stated anywhere, just that editors should not involve themselves with disputes filed by editors they interact with. I would not have taken a case you filed, and will not should you have a dispute that comes to the board.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2014 (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.

Global warming hiatus

I note you have reverted what appeared to me to be a neutral change. The existing wording attributes motives to skeptics which they might not necessarily hold. Can you explain how you know that these people are opposed to action rather than simply skeptical? Skeptic2 (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I self-reverted before you posted here, on grounds that (A) your changes were a better match to the RS at the end of the sentence and (B) in a moment of confusion I thought your edit had injected the discrepancy... but of course you expunged it, thus improving the match to the RS, which improves the article. My error, so I fixed it a moment after I posted it. If you'd like to discuss any content on that article further, please use the article talk page so others can participate. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Skeptic2 (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Same general topic, this edit rather messed up the balance of the article, introducing what the first source calls "a misleading narrative". Since then the article's got more incoherent, and needs a revert to before your edit to restart, or a complete overhaul. The IPCC is clear that there have been multiple hiatuses, this one is still well under the classical 30 year period for determining climate and has multiple causes. So, will see what I can do when time permits, but this may take some unravelling. . dave souza, talk 17:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dave souza: Well, I know we're pulling in the same direction . I see two points in your post, Dave.

• A That overall the article's incoherency has increased with my edits
• B That you think the frequency of hiatuses in a long warming trend is less apparent than it used to be

Were there other big-picture goals I can try to help correct?

Re "A", I try to read with a climate-newbie's mind. My edits might not have finished the job, but in my opinion "incoherent" better describes the article's structure prior to my recent edits from the perspective of 7th grader climate science newbie. Sure we have a branching tree of main and sub articles, but this particular article, I think, benefits from including more of the background info than was previously present.

Re "B", I have a further edit in mind. Stay tuned, I'll replace this sentence with a DIFF when I do it.

In general, I think we'd both like an article a 7th grade science class can understand pretty much at a single pass, and one that neither pushes a false narrative nor turns lay newbie readers' brains to mush. Further thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

PS I started to work on "B" but opted instead to wait for you to attempt to articulate (table form perhaps) what you thought the pre-NAEG text said and compare-contrast the specific characteristics of "false narrative" you think I injected. Frankly, I don't see it. It might help get a grip to chart the issues in table form

Concept	Pre NAEG version	Post NAEG version
Ups/Downs in the surface temp record are common during longterm warming trends	Y	Y
Existence of any given slowdown/pause/hiatus/vacation/timeout/etc does not negate robust evidence of longterm warming	Y	Y
Lay climate newbie intro to chaotic interaction of the five named parts of the climate system and RS about fits and starts while seeking new equilibrium	Nope	Y
(Add yours here if you like)	Example	Example

Further elaboration please! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NAEG, to try to put it simply:

Because the temperature record is erratic/has cycles, the classical period for assessing climate is 30 years.

Since around 1900 there has been a long term global or hemispherical increase in surface temperatures, interrupted by [shorter] periods of slower increase: such "Fifteen-year-long hiatus periods are common" [AR5 Box TS/3]

Global mean surface temperatures in the year 1998 were exceptionally warm, and there has been considerable publicity for the period 1998–2012 having a slower rate of increase than the period 1951–2012. To date there is no clear evidence of an end to this slowdown

The slowdown has been called a "pause" in a misleading narrative presented by journalists and "climate skeptics" as evidence that there's no need to do anything about anthropogenic global warming.Mooney

Scientists have identified several contributing factors to this apparent short term change of pace, including the point that most of the heat increase is in the oceans down to 2,000m depth.

The "climate skeptic" narrative is that scientists can't explain this short term fluctuation despite increasing CO₂ levels. Therefore science is Wrong, and we don't need to worry about reducing CO₂ emissions.

That's the overview, the article previously concentrated on the scientific side rather than discussing the "climate skeptic" narrative. . dave souza, talk 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Great, however the prior approach in my view was (probably) incoherent to climate newbies leaving them ill-prepared to evaluate the skeptic narrative. I say "probably" because I have not conducted any Usability testing on either version, and I assume you haven't either. If we review the prior version with "beginner's mind", surely we can present the science in a more accessible way? To that end.... You have opined your conclusions only. It would help to "show your work". If you can point at text that led you to your conclusions that will identify specific text we both think still needs work, if for different reasons. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC) PS I've made an edit to the article. Does that help at all? If no, details please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's much better: it starts with the central point that the current slowdown is not unique. Have made a couple of tweaks, the first mention of "hiatus" is not supported by the source, which is Mooney on "slowdown", so added ref [1] to AR5 after "hiatus", clarified that this relates to surface temps, and added a link to global warming which wasn't linked in the first para. Lead looks much better, not sure if "scientists say "should be "scientists consider". The body text comes next: to start, the Slower surface temperature increase looks like gibberish and isn't sourced, will have to look at that later. Thanks, dave souza, talk 20:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Thank you very very much for your helpful contribution to the essay at User:Cirt/Gutting.

I'm trying to take lots of suggestions from the community in order to hopefully soon move those pages out of my userspace into main essay space.

I'd appreciate any advice you have on helping achieve that.

— Cirt (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit a bit of negative response to the essay title "gutting", which to me connotes disgust somehow. The same topic could be approached from the constructive perspective of "pruning", which to me connotes abundant healthy growth and fruit to come. Instead of starting yet another essay, how about adding your ideas to one of these existing ones? See Wikipedia:Essays_in_a_nutshell/Deletion. Have fun, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I really would like to keep it at this particular title, as both supporters and critics of "gutting" have used the term a significant amount. But if you have any other ideas about how specifically to improve it, I'd love to hear your recommendations on how to modify the existing pages, and still keep them. — Cirt (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Case declined

The arbitration committee declined the request for a case involving the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, concluding that it was not within the scope of the committee's remit. The arbitrators comments here may be helpful. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, an appropriate result. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Any particular reason for the post on my page?

I have been editing climate change articles for 7 years with not a single ding, warning, or problem of any sort. Given the lack of context for your post, I find it ...puzzling. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Under the new "alert" system, they are merely informational. No imputation whatsoever. Commonly - but not always - large scale revisions to longstanding climate text augurs a period of vigor on the talk pages. Have at it! Following WP:ARBCC#Principles, of course. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Okey doke. thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

SpeedyDelete proposal for User talk:Niccolo

Sorry, that user (for User talk:Niccolo) does exist and is active on the Czech Wikipedia et al. (If you click 'Contribs' and then look for SUL at bottom right, you get the whole wiki picture of editing.) Hasn't edited here, and the welcome template looks to have gone wrong, but I can't think of a speedy for it. Is it worth taking to MfD, and if so, for what? He probably doesn't know it exists - I sometimes find I've got talk pages in places I've never been to before. Peridon (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh. And thanks for your looking into it. Yes, its MFD material as a matter of general housekeeping. Dust bunnies pile up if you never sweep or vacuum. FYI, I did click "contribs" for the EN wikipedia, and there were none, nor were there any logs as performer or target nor any ANI hits. I don't know about these things, but seems to me an editor at the Czech wikipedia who has never been here is certainly entitled to a user talk page at the Czech wikipedia. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello NewsAndEventsGuy, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

"Disengaging"?

