User talk:Nigelj/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Prostate article, a discussion on its talk page

Hey, Nigel. Maybe if you weigh in on this, the IP will finally get the point. I don't know what else to state to the IP, but having a second voice of reason may help. Doesn't seem like I should bother WP:MED with this. And since I have the go-ahead from you to sometimes bother you with sexual topics or other topics that I may need assistance with on Wikipedia, as I've done regarding other cases, I decided to drop in here on your talk page and give this matter a shot as well. Flyer22 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

:-) --Nigelj (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Nigel. From here on out, I may ignore the IP if he keeps making the same arguments/proposals he's been making or if he makes any new proposals that we cannot take into consideration without violating a Wikipedia guideline and/or policy. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It is hard to strike a balance between welcoming the newbies and putting up with endless [couldn't think of the word]. I know I had no idea what Wikipedia was for and my first few edits as an IP were truly useless. Luckily someone was kind to me then, and I'm still here. --Nigelj (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, at first, I considered that the IP was trolling (and the IP did admittedly use humor, what I consider trolling-humor, in that initial post). I figured that the IP may be MikeFromCanmore trying to aggravate me. But throughout it all, I have kept open the possibility that the IP is not a troll or specifically MikeFromCanmore and that the IP truly does not know how Wikipedia is supposed to work in a case such as this. I decided to not be mean or otherwise hostile to the IP in any way; I usually don't like being those things, which helps. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I quoted you

here. Hope that was OK. Hans Adler 00:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely fine, Hans. I'm not sure that it is humanly possible to get anywhere with this, but I'm willing to help give it another try. --Nigelj (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Given the large percentage of US editors, we can expect that a majority or at least a large majority is in favour of circumcision because they take it for the normal case. And at each and every RfC and similar process on the topic, we can expect them to be far more motivated than the others to opine. I still think there is a lot that can be done, but passing this abomination as a GA was a big setback. Hans Adler 00:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: I just saw that the diff had no effect. He just removed my comment without so much as a response in the edit summary. Apparently a lot of editors will have to make a stink to make that POV template stick. Hans Adler 00:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Life cycle CO2 emissions by energy source article

You attached some citation needed tags in that article, I am puzzled, what specifically are you looking for? is it (1) Evidence that the Yale paper only looked at historical analyses from nuclear power plants? - Well that is evident in the Yale paper itself. They do no say anything about the CO2 emissions from Generation III reactors, only collating the findings of hundreds of papers that have already been published. Have you read the paper? There have yet to be any analyses of the CO2 emissions from Gen III reactors.

Or is it (2) you don't believe Generation III reactors are under construction? You can find plenty of evidence that they are indeed being built(one goes online this year) on the Generation III reactor page, if that is what you find contentious.

(3) Bear in mind I intend to heavily change the layout of the page to included many other studies in the coming days.(naturally I'd like your feedback when I do) There are a few things wrong with the article, The IPCC findings should be on top, and the Yale paper should be elsewhere and should not include predictions by 2050. Again, the article is not named - life cycle emissions of nuclear power by 2050. It is titled - life cycle emissions by energy source. However I do think it would be good if we included some of this material. See below*

(4) Would you like me to insert the range of findings from wind power? As has been done for nuclear power in a very unbalanced manner? I have asked, why the over analysis of nuclear power and the attempts at making it look controversial? It is no more controversial than the range of CO2 emissions from wind power. With harmonization both are ~12 g/CO2. However how much CO2 wind actually saves in practice(tied to a grid with gas turbines) contentions.**

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.x/full Life cycle GHG emissions of wind-powered electricity generation published since 1980 range from 1.7 to 81 g CO2-eq/kWh

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x/full

• The deployment of nuclear power technologies that consume little to no uranium ore would reduce the chances of large uranium market ore grade decreases. Theoretical FBRs have been evaluated in the LCA literature. The limited literature that evaluates this potential future technology reports median life cycle GHG emissions similar to or lower than LWRs and purports to consume little or no uranium ore.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.x/full