This is about thisNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate an answer. I don't think it's civil to accuse other people of ulterior motives. EllenCT (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:DROPTHESTICK. As the Dread Pirate Roberts said, "Get used to disappointment". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Follow-on Q's

Thanks for the comments on GWP. I could use a few more vectors though. What is "RS," from your comment "Or so says the RS," and has someone done the calculation for the 2-3x GWP that can be referenced? I hope I am not out of line with this post.GESICC (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)GESICC

Constructive efforts - even when its to express constructive disagreement - are essential! So welcome!

RS = what Wikipedia calls a "reliable source"; When there is doubt, visit the reliable source noticeboard to discuss the source's merits

See also the WP:Talk page guidelines to help get started interacting with good habits (not that you have shown me any bad ones)

As for a numeric value for the GWP of water, beats me. The source we discussed says it varies according to accounting method. No doubt you could start pulling on that string and get into some heavy reading. You know about "google" of course.... have you tried "google scholar"?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Humboldtsches Bildungsideal

You are right that English titles are preferred in the English Wikipedia. If you look at talk and history, the article had an English title, however, that was only a translation (and a misleading one, as Bildung = education, but the concept is strictly for university education, and Ideal can't be captured as ideal), nothing used in sources. We should not invent titles. Ideas welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My only current input is the form of two questions

1. Are there any reliable sources that were originally written in English that establish WP:Notability?

2. If 1=Y then what term was used in those sources; otherwise if 1=N then does the topic have sufficient WP:Notability to be included in the English Wikipedia?

This is the first time the question of notability for foreign topics has crossed my path, so I don't know the hypothetical answer to the latter part of question 2.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I (German) write on many topics with German titles, including all Bach cantatas. The question of notability never came up. - I am only a copy-editor to the article but had no problem accepting the concept of the founder of the Berlin university which was later named after him, a concept still valid in our time, as notable. We have so many articles on less notable subjects, such as toilet paper orientation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised you picked that particular example to sniff at.... for US divorce attorneys that particular issue plays a really substantial roll.that was not a typo! Ha ha I have no knowledge of the subject matter. Based on your description one would expect there to be plenty of reasonable English language sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

(I remember the infobox discusion on the example.) Take the name discussion to article talk, please. One English name seems to be Humboldtian Model, but that would not even suggest education. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification Request

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. This is a courtesy notice to advise that I have closed and archived your request for clarification on the "Climate Change" arb case. You can find the discussion here. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

Great, thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

____________

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy,

I've placed a question for you on my page as follows:

Thanks for your note. I would appreciate if you could explain how what I added was new. My input was an objective point in clarification of this part of the quote: "The fact is that it would be difficult or impossible to explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without CO2 changes."

This "fact" is neither defended nor explained yet represents a key reason Gore's use of ice cores came under scrutiny. As noted, I fail to see how this is "new", and would appreciate your input, perhaps on my page.

Thanks

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cb25 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Links

It would have been far more useful for me if you had provided a link to the section I had missed rather than a link to the guideline. -- PBS (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry and glad to see you got there anyway.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

it is better left as it is because my construction of my comment would have been different had I seen the previous discussion. -- PBS (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

So fix it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment committee

You had previously commented on the possibility of a "comment" committee at the idea lab. At Talk:Landmark Worldwide, I have started a discussion regarding possibly starting a "trial run" of such an idea. Your input in the discussion would of course be welcome. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

good luck, but I'm too busy to do more right now.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Conversation with 2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3

Note, this is in regards to my edit summary under this revert and/or this talk page comment NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

In regards to your complete misunderstanding of my activities here, especially in regard to your summary remark that i am resuming an edit-war after coming off of a block, please just stop with me. That was in no way meant to disrupt-it was exactly what I said it was on the TP. RM an edit due to perceived editor behavior is not really fair when you have a chance to discuss your objection to that particular edit on the TP. Just knock-it-off please. I mean that in the most polite way that you could take it.2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

When one's edit-warring block expires they could

• A) Use the talk page to work out the solution to the perceived problem
• B) Cite incomplete consensus to hack at the article yet again

Query, which of those is more consistent with WP:BRD and the overall message in WP:ARBCC.

Speaking of interrupting one's activities... now you've distracted me from the AE complaint I was drafting seeking a renewed 1-week block.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, this has nothing to do with your edits or reasons. Whether I agree or disagree... I have not yet said. Rather, I'm opposing your process. Work together to improve the thing, within our behavioral guidelines, or cram your views down everyone's throats. Even when I agree with some POV-crammer's views, I still object because I am opposed to view-cramming. Use the talk page after you've been reverted, without insulting others or their motives, and all is well. Do otherwise, and expect a different response. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Spamming

Please don't copy paste entire threads (which I deleted here). See WP:TPG especially the part about WP:MULTI. Instead, just ping other eds with a link to the thread, such as this for example. To pipe that link I entered [[Talk:Feeding_Everyone_No_Matter_What#Spamming|this for example]]. Read more at WP:EFAQ#LINK NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. But could you please respond to my comment that I was improving articles, not just plugging a book? Thanks. Stonejm9 — Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

PS You have indeed started some good improvements at Food security. Please see my changes there, and discuss on that talk page if you like. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve SolaRoad

Hi, I'm Fisheriesmgmt. NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for creating SolaRoad! I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Great start! I look forward to seeing this article expanded to better explain the notability of the SolaRoad. Let me know if I can help!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page

You've left comments on my talk page. I responded there (I don't know if you'll get a notification in that case). Feel free to delete this section once you've seen it. Thank you. - Embram (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

OK NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you receive a notification when I respond to a reply of yours on my Talk page? Just wondering. - Embram (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no "Notification" as in a yellow bar at the top, but I do get notified via a bolded entry in my WP:Watchlist NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing Notifications

I haven't been able to find out whether it is proper etiquette to remove a notification, like bare URLs, once you think you have addressed the issue. Thanks. Stonejm9 — Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I could give a better answer if you provide a WP:DIFF so I can see what you're talking about. Generally, on your own page you can delete what you want so long as you don't change the meaning. Archiving at your own page is preferred, but not required. I delete stuff not worth keeping from my own page all the time. Removing a warning or FYI alert is considered evidence that you read its contents. See WP:OWN. If we're talking about some place other than your own talk page, you'll hvae to be more specific. Hope that helps. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks-it was on Feeding Everyone No Matter What about the references. I put into the talk page that I thought I had addressed it. But it still has not been removed after several days.Stonejm9 — Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like me to keep taking you seriously, please demonstrate an interest in skills-building by (A) signing your posts, and (B) providing a WP:DIFF to whatever you are talking about. I'll be glad to help if you keep showing an interest at building the skills required. Recommend studying the WP:Talk page guidelines. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the etiquette page. Here is the WP:DIFF.Stonejm9 (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now I know what you mean. Yes, if you think you have resolved the issue, just delete the tag. If there is a thread about the issue already on the tag page, also make a note there about your fix. If the other party disagrees they will let you know. Hopefully the other party will initiate or respond to a talk page discussion instead of merely putting the tag back. HOWEVER.... some eds seem to enjoy tagging, then retagging, then retagging... but without ever engaging discussion on the talk page.... some of us call that "drive by tagging". Once you've removed the drive by tag enough times, someone then pounces on you with a complaint about WP:Edit warring, which might lead to your account being temporarily blocked. The system isn't supposed to tolerate that, but its hard to prevent. Point is, if the other person puts the tag back but refuses to engage in talk page discussion, don't get sucked into that delete-theyrestore-youdelete-theyrestore thing. Instead, you could... let it be for awhile; or initiate WP:Dispute resolution; or ask for more help here, or the WP:Help desk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Appreciation appreciated!

Thank you for taking a few seconds to say "thanks" regarding that oy-vey-I-still-have-a-lot-of-work-to-do-here nuclear winter article—you effectuated a significant improvement in my less-than-auspicious Friday the 13th! (For what it's worth, I'm not any kind of Big Ol' Wikipedian—just a random OCD-afflicted teetotaler way more amused by nit-combing an article about existential threats to humanity than by watching my boyfriend shoot nine-ball at some biker bar.) Best to you for a fine Saturday the 14th— Julietdeltalima (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Jacobson

Ok, thank you for your advice. I corrected that, important are the papers in Energy Policy. Andol (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

List article

How does one create a "list article" as you mention on Arthur Ruben's talk page here? Is there a template which displays an article's current edit stats? Much appreciated! Jim1138 (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Create a user space page. I typically do that by going to my sandbox, and then manually replacing "sandbox" with "whatever" in my browser's address bar. You'll be asked if you want to create the page. Say yes.
• Fill your blank page with your list. In this case, links to pages you think the IP might visit. If you want to also monitor the associated talk pages, in the way I do it, I have to add the talk pages as a unique entry.
• Optional, but consider adding Template:Noindex to the top of your list

To use it for the purpose I described, open your list and then under tools click "related changes" (on my screen its to the left of the editing frame). Note that this is not "recent changes" (third link in sidebar) but "related changes" under Tools. Here is my test sample. You are invited to tweak my test however you like and I'll enjoy seeing the results.

That's all there is to it! Good luck NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and fast response! Like this User:Jim1138/list? There wouldn't be a template that would take an article as a parameter and display it like a line on one's watchlist? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me and I don't know about such a template, but that means little since I don't know much about them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI/COIN

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. I moved your AN/I thread to WP:COIN. Additionally, I notified the user because both ANI and COIN require that if you're discussing a user's actions that you notify them. Sam Walton (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, half thanks. I did not realize or had forgotten we have a COI noticeboard so thanks for telling/reminding me. However, I'm disappointed that we're now jumping on a specific editor, because I had not yet attempted a friendly 1-on-1 approach, and my posting was only intended to prepare me to deal with these situations. There have been and will be others and the issue as I stated was about teaching me. Now suddenly we're thumping on this subject matter expert instead of training a willing editor (me) to work with them in a DONTBITE way designed to further their constructive participation in welcoming way. No wonder we have a retention problem! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well unfortunately that's the rules for these boards where user conduct is discussed. Honestly though I doubt they're going to read the post and be discouraged, you've obviously been very careful to say that it's not the case that we're jumping on them or having a go at them. FWIW I think their conduct is worth discussing at COIN but the COI talk page might have been a better place to ask questions and avoid the notification requirement. Sam Walton (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Tobis graph

I noticed that the graph you posted on Arthur's talk page is licensed as NC-ND. That's not actually a Wikipedia-compatible license. You might email Michael Tobis and ask him to release it under a more open license (e.g., with a link to OTRS). Given the simplicity of the graph, he might be amenable. Guettarda (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I have pinged Tobis a couple times, no reply. His original hand drawn image was posted in his blog, which I think becomes CC 3.0 after passage of a year or so, which is long past. Not that my ambiguous ramble resolves the technical issue you've raised. I'll look into it further, eventually. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Ocean Acidification

Wasn't sure if I should post this here or on my talk page. Hadn't heard anything from you, so I thought I'd try here.

Hey, sorry about that. New to all of this, just trying to positively contribute. I am fairly certain that the idea of cultivating algae could be a viable method to remediate ocean acidifcation, distinct from iron fertilization, but am unable to find research that directly addresses the subject. I thought research that showing that algae raises the pH of water it is grown in would be sufficient to support the idea that growing algae could theoretically abate ocean acidification. So in the absence of research that addresses the subject directly, how do you think I should proceed? I do intend to do original research on the subject once I've gotten to that point in my career, but I'm unfortunately not quite there yet. Thanks for your input. --Robgohome (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome. Please read the instructions at WP:Original research. When you say "I am fairly certain that (xyz...) but am unable to find research that directly addresses the subject", that is pretty good indicator that you can't add it. No one here really cares that much about all the things I'm "fairly certain of". What they all are about is summarizing the WP:Reliable sources in a neutral manner with appropriate due weight NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh‎ page

You were right, and I was wrong. I struck what I wrote there and apologized. I also emailed Jeroen and apologized. I apologize to you too. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and water under the bridge; however I have a keen interest in fostering civil collaboration even when diagreeing - especially when disagreeing - in the future. Got plans along those line? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

are you asking if i intend to behave better in the future? Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Rhetorically only, I ask myself the same question regularly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

then i will forgo answering. again, my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I am learning slowly how this Wikipedia system works. Please have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeroen_C.J.M._van_den_Bergh, item "selected papers". As explained there in detail, my concern is general (for articles about scientists) and particular (for the respective WP article on JCJM van den Bergh), namely that one needs to allow some space for noting the most relevant work from scientists, not limiting to the (coincidentally most cited) works. I also argue that a narrow citation focus is ad hoc, beause not (or not frequently/systematically) used for motivation a short list of selected papers in articles on scientists elsewhere in WP. Would be good to add another opinion there, perhaps by you (or is there a better way to invite opinions if one gets stuck in a discussion?). I am open to any suggestion.Research83 (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll consider renewing my efforts at Wikipedia mentoring when you do something besides your own self-promotion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue in a cli fi nut shell

The issue in a nutshell, talk from dan bloom Chiayi77 re and if wish to chat priveatelyu by emaik email me at danbloom@ in the gmail accounts I will take "Cli-Fi (disambiguation)" as a title for a new stub, and I will stop pestering the learned professor W here whose views i respect but disagree with. Can't we all get along? Yes do reply to me not here byu at email. Dan (Chiayi77 (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).(Chiayi77 (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).(Chiayi77 (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).

Meaningful WP:CONSENSUS isn't forged in backrooms and private side conversations. Rather, it happens through article talk, supplemented by the various tools found at WP:Dispute resolution. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Problems with another editor

Speaking of user Chiayi77, why are his long, irrelevant walls of text and personal attacks on me, including unsourced accusations, continuing to be allowed on the Talk page? I find it unprofessional that Wiki has been notified, but these attacks haven't ended, and they go against Wiki policies. Is it possible to enforce your rules there? Every single day I read the Talk page, there is a new assumption about me, my identity, my agenda, my purposes, and so on--none of which are ever sourced, and which I have defended against, but seem to be the inane ramblings of an insane person. That the help grievance and official email went in to complain about this, but that nothing has been done, is beyond me. He is purposefully trying to make me look bad, whereas I think I've been objective in dealing with the improvement of this article. I opened official arbitration about this via private email due to the sensitive nature of the wrongful identifications and/or uncited accusations directed toward myself and two other women. What can I do next to prevent this continued harrassement? LynnS79 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

First, at article talk it's best not to discuss another ed's behavior. Save that for usertalk, dispute resolution, or ANI.