• • The thermal efficiency of fossil-based power plants is reduced when operated at fluctuating and suboptimal loads to supplement wind power, which may degrade, to a certain extent, the GHG benefits resulting from the addition of wind to the grid. A study conducted by Pehnt and colleagues (2008) reports that a moderate level of wind penetration (12%) would result in efficiency penalties of 3% to 8%, depending on the type of conventional power plant considered. Gross and colleagues (2006) report similar results, with efficiency penalties ranging from nearly 0% to 7% for up to 20% wind penetration. Pehnt and colleagues (2008) conclude that the results of adding offshore wind power in Germany on the background power systems maintaining a level supply to the grid and providing enough reserve capacity amount to adding between 20 and 80 g CO2-eq/kWh to the life cycle GHG emissions profile of wind power.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 07:25, 13 February 2013‎

Wrong venue - use article talk. --Nigelj (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting opinion

Hi, in my opinion an editor has hijacked the gift economy article and among other things deleted valuable content that you entered. He has done this without discussion and explanation. I currently am in a content dispute with him, so I'd like to ask if could come and revert the unwarranted delete. Perhaps if you will, you can give input on the dispute in the talk page also. thanks Tpylkkö (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have now gone through the history some what and I would like to let you know that I support your view that something has to be done to the article. Shrauvers has mass deleted content without discussion and omitting edit summaries. He has made the article a part of some anthropology ring and made the article focused on anthro. In doing this he has also deleted mention of sources that he does not like apparently (sources that are also anthropology). Still, some of the stuff he has added is probably valuable, and should be added after reverting to the early feb version.Tpylkkö (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Schrauwers seems to be saying that they're not finished, and the point that all that scholarly background is a good thing seems valid. they did say that they agree with me, that the article needs all the up-to-date information too. As you say, nothing on Wikipedia is ever 'lost' - it's always there in the history and can be reinstated at any time. My feeling is to let Schrauwers go for it for a while longer - making constructive criticisms where necessary as they work - and see how it ends up. They're certainly putting a lot of work into it, which is only a good thing. And all the history is there for ever if we need it later. --Nigelj (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

'60s Counterculture Timeline Notability

Have you been following the page? Thoughts, as to timeline and everything? -L001Learner001 (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right; it's time to act. I've invented a plan, and put it at Talk:Counterculture of the 1960s#Pruning the chronology. What do you think? --Nigelj (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Katieskyv and the Non-penetrative sex article

Hey, Nigelj, what is your take on this? For what I mean, see what I stated at User talk:Katieskyv. The editor is likely a student, and, as seen on her (I assume that the editor is a she, judging by the user name) talk page, I gave her some advice about her planned overhaul of the Non-penetrative sex article and offered to help. But she has continued editing her sandbox seemingly without any regard to what I've stated. If her version mostly looks like the version she is working on, or doesn't but has a lot of the same type of formatting issues, when it is implemented into the WP:MAINSPACE, I will revert. I don't like reverting people's hard work (unless the editor is very problematic), but I also don't like cleaning up after their messes, especially big messes. I and others have commented on such issues when dealing with student editors. If I revert Katieskyv's version, I will properly incorporate a lot of her text into the article at some point. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I think what you've done is a great start, User K has been working hard on that sandbox page until a few hours ago. We'll just have to see what happens next. I'll keep an eye too. --Nigelj (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Nigel. Thanks for the feedback and additional help. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

your name was mentioned

Hi Nigel,

FYI I mentioned your name on a user talkpage here. Your input welcome but is not requested by me, nor is really needed insofar as I am qualified to judge. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi NAEG. Thanks and well done. I too have been worried about that editor's edits and style. --Nigelj (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Reversion

Can you explain how footnote 7 differs from footnote 9 in Global warming controversy?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

D'oh! Thank you. Sorry. I suspected that that was the kind of 'redundant' you might have meant, and I even went as far as to search the whole of the source-text of the article for "Boykoff", but because of the 'cite doi' format in ref 7, the author's name does not appear in the editable source! Sorted now. --Nigelj (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Heh. I've used doi as a parameter many times but I hadn't run across the cite doi option. I had to look at it twice to see what was going on.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Request Authorization

Hi NigelJ

I am doing a manual for a Flight Simulator and I am doing a chapter on Air Navigation and would like to use the image - NDB transmitter at 49.205892,-2.219973. Callsign JW - Jersey West. 329.0 kHz.