Second, usually it's up to the ed claiming harassment (or whatever) to take action. The best approach starts with trying to work it out via the WP:TPG at usertalk. If that's hard and you think it would help, move to the various options at WP:Dispute resolution, or if you think DR would be futile file a formal complaint at WP:ANI. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry about mentioning the user here, but I have gone these other routes, with no response

Extended content

and no stopping of the personal attacks. I am the ed claiming harassment. I have tried to reason with the user at the article's Talk page, but the long wall-of-texts continue against me; it is clear that any further addresses to him regarding the nature of the problem will just provoke further attacks. I have opened a grievance for Help to come to the Talk page. A help statement came up, and was "resolved", but the user I mentioned hasn't stopped his attacks. Two mods have warned him against personal attacks at the Talk page, and he opened another dialog today comparing me to some woman who killed her baby in a religious story (confusing). This is just so out of hand I can't believe this is allowed to happen. I also followed procedure to Oversight (oversight-en-wp) regarding this (and other sensitive and confidential unsourced material about other persons this user has referenced with false claims, both on the Talk and in the Article pages). I followed this procedure by sending an email, as recommended when the nature of the grievance is private. And still, there has been no response. I have been falsely accused several times of being someone else, and then even yet another person, my talks have been edited by this user, he has removed talk sections that support my suggested changes, he has removed his own talk sections that support views he has that are contradictory to what media reports about this genre, the user here has admitted trying to figure out who I am over and over, he has tried to coerce personal information, he has falsely also accused an innocent professor (whose name still sits unreferenced in the first section of the article--surprising that this is still there since some mods came in to clean up the article between yesterday and today), and he has perceived a "war" against myself, a professor, and the curator of a website (thankfully a mod removed that mention). There is no agenda, there is no "war", there is only an honest effort to clean up an article that had had several problem issues since its origination. Please help.

LynnS79 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

One of those "other routes" is WP:ANI, where a search on your username comes up dry. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Mods and felllow eds, when Lynn says this quote unquote above, speaking of her well-intenioned efforts to clean up the page: "There is no agenda, there is no "war", there is only an honest effort to clean up an article that had had several problem issues since its origination." But she conveninetly neglects to say that the only reason I have chimed in here is beecause she lobbied strongly and vehemently to CHANGE the TITLE of this article, that is all I was ever protesting. I like the new links and the new content. Why can't Lynn see that all i m proesting is the TITLE NAME CHANGE,which she orchestrated and engineered and which I had to go along with of face the possibility of the entire page, my page, my hard for since 2013 when I made the stub, DELETED? That is all i am proesting and ...i want my title back, that's all. The new links and names and content are great. I never wanted to he be hero of cli fi. I have always stayed out of the limelight and in the background. I am not writing a book, I am not monetizing my work or branding it, I am not appearign on TV talk shows, I am just a journalist and PR guy with an idea. When the media started reportign the rise of the cli fi motfi/meme/term, they needed to quote someone, so they sometimes quoted me, since I was the guy who sent them the press release. But i never wanted to be a hero. I am not that kind of person. I lead a very happy life out of the spotlight. I am a shy, retiring, soft-spoken person. I don't crave fame or money. I an anti-fame and anti-materialist. All I want now, before I die, is my title back, restored and the page nicely repplensihsed with new blood and new links and new names. Good! I love the new page, just not the inoorrect title. If it cannot be restored to CLI FI, then i would settle for renaming it Climate-change Ficiton since that is the real genre we are talking about here and NOT imate fiction which is a meaningless, terrible term! ALSO NOTA BENE: When Lynn talks of so-called personal "attacks" something I never do, and never engage, but she "perceives" my words that way, and if that is her percetion of the world, I accept that, but she should acknowledge that she has also from the very beginning attacked me and my work with cli fi, too and that was very unseemly and unbecoming, but did i ever complain she was "picking" on me or "harassing" me or "attacking: me? No, this is par for the course when people discuss things in a heated way in anonnymous forums where we cannot see or speak to each other face to face. She gives as good as she gets and a good debater should face her own faults, too, and not just hit out at the other person, in a vacuum. she has used every word in the book, almost, to slam my work, my term, and my religious parables (that was HUMOUR, Lynn, humor). Sheesh! She needs a vaction! I am glad she is getting one this spring break. Peace to you lynn and mellow out up there. AND WATCH: she will slam for writing what i just wrote, saying i am picking on her again, harrassing her aagain, attacking here agian. Lynn, that is NOT the case. Do a reality check. Please. I like you. I am not your enemy. I applaud your new links and work here. Just please give me back my title name for the page or let me have a new title page called "Cli-fi (disambiguation)", ALSO JUST A THOUGHT AND NOT SEXIST AT ALL: part of the problem in this chat between me and Lynn is the iddea from a book by a woman titled Men are from mars and women are from Venus in that i think men and women argue things in diffrent styles, and one style is NOT better than the other or SUPERior to the other, just differnt and based on how men and women are raised differently in our culture. I believe men and women are equal and deserve equal pay etc etc, but boy we are different in the way we argue, no? Not better or worse, jsut differnet, i have noticed this all my life and i see it here especially. Men are from mars and women are from venus, for sure. Science Fiction?

(Chiayi77(talk) 04:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)).

Folks, get a room. Or decide to self-impose one of these IBANs. Or something. But don't do it here, please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@LynnS79:, along the way you have opined that some worthy material from an earlier version of this article was lost. I'd be willing to look at what you are talking about, but you will have to provide a WP:DIFF from the version history.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Irony alert

This is in regards to my comment here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

So you are going to go on and on about your stupid idea and waste my time. And you mix it with a personal attack. Why do you have to just grind people down and make them sick and tired of the whole business? It is not pleasant in the least to have to deal with you - you just waste my life with this stupidity. Dmcq (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

AGF is about all I can say there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

IT

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

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

Thank you

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

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

Nomination of SolaRoad for deletion

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

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

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

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

Parsing?

I am still perplexed by your request and subsequent complaint.[2] Why would you be looking through diffs? If you want the {{cite}} sources for a given revision, just click "edit" to see the code. It should take seconds to grab them, not an hour. On the talk page I have been arguing that scholarly sources should be preferred over foxnews.com et al. It shouldn't be surprising that my changes reflect that. Manul ~ talk 17:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

See WP:OWNTALK.

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

Surface Stations Project

You might be interested to know that this "project" appears to be moribund. If you look at http://www.surfacestations.org/ you'll see the "news" was "Updated" in 07/30/2012; and that concerns a paper that still hasn't appeared [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussion

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

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

Merger discussion

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

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

Regarding Scientific opinion on climate change

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

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

move thread

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

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

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

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

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

Allen quote

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

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

Come back soon

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

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

Ditto William M. Connolley (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be back. Good William M. Connolley (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but you should expect only a rare comment here and there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Blueberries

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

Arbitration Enforcement Notice

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

If the goal is constructive collaboration wouldn't that energy be better spent taking me up on my pending offer to do DR at the DR venue of your choice? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Retirement/long wiki break

I was very sorry to see the Arb filing, and sorry (but understand) that you're sick of the whole thing. We've had our differences, but I've always felt you are a conscientious and diligent editor. Good luck with the sewer project. Maybe you'll realize you just can't miss the Project a few months down the line? Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Funny.... I think roots from the animosity tree have created a total blockage even that far down the line, however. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sankey diagram of Earth's energy budget

Hello, NewsAndEventsGuy. You have new messages at Cmglee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Complaint

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No there isn't, unless you're posting as I type. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, here is the filing and discussion so far. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Skipping some additions, here is the closure NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

DS alert (Climate Change)

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.

SageRad (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh I don't mind. I already sent this to myself multiple times. In contrast, you have failed to read the instructions for the DS tag and have exposed yourself to my complaint that you are abusing the alert system for purpose of harassment and battlefield mentality. I have no immediate plans to make an issue of it, but if your behavior becomes an issue at ANI/AE, I may choose to mention this in a list of DIFFS. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Self alert DS climate change (to make a record in the server)

Come to think of it, I may not have received one of these in the last 12 months so I want to refresh it. Sage appears to have just copy pasted the one I gave him (as evidenced by the server's log not detecting it). So to set a record on the server, here is one again.... hey NAEG! You BOZO! Don't you know that.... that was humor

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) 01:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hello N. I saw your ping of NeilN at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 124#Consensus is not working and I wanted to let you know that he hasn't edited since Dec 24. You might have already noticed this but, in case you hadn't, I wanted to let you know so you'll know why he might not reply anytime soon. Cheers and have a good week. MarnetteD|Talk 22:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

DS Alert - US Politics - sending to myself

@Guy Macon: Hey Guy, what is the abbreviation for DS template applicable to the Malheur chaos? I'd like to use to self alert but it wasn't obvious from the template documentation what abbreviation to use, unless I just read too fast. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC) OOps. sorry to bother you ,but I found it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just leave him

I notice you replying on the policy page to B's silliness. I really think it is best to just leave him alone as far as possible. I'm wondering if he is going a bit off the rails with the paranoid stuff and it's best not encourage that if so. I don't think reasoning or pointing at the policies is going to get him on track, especially from any of the ones he calls bullies. Dmcq (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaine Cooper

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaine Cooper. Thanks. Reinoutr (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC) --07:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

here it comes

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

LavaBaron (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, I needed that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I give you some unsolicited advice? Asking for a review of your own actions at ANI is akin to insisting that the firing squad use 50 Cal machine guns. It just makes a bigger mess and the outcome is the same.

That being said, best practice for what you were trying to do (which was a good idea BTW) is to limit your messages to the talk pages of the WikiProjects following the article and using a completely neutral script. What I do is make the wikilinked talk page section the title of my posting and use this script: "There is a discussion (linked above) which may be of interest to your project. Please join the discussion."

And if you ever feel the need to self report yourself again, feel free to message me instead. I am more than happy to review your actions quietly. Good luck on that article. Not my cup of tea particularly but I cannot ignore it as I live in the area. Oy. John from Idegon (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Why thank you! When the admin in question initially opted to not explain I almost put the spam vs noncavnass-appnote question to some other admins who have known my work for a long time but ironically I was trying so hard to not canvass/gamesystem I thought that might be inappropriate! Please take a bow for erasing some of the bad taste this experience left in my mouth. Nice ed retention work, there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ward (sheriff)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ward (sheriff). Thanks. Reinoutr (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, you beat me to it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

your edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In this edit [4] you added content sourced to Russia Today which has repeatedly been described in the RS noticeboard, and elsewhere across the vast expanses of WP, as non-RS. Here [5] you inject content that, though supported by RS, constitutes original analysis of the topic as the sources have nothing to do with the subject and their connection seems to have been inferred by you. You reworded this source [6] as "authorities have said ... low-key approach" when the source itself never quotes a single authority. You are editing way too fast and sloppily and rewriting the article as though it's your master's thesis instead of an exactingly accurate summary of the exact content reported in RS. LavaBaron (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Any problems you have with content and sources should be addressed on the article talk page. Meanwhile, as I have already alerted myself that DS applies, I will take time to make sure other eds the last day or two have all been equally alerted. If RT is considered non RS, I'm extremely happy to have that pointed out. Good eye. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The functional problem in question has to do with your editing specifically, and is not an issue of larger applicability to the group. This is why you are being informed on your personal Talk page, instead of the article Talk. That said, I have also pointed-out the issue the community is experiencing with the disruption created by "guerilla deletions" on the article Talk page and I strongly advise you review that as well. LavaBaron (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll file this under "behavior complaint too vague, ignore". If you'd like a measure of my willingness to work together, note my response to your comments at the Sherriff's AFD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is the direction you've chosen to travel. Best of luck on the road ahead. LavaBaron (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The direction I plan to travel, to the best of my abilities, is the Principles in the ARBs' US politics case, of which we are both already on notice. If you would like to cite a specific provision from that decision to see if we can do DR informally, by all means, feel free to start a new thread here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2016 (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.

Hammonds and clemency

Why shouldn't you do climate news? The pardon thing is important. The Hammonds have slim to none chance to get one. However, Obama, after some passage of time, could commute their sentences to one or two more years, instead of five. The pardon wipes the slate clean, and they had serious problems. I'm guessing that they're on their best behavior now, hoping for commutation action. Activist (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(A) Because I took a voluntary Tban, and further elaboration might be construed by some as a vio so I decline to elaborate.

(B) You could be right.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Conversations with P

Response to EW warning (used to be "Seriously?")

This is a reply to my EW msgs at this user's talk page NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow. What a ridiculous and rude message you left. Please learn to be civil. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk section

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge#Items_concerning_influence_of_religion_in_general.2C_and_Mormon_religion_in_particular

Thanks Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

DS template and EW msg you left on my talk page

Old title "So now you're back to threats?"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This was in response to my last ditch effort at the user's talk page before drafting an AE complaint seeking a 24 hour block. They reverted and posted this. You can lead a horse to water....NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Until you learn to be civil, I won't talk with you. Get off my talk page. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I did start drafting. As the only purpose of AE is to prevent problems going forward, it remains to be seen if the problem I think I see continues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued, at least for my part, at a third party's usertalk NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe you. You've consistently been uncivil with veiled and not-so-veiled threats, and when I've pointed out policy you've ignored it. I think your motives are self-evident and I see no point in trying to contribute when it's going to be met with your targeting behavior. If I do contribute again, it won't be on that article, so as I said before: stay off my talk page too. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

OK... if you change your mind and want to try to work things out I will gladly participate at the WP:Dispute resolution venue of your choice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should have thought of that before coming off as an uncivil asshole and writing up a hit piece as a threat. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It was just a little brush fire. You seem to be dumping gasoline on it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2016 (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.

Ha. I called it.