I can credit you to the image if you want that...

Best Wishes FT56 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flightime56 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi FT56

That would be absolutely fine by me. I'm glad it may be of use. A small credit would be nice too. Which flight sim? --Nigelj (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Nigel, thanks for welcoming me, and yes, please do give me advice on posting and such. I know absolutely nothing about Wikipedia etiquette and suspect I need to start learning quickly. Also, I'm happy to provide comments on any energy related pages that you think might need it.Bksovacool (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

For the article

Hey, a lack of discussion to prevent consensus (and its more than just myself) is not a valid form of debate. Its been weeks, there is no magic "consensus" to keep or delete, but if the editors will not engage I will remove it. Or I can take it to DRN, but silence on their part doesn't help. There is nothing intrinsic for its inclusion, its just one of many pictures and the issues surrounding it have not been addressed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Per the note at the top of this page, this is the wrong place to discuss this. Please use the relevant article talk page. --Nigelj (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No one replied there about the content dispute in weeks. I am now discussing your actions, which is proper here and not on the talk page. Will you answer or not? Your little notice is one thing, but I this is between you and me, I've been advised that such discussions are not for talk pages and are best discussed on your talk page. Your revert and lack of action on it is a problem which dispute resolution standards are typically followed. Since this concerns your behavior, I prefer it be here, unless you are particularly offended by it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with you personally. If you have an issue with me personally, I suggest you look at WP:AGF first. I reverted your edit on one particular page because you have not received any consensus to make that edit on the talk page of that article. If you don't want to discuss your edit on the talk page of the relevant article that is not my problem. This is not "between you and me" at all, and I am sorry that you wanted to say that. --Nigelj (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And you continue to misinterpret. A lack of consensus building is not an indication of consensus and if there is no given reason for an image to remain then a contested image is best removed under the circumstances. It is not a problem with you at all, but instead how you try to be uninvolved when you are involved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Nigelj. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Flyer22 (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

mucho gracia

Thanks for archiving Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oral sex article

Perhaps you are interested in taking a stab at these matters? Whether you are or aren't, I'm pretty certain that the IP in question is the same person that some of us have encountered regarding urination matters, such as discussions about having a urination image in the Human penis article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done ;-) Nigelj (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:DMan2013

I'm not sure what to do about this editor; see, for example, his contributions at this time. And he finally responded after being silent during initial interactions. But one thing is for sure: I will have my work cut out for me more than I already do if he continues editing Wikipedia sexual topics. That type of editing is exactly why so many Wikipedia sexual topics are in bad or mediocre shape. I understand that he is a newbie and that I should not bite the newbies, but goodness. If I were as enthusiastic about Wikipedia as I used to be, I'd probably try to WP:Mentor him instead of simply pointing him to guidelines and policies. But WP:Mentoring takes so much work, and, as you know, I'm barely enthusiastic about this site anymore at all. Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out with you. No, we don't have any obligation to mentor every newcomer. Reverting and patiently pointing out relevant policies and guidelines is as good as we can do most of the time. --Nigelj (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And, yeah, I know. It's just that, like I've discussed with you before, we do need those who will be able to fill in for us when we leave; that's why one of the concerns with regard to Wikipedia is replenishing our ranks. Flyer22 (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Global warming talk page

Jeez, Nigel, I did not launch an edit war. (BRD is a great idea, but pertinent edit summaries usually work.) The first edit summary was based on "non-RS" and I pointed out that Moore is a Hoover Institute Fellow. As soon as another editor reverted I opened the discussion. Also, you are claiming that Liberty Fund is a right wing think tank, but Lawrence Summers & Joseph Stiglitz are two of the CEE authors (among many). I don't think they are part of the right wing.-- – S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) My view, Srich32977 (talk · contribs), is that you did. (A) You added stuff; (B) I reverted; (C) You reverted my revert with no discussion. Edit summaries you might use in Step C do not excuse you from first seeking consensus on talk pages before you take step C. Moreover, there is a lower tolerance in the climate articles than usual due to the ruling by the Arbs in WP:ARBCC. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Casual relationship moved to Casual sexual relationship

Your thoughts on this, whether you comment there or here on your talk page? Flyer22 (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I made a comment there. I'm not sure if it's actually useful, but that's the way I think. --Nigelj (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your thank-you note

You're quite welcome. Hope the editor is following and reading the links I gave in my edit-summary.TMCk (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

We get there in the end. :-) --Nigelj (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I would think so but reading his talkpage history I'm not so sure since he's got quite some strong feelings about his edits and knowledge about the subjects he's editing. IMO he still has to accept that we go by reliable sources, not personal knowledge or opinion. I understand that it can be difficult at times to dismiss personal views and (perceived?) knowledge and replace them by or back them up with sources but that's not an excuse for anybody to ignore the rules.TMCk (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You misread what the source says

Hi, your edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaginal_lubrication&diff=532774377&oldid=532771859, is wrong. Dry sex is a consequence of cleaning the vagina, NOT for the purpose of cleaning it. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have copied this note to the relevant talk page and commented there, so that other interested editors may join in if they wish. --Nigelj (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Food and Drink Barnstar
		Thanks for creating the new Food swap article, and for expanding the encyclopedia's coverage of Food and drink topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake

Hi, you wrote Red pen of Doom twice in your last post on Sheldrake talk. Did you mean to refer to two different editors, or was it just a slip and you only meant to write it once. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. My mistake. Fixed. Thanks for the heads-up. --Nigelj (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARE notice

There is currently an Arbitration Enforcement Request "Barleybannocks" regarding an issue in which you may have been involved. --Iantresman (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice idea but

Hi, I asked that once. In my opinion, the only road to consensus either way is to complete the proposed FAQ. If we can't come close to completing the FAQ I'll probably switch to "delete" in the next AFD and cite that failure as persuading me there is no satisfactory replies to one or more of the FAQs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Slang terms for men‎

Category:Slang terms for men‎, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

timing

If it looks like I responded at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming without reading your comment, guilty as charged. I had opened the page, saw NAEG's comment, and, after a work distraction, composed a response, which I posted, then realized others, mainly you, had posted in between. I think we are largely saying the same thing, which is good, but just in case you were wondering if I had seen your comment, the answer is not when I posted, but now have.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hope you approve

Nigelj and Gaba p (echoed at both your talk pages) I suppose I should have asked first but in light of the IP's choice to self-revert there was no purpose any more for some of our collective housekeeping comments so I deleted them. Certainly complaints about NOTFORUM would pertain to some of the earlier remarks, but hopefully the exercise of complaint-collapse-selfrevert has established a prvention-producing precedence (PPP). My apologies if I overstepped, and by so doing plunked my pedal in poo (also PPP). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Absolutely right. Good work. Thanks. :-) --Nigelj (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha! Except you removed your own comment from above the {cot}. I just restored it - never let it be said that anyone agreeing with me was 'rambling'! ;-) --Nigelj (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed that too and then the phone rang and I forgot. Guess I did find some doo doo. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Global warming conspiracy theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martin Durkin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Exception Handling

It is very clear that Throwable is considered to be a checked exception. For example the documentation of Throwable says "For the purposes of compile-time checking of exceptions, Throwable and any subclass of Throwable that is not also a subclass of either RuntimeException or Error are regarded as checked exceptions.". In order to catch all checked exceptions, it is necessary to use Throwable, not Exception. Not only is this highly relevant to the topic of the page, but the current version is misleading and incorrect. Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not about me. Your comments on article content should be made on article talk pages. --Nigelj (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Negligible for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Negligible 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/Negligible 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. KDS4444^Talk 06:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been mentioned on ...

You have been mentioned on a Wikipedia current climate change/global warming contributors discussion; of interest? (",) 141.218.35.19 (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Solar Roadways

The Solar Roadways AfD debate and talkpage is turning into an Edit War and an endless circular debate with DreamFocus. Can you recommend someone neutral/unbiased to arbitrate for us. He(she?) has decide that them and one other person (GreenC) constitute a "consensus" and keeps reverting my edits. GornDD (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on Talk:Deepak Chopra

[1] Thanks! Yes, I wish we could work at that level of scholarship. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Query

Hi Nigelj,

Sphilbrick has expressed concern over the bold "anthropogenic climate change" appearing in the first sentence of the draft text in the grey box. I included it mainly due to a belief on my part that this was important to you. I no longer remember which of your comments made me think that, and of course I might have been off my rocker when I first formed that impression.