Of COURSE you were trying actively to scare or threaten me away. None of you have even bothered keeping the page or timeline up since, and the past 24 hours have been full of noteworthy changes and updates. Congratulations on harming the encyclopedia with your uncivil behavior. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

yawn NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Got the Bold Revert Comment

Hi, I finally received your comments on my user talk page about using the bold revert and talk options. I'm new to such things, so I apologize for any ruffling of feathers. HabandMan (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries, feathers are only ruffled when problems continue. I'm not perfect myself, still.... I'll be glad to offer suggestions if you ask. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Good evening,

Regarding your comment in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fossil_fuel_divestment#350.org_now_not_mentioned

Would this count as a credible source?

http://news.utoronto.ca/presidential-advisory-committee-recommends-targeted-fossil-fuel-divestment

Thank you,

Milan --Ilnyckyj (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilnyckyj (talk • contribs) 04:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you post this question at the WP:Reliable source noticeboard. The source is the University's own pressroom. Surely its "RS" (a 'reliable source') for purposes of saying the U thinks this or that or a team at the U thinks this or that. See WP:SELFPUB. However, I see there is also some outside journalism covering the story, which is almost certainly RS. Just google ["university of toronto" fossil fuel divest] and see what you get in the first 2-3 pages of hits. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Better WP coverage of US domestic revolutionary movements?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved elsewhere, see also WP:OWNTALK

---

Specifically, the article-group that I was referring to above would include the following articles and article-types:

1. Malheur occupation
2. Bundy standoff
3. Ammon Bundy
4. LaVoy Finicum
5. Cliven Bundy
6. Sovereign citizen movement

This article-group could also be strengthened and enhanced by adding or creating the following types of articles or projects:

1. Add to this article-group, any other articles regarding recent US armed revolution attempts.
2. Upgrade and improve our current redirect to the US Militia movement? (Currently only a redirect leading to a somewhat incomplete list of militias with a rather patchy history attached.)
3. Create a new article on the Constitutional sheriff's movement? A movement of US county sheriffs that preaches that Federal law is superceded and trumped by county law, see http://cspoa.org/about/.
4. Maybe we need to create a new article titled something like the "Federal overreach movement"
5. Maybe we also need a "Project" titled something like, "American domestic revolutionary movements."

Scott P. (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Rather than reply to the ideas here, I will give some thought to process, i.e., the best way you might float this idea to the greatest possible number of interested eds. My talk page is not that place, and runs risk that others might feel there's an inappropriate side-bar happening between us, which I know is not the case, but others might not understand. Stay tuned... my better reply will be the next one but gotta feed the family first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration of these ideas. I agree that your talk page probably isn't the best place for this discussion. As such, I've gone ahead and created the Project page that I "threatened" to create above. If you wouldn't mind, please visit it at Wikipedia Project: US Active Armed Movements Page (the UAAM Project), and let me know what you might think about it. If you might like it, you are cordially invited to be the second member of the new project. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it that way; I'll watch the project page but will only speak if inspired. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2016 (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.

Finicum and Bundys

Hi News And Events Guy,

Let's work together to improve this article-group. I've "toned down" that one "talk-page" request as you suggested. Your earlier requests for citations were good and helpful. Thank you for accepting this newer info which I have just added, which tends to shine a less-than-romantic light on what I will call the recent Bundy/ Finnecum attempted revolution. I've closely studied their actions, press releases, and writings, and I can confidently say that they were indeed attempting to start a revolution. In fact they have at various points stated exactly this.

I do sense, as you apparently doInserting in your comment to say... don't put words or motives in my mouth please; in fact, you'll do better if you hardly ever say "you" when pontificating on your subject matter opinions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC), that the Federal government may need to somehow be "checked" in it's seemingly never ending accumulation of power, but I do not agree with the Finicum/ Bundy's that the best way to "check" it at this point, would be via a revolution. At this point, it still seems to me that far more dialogue is first necessary, followed by attempts to "check" expanding federal power through legal means and not yet via violent ones.

It is my hope that the Finnicum/Bundy attempted revolution might stimulate such a dialogue. Perhaps through the careful editing of this article-group, the stimulation of such a dialogue could also be assisted by the thoughtful and accurate information carefully provided by editors like you and I in this article-group. Your interest in this article-group is good and I hope we can work together well on this article-group. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC) An aside... Personally, I wonder if the current political environment in this country (the US) might not also be, at least in part, a reflection of a certain general disatisfaction on the part of many with the same phenomenon, namely the seemingly unchecked growth of the power of the central government, and a growth that is often seemingly contrary to the liberty and freedom of the individual. Just an aside.... Scott P. (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Re Scott, who declared

"I've closely studied their actions, press releases, and writings, and I can confidently say that they were indeed attempting to start a revolution."

Scott - that may be, but the fact is I don't care. What I do care is whether there is enough WP:WEIGHT in what wikipedia calls a WP:Reliable source to say this, and if not, then tough, we can't say it either and you should blog or write for HuffPost or something. We talk RS, and only RS, and leave our own analyses out of it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Later, after much back and forth at other venues, I added a section about Finicum's goals at his biography's talk page.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Please allow this Project which only requires transparency, integrity, and collegiality as requirements for membership to continue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

housekeeping note: this is about Scott's initial launch of the Wikipedia:WikiProject US Active Armed Movements NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC) I recognize that the UAAM Project requirements for Transparency, Integrity, and Collegiality may be a bit foreign to most of Wikipedia editing. Granted. Generally I find the majority of editing in WP to be quite opaque, never knowing who or how many sock-puppets are editing at any time or place. Due to the lack of transparency, I generally find little integrity, with most editors preferring to attempt to use procedural maneuvers to make their voice the "loudest" in any given article, rather than listening to simple truth and logic. Due to the general lack of Transparency and Integrity, I also find little Collegiality, just like your attempt just now to maneuver me into silence by repeating the "edit war" mantra over and over again on my talk page, instead of actually talking logic and reason in a friendly manner with me. Please don't try to squelch this project page just because you may not like it or the values it stands for. Or do you? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The project page as first launched violates a number of wiki policies and guidelines, in my opinion. My input thus far hasn't been welcomed so I will probably stay clear, but time will tell. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2016 (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.

Just a thought...

Saying an edit doesn't fit with WP:NPOV doesn't necessarily mean that WP:AGF isn't being followed. VQuakr (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

As a general idealized principle I agree. Back on earth, were you privvy to the militant-label edit wars a few months ago? Rhetorical question. Further mentoring in this area isn't needed, I think. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

All the best. VQuakr (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

:::Note to self, related encore

Barnstar

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)

thanks MB298

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

DS alert stuff (mostly test messages to me)

Achive note.... I tried pasting more than 30K of data here, related to mostly test DS alerts I sent myself. It triggered the pink box, which I didn't expect and wasn't intending. Trying to figure out what to do, the bytes on my clipboard were (ooops) overwritten. But the messages are still in my talk page version history here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

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.