Anyway, since this is one of the major sticking points on the current draft, how would you feel if we dropped ACC from the first sentence so that it becomes (more or less) "Global warming, also known as climate change is the warming of the earth's blah-blah and related blah?" It would work for me, and hopefully Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) as well though he hasn't had a chance to reply to my specific Q on that point yet (everyone's busy after all) and the thread is no so multi parted and long that he might not see it, (so I added a ping for him here to help move it along) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. I think you first used it, then I singled it out for bolding as it actually is a redirect to the GW page. I'm happy to drop it, and humbly suggest, "Global warming, also referred to as climate change, is the warming..." but I'm not too attached to that either. --Nigelj (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll give that a whirl tomorrow unless something else comes up. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You're doing a great job over there. Well done. --Nigelj (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and please keep them coming

Thanks very much for investing energy and time contributing thoughts on efforts to draft a new first lead paragraph for Global warming. Please note I just posted ver 5 of my idea, and would welcome further pro/con criticism. I'm attempting to ping everyone who has taken time to speak up after past versions. If I overlooked anyone, please let me know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have time, what do you think of hatnote suggestion #4, which uses some of your ideas combined with other ideas. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re #5: Oh no. We're back to GMST again. How did that happen? It's getting late here, and I have an early start tomorrow, so I don't have time to read the reams of new discussion at the moment. I don't agree that that is what this page is about, and actually consider that to be a divisive denialist 'take-out' meme, designed to get the discussion quickly onto the 'hiatus', and then to prove that we don't need to do anything. 'Global warming' is the increase in total thermal energy in a global climate system, which leads to all kinds of things, one of which is a measurable rise in GMST. Writing an article about just one of the observable effects, while taken together all of them are capable of destroying human civilisation, seems negligent to me. --Nigelj (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries, it's true I added #5 (GMST) but I only did that in an attempt at neutral housekeeping. I'm advocating #4, where the first sentence is your first sentence plus the word "system". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I like the addition of the word 'system'. Love it in fact. --Nigelj (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Re #4: I'd be OK with it, but the middle section seems a bit wordy to me. I don't know what this longer version says that the shorter doesn't, that (in context) is important enough to bloat extend the hatnote to the 'Global warming' article over.

""Climate change" can also refer generally to either cooling or warming trends at any point in earth's history. Discussion of that general topic is at Climate change."

"For changes in climate in general, see Climate change."

--Nigelj (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My trouble with the hatnote in NAEG V5 arises when you erase from your brain anything you know about the articles (like a newcomer to the page) and read the hatnote and first sentence all at once. Ver 5's hatnote reads like this to me....

"This is about X. For this other thing see CLIMATE CHANGE. Global warming, also known as CLIMATE CHANGE is the blah blah blah..."

It sounds like "climate change" is discussed at the other page, but "climate change" is discussed at THIS page. A complete newcomer to these pages and topic would be assisted, I think, with a teensy bit more verbiage. At least, IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. That's a good point - when you take the hatnote together with the opening sentence. You've convinced me. #4 it is. --Nigelj (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggest one of us move or copy the part between the breaks to the article talk page for posterity. If you agree, you want to or should I? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Done. I'm not sure if the formatting there could be improved to make it clear that it's a threaded, multi-comment quote. Feel free there if you have any relevant formatting trick to hand. --Nigelj (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Please also note that Rupert Sheldrake is subject to a 1 revert per 24 hour restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for removing that biased nonsense from the Virginity article. It didn't belong there in the first place. I mean, to make such broad claims as were being made, one must have a lot of gall, I'd say! Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

References in talk

I put a <references /> just after your comment at Talk:Global warming controversy#HadCRUT close-in graph so the references don't confuse people putting in further edits. Dmcq (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Solar Roadways: Request for comment because of deletion of referenced criticism sections

See: Talk:Solar_Roadways#Request_for_comment_because_of_deletion_of_referenced_criticism_sections

You edited the article and/or the talk page.