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

Good advice for everyone

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)

Not so gratuitous

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

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)

Consensus clause

What should we do about it, then, short of ignoring its existence? El_C 17:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Since the conversation was already started at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus_clause I'll reply there, per WP:MULTI NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Weedy mud

" (Undid revision 783237563 by Lulu71339 (talk) revert good faith; This would be great in the Politics of global warming but this is a bit of weedy mud for this top level article, IMO)"

If this is the intent, then the rest of that section should be deleted as being "weedy mud" as well. If the article is doing the history of who advocated the phrase "global warming" versus "global climate change," then this is this relevant. If the article is not doing the etymology of who used "global warming" versus "global climate change, then most of the text of the section should be deleted. Lulu71339 (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi I supplemented the quoted edit summary with a courtesy note at usertalk, but per WP:TPG and WP:BRD this conversation belongs on the article talk page so others can agree with you (or not) as well. If you wish, you're welcome to move this entire thread including my comments to the article talk page.

Having studied it more, and going back through versions to 2011, I still think it belongs in a sub article but now I think your edit could be restored to the section and then the entire section should be replaced. Instead of etymology as the final section of this already dense and long article, let's do two things (A) export etymology (including your addtion of the Luntz memo) to a subarticle, and (B) insert at the top a "terminology" section, just like we did at Climate change. We could create Etymology of global warming and other destination candidates for that material might include Global warming controversy, or Politics of global warming or Public opinion on global warming. See also WP:Main article fixation and the last time we debated the Luntz memo at Global warming, now found in the archives.

Thanks for shining some light on that section

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Notable

Hey! thanks for the advise. glad someone is reading the content!! Made some edits... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, and though you're working hard, I'm not really impressed by the content. Looks like a fairly indiscriminate catalog of loosely associated events in the news. See WP:What Wikipedia is not. I'm also not real happy with the article's title but I'm not interested enough to try to work on solutions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It's just going to get worse. It's a sad story in our American experience. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This isn't the place to try to deal with (whatever). How about finding or starting a group to work on (whatever) in your town? This is an encyclopedia project, and I'm not really interested in discussing current events socially. I move my feet in real life when I want to do that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Impeachment of Donald Trump

The content I added to the lead was not featured in the body of the article, but I was just providing a definition of impeachment. I would say /most/ people do not know that impeachment does not constitute being removed from office. Should I add a definition in the body or what would you suggest? Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡ _ᐁT₳LKᐃ 01:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

For examples see Efforts to impeach George W. Bush and Efforts to impeach Barack Obama. Notice they use the phrase, more or less, "impeach and remove from office" (paraphrased). We could just wikilink similar text to take the reader to our best article on the impeachment process for US presidents, whatever page that is. But I do agree that readers would benefit if we help them realize they may not realize they don't know what "impeachment" means, and then provide them with the information. Good idea. What do you think about the wikilink idea?

(-)

Instead of answering here, you're invited to just cut and paste this whole thread to the article talk page, so others can also contribute. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

DS Alert Climate change

yep, i know. answer on my talk page Gem fr (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Project namespace

It's great to finally see someone interested in helping workout the meaning of our administration pages. Been a long time since an editor seems to care about this. Would love to hear your main concerns and how they can be addressed. WP:RULES lists the types of pages with a brief explanation....we should look at this page as the start point.--Moxy (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm equally impressed with your gratitude (instead of outrage) and the obvious attention you have been giving the matter over several months. Look forward to your further comments at the thread I just started at the VPump Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Have_some_essays_unintentionally_been_given_quasi-rule_status. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you have a different name before....you don't seem familiar and I can't believe I have not talked to you before. Your the kind of editor I love to engage with. I have written a lot of pages that link from our P/G as well as the P/G themselves. If you ever have time would love your input at Wikipedia:Administration it's a page linked from our main P/G page.....have only ever gotten 1 person to review it. Lots look at this page and would love a good review of it. Not sure you have noticed my talk page grammar and spelling all off....I have MS and don't bother fixings typos on talk pages as I would with articles. PS again great to meet you again if that's the case.--Moxy (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Why thanks! No, I've been NewsAndEventsGuy since I got interested in editing in 2011. I only watch a few admin pages. Mostly I pay attention to science and climate articles, some politics. I'll take a look at it, but not promising speed. Feel free to remind me in a month if I haven't said anything. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As you can see not much interest in our problem. Perhaps its because the current template explains things in a reasonable manner so no one really cares. What do you think would be best....should we make a separate section for the supplemental template. ..or move it to the essay section? The only real problem I see with moving the template to the essay section.....is that these pages generally do supplement things in a neutral way and are edited by the community with RfC to determine there content. We are lucky that the template is hardly used. Perhaps a sub section under essays explain more about them...how they are edited by the community and detail information about a preferd method of dealing with a specific situation....yet do not have full community support or deal with a process that is just the community norm and have no need to be detailed in a policy or guideline.--Moxy (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep, on different issues I've banged my head on this same wall before. Please see the first part (above the first outdent) of User:NewsAndEventsGuy/BRD; maybe a place to start is to chart the evolution of the ideas, and organize the crumbs chronologically. If we spend gnomish hours doing that, the result might inspire ideas, including pinging eds who cared at one time (if they are still around) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(Later) TWO-PART IDEA, goal is to resolve ambiguous status of essays and create more transparency. First, we should make two tweaks to Template:Supplement. For starters we could change the optional parameter for naming the relevant policy(s) or guideline(s) to a requirement. Then, since we provide insturctions to only use it after strong consensus, we should require at least one link to one thread showing this consensus. Otherwise, the "Supplement" tag should not be allowed. Second, all essays tagged with Template:Guidance essay should undergo WP:USERFICATION after a reasonable process of notice at the relevant policy/guideline talk pages in case someone wants to advocate for elevating them to "Supplement" status. Thereafter, Template:Guidance essay should be converted to a redir pointing at Template:Supplement. An open question is what to do with other similar essays that have no tag, but in reality if they have no tag they probably don't have any impact so who cares? That said, I suppose people running across an obscure essay that is presently missing the "guidance essay" tag could be nominated for userfication if anyone cares enough to bother. If we did this, we would resolve the paradoxes and contradictions we've been discussing, and ensuring "supplemental" essays really do have backing of a consensus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE Instead of userfying "Guidance essays" that don't make the cut to "supplement" status, we could replace the "guidance essay" template with a new "Draft supplement essay" template. Good drafts can bubble up into suppelements, bad drafts that fail to keep the community's attention eventually turn into stale drafts and become ripe for MFD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

In my view Guidance essays and Supplemental essays are 2 very different things. We also dont userfy essays just because there not widely seen. Plus Category:Wikipedia guidance essays contains both project and user pages. Your proposing alot of change when really very very few pages use the "Supplement" tag. To be honest I am thinking of proposing a merger of templates .....drop the "Supplement" tag all together. Not to many will go for more bureaucratic creep for pages that are not P/G.....would be very hard to convince the community to have 3 levels of pages VS the longstanding norm. Will explain more in a bit.--Moxy (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Moxy: we think in the same basic direction! If the supplement tag gets the ax, what do you propose we do with the essays that are already tagged with it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Tag them with Template:Guidance essay.....Category:Wikipedia supplemental pages has very few essays and would not change there status as in there not a P/G. Some seem to think only pages linked from a P/G have this.....certainly not the case thousands of essays not tagged as "Supplement" are linked from P/G. As seen at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.--Moxy (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, if the idea to delete template supplement comes up elsewhere I will support unless something changes my mind.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

How-to template

Good proposal for the name change. This is the type of proposal that will get attention I think. Been writing on G/P/I pages for a decade now and find that if you don't propose a solution or solutions to a precived problem the proposal goes nowhere. I was thinking of nominating the suplement template for merger...but noticed your taking the time to review where it's placed etc. You want me to leave it be for now?....see if others raise a concern? What your doing in reguards to changing it in places looks good to me.-Moxy (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks, as I have spent time loading it in my brain I keep being surprised at the things I have never seen after years here and just ho much creep has crept in. Thought we could whittle on that a bit. I don't see vast numbers of pages linking o most of these and doubt anyone has made systematic attempt to validate the template choices. Guess my thought was to clean up the low I,pact items as much as we can and then take stock. Expect ending the supplement tag will generate lots of strong though poorly reasoned opinions, and while I think that's a good idea it might help matters to clean up the little stuff as much as possible. Should be a long process I would expect. At any rate I appreciate the note, I probably would lose interest much faster than you if I found the task as lonely as you have. Definitely pulling oars same general direction here. Let's see how how to goes then take stock. 12:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

MoS has the biggest creep problem....when I first read the MoS it was only 5 or 6 pages.....now over 75. Stick around the topic of P/G/I pages....very few of us that work on these pages.....but we are all very level headed and support common sense changes by editors to these pages.--Moxy (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help Project

Instructor's Barnstar .....great work!-Moxy (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; There sure is a lot of overlap between templates and namespaces. As you probably noticed from my contribs or otherwise, I experimented moving a couple low impact/low traffic "wikipedia how-to" pages from Wikipedia namespace to Help namespace. That seemed to go OK so later i started moving others. BTW, Moxy, is there anywhere in the rabbit hole you haven't been? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

lol....big hole.....perhaps time for new reports? They be of use to you...... Wikipedia:WikiProject Essays/Assessment/Links and Wikipedia:Help Project/page statistics.....will look into this in the upcoming weekend .--Moxy (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, as dustballs go this housekeeping task is on the large size, for sure. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Moxy:, those are great tools. Is there a tool that will report on help namespace pages that do NOT have template Foo? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately no....but you can look one by one.... thousands special help namespace.--Moxy (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Note to self, I'd like to suppress subpages on that tool NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yawn. That would be a great tool for cleanup projects NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

hard to keep track because of all the redirects between help and project namespace. .....that said I can delete pages if you need to move stuff....just ask.--Moxy (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've always found it odd that policies and the guideline and the MSO don't have their own namespace. This would also help with searching the topics at hand and would also help distinguish pages that are official vs non-official. it has been proposed in the past but for some odd reason the community doesn't want it but yet we have a help namedspace so editors can search things easier. Wikipedia space should be for process pages only.....but my understanding is this is just how meta software is set up all over outside Wikipedia. We are lucky that the MSO has a prefix that allows for searching.--Moxy (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that's odd as well. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

re: New Pages Fee

That would be one way of supporting the project, charging a fee for new pag.. oh.. never mind. :) --☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Did I make a funny typo someplace? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, indeed I did. Since this is my idea, I'm willing to license it to the Foundation for 1/1000th of 1 percent royalty. Whoooo hoooo, I'm rich!! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

AWB

Hi, I approved your request for AWB. Check out the manual for how to use it! Malinaccier (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

ARB Notification

Hi NAEG, is this notice here enough for a ARB warning, or do I have to use the template (can you link to it?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarioProtIV#Your_fringe_claim_at_Hurricane_Harvey Thanks prokaryotes (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

we used to have a warning system but emphatically rejected it in about 2013 or so. Now it is a no fault FYI "alert". anyone can give them to anyone else as soon as the recipient makes a topical edit, even a good edit. It's just FYI after all. Search on "discretionary sanctions" and read the general info for details. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info, found the notification. prokaryotes (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Simply repeating the code is now what we do

This seems to be a unilateral decision on your part, as I'm unaware of any discussion or consensus to repeat sections of US law verbatim. I went ahead and changed it to "Simply repeating the code is not what we do" over at Talk:United States Flag Code. –dlthewave ☎ 17:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That's funny! Thanks for the correction and subtle humor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on course assignment design

I appreciate your comments on the course assignment I designed. I like your idea of having students post on their own talk page. I am still very new to using Wikipedia for teaching, and I'm not a contributor myself. So, I certainly have work to do to learn the norms and practices. I apologize if I caused you a headache. Ian Porter (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem, and I'll be glad to help if you have specific questions. The idea of having students graded on their participation in WP:dispute resolution has always intrigued me. The response from other eds in a dispute is unpredicatble... some will be (or become) professional and civil if they think constructive effort is being made. Others won't. But of course that shouldn't matter. Its how students deal and respond that I find pedagogically interesting. By analogy, in a human development class I once had to parent a virtual child from gestation to age 18 over a semester. For fun, at each chance to input a parenting decision I tried to be the most horrible parent possible, and by the end of the semester my kid was addicted to crack and had been in jail multiple times. I was graded on assessment reports I wrote from the perspective of a case worker on the outside looking in. That would be really interesting to do with our dispute and consensus processes. Anyway, soapbox off. Drop me a note here if you need additional input beyond that of the editor that's helping with your project. You can also embed a "ping" for anyone at any talk page anywhere in the English encylopedia using the syntax {{Ping|UserName}}. Have funNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I was contracted by an IP address out of the blue...

I'm pinging a few people who may be involved with this [[7]]. Springee (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

To best of my recollection I haven't interacted with the IP, or the new username they flagged, and haven't talked to the old/former editor for a long time. Good luck. As an aside sometimes I think its easier to forget the LTA and just proceed simply with the current diffs showing (alleged) crap. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Global warming is real

Context, I reverted a new section at an article talk page, with edit summary saying simply "spam". I also marked the users post as 'unsigned' since their signature violates signature NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is it spam? It’s my opinion on global warming. And that’s the truth, that is what could happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IloveRumania (talk • contribs)

promoting external links without intending to discuss article improvements is not what we do; I'm not inclined to parse hairs over the words we use. See WP:SPAM WP:TRUTH and WP:NOTHERE just to name a few. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Move "Ice dam" to "Ice jam"?

There is a discussion at Talk:Ice dam#Move to "Ice jam" to move "Ice dam" to "Ice jam". You may be interested in offering your opinion. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Outcome at Talk:Ice jam

Hi Guy, thanks for working with me at Talk:Ice jam. I was a bit confused with your last edit, wherein you caused a lot of the record of the discussion to disappear. Was that intentional? I thought that generally one does not delete the record of discussion on a talk page and especially not what another editor wrote, per WP:SIGCLEAN. In any event, I understood you to be OK with my boldly editing the lead. Confusingly, you deleted from the discussion the portion that I thought best reflected where we were headed. I'll wait for a reply here, for a while. Absent one, I'll restore the missing text and add your most recent contribution at the end of the restored text. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Error on my part, thanks for calling to me attention. I think I fixed it. You're welcome to move/tweak my comments there to clean up if I did not fix it 100% NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)