Thoughts? Please comment on the article talk page. Thewhitebox (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

hopefully gentle inquiry

Nigelj, we used to communicate really well. Did I irk you somehow, and not realize it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm half kidding: Those are all the things we say to the 'skeptics', it was fun to throw them at each other! I was a little vexed after putting in the effort to write that long post just to be told (what sounded like), "Refer to the archives - this always gets nowhere". Hopefully other people will now put in extra special effort to help us agree on some text! You never know! ;-) All good stuff. --Nigelj (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks; I share the (frequent) experience of unsupported effort - recently I changed my perspective on why wikipedia's active editor numbers have been plummeting! Glad to see someone still holds out hope. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A discussion on the Linux distribution talk page

Hello! There's a somewhat lengthy content-related discussion in Talk:Linux distribution § Information on GNU/Linux that would really need input from more editors. It's about an ongoing disagreement on how should a Linux distribution be described, required level of coverage by references, and partially about the way article's lead section should reflect the article content. If you could provide any input there, I'd really appreciate it! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the heads-up. Keep up the good work. --Nigelj (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you prepare new chart of global warming?

Hi, please, could you make a new svg chart of File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg based on new informations (January 2015) from NASA [2] Thank you very much (in Commons ad Czech Wiki Pavouk) --81.19.4.215 (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the reminder. Sorry about the delay, I have been away. --Nigelj (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI SPI opened

Since you've recently engaged in conversation with an IP, I'm providing an FYI that I have filed an SPI complaint. Please comment here, if you wish NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Well done, I'll be interested to see how that pans out. ;-) --Nigelj (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Climate change

FWIW, if you read what I had said about pseudoscholarship like Michael Baigent, I agree with you about how we have to be based wherever possible on the best scientific or specialist academic sources. Unfortunately, like with the followers of Baigent and his speculations which run counter to pretty much most of the academic consensus about the historical Jesus, and with other editors like User:BruceGrubb and his fanatical support of the ahistoricity of Jesus, to the point of having received several topic bans or blocks, including the most recent one, for a lot of the non-experts in any field it is hard to (1) determine which are the best academic sources, and (2) whether in some cases, like the scientific studies which indicated early on tobacco wasn't that harmful and/or beneficial in some way, whether what appears to be the "best" is in some way itself biased. That can and sometimes does create problems. And, FWIW, just to basically reassure you, although I have doubts about the point that the primary causative agent in the current warming is human action, primarily because of the number of potential variables we can't account for, that does not mean that I necessarily doubt its factuality of global warming or that it is, almost certainly, not in our best interests to try to change. Like the "anti-"global warming academic in Crichton's book, I live in a smallish apartment to minimize wasteful heating or cooling, don't own a car and prefer to actually walk or if possible take mass transit, and otherwise minimize my own environmental footprint, except for, obviously, computer network usage. John Carter (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

But this isn't about you. Or me. The best scientific and academic sources are clearly the ones summarised by the UN. I don't remember the UN spending 35 years saying over and over that tobacco wasn't that harmful (the first IPCC report was published in 1990). When editors are trying to define the categorisation of science-based coverage, it is not helpful to have one editor writing long screeds on the topic of, "Well, science isn't all it's cracked up to be, you know: I once read a novel..." And what on earth has the historicity of Jesus got to do with it? No, please don't answer that. --Nigelj (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Just like the best academic sources are the ones which say Michael Baigent's and BruceGrubb's positions are on the hard fringe, if not beyond. And, like with some of the tobacco reports over time, there is a record of scientific reports themselves being skewed to one side. Over at the historicity of Jesus material, we have, unfortunately, had to recognize that even when the evidence is against people, they don't let up. That's why Bruce is blocked for a year now. Sometimes, like maybe with the HJ content, it looks like the best way to alleviate the problem is to create a page which prominently discusses the questions. In this case, so far as I can see, we don't yet have a page on the history of the global warming "argument." I think we have more or less done so over at the HJ content. Maybe the best way to resolve some of the problems here would be to start such a page. And, frankly, if I might be so blunt, it might help if some of the scientists were a bit more humble. I don't see clear evidence in the comment above, for instance, to support the statement that something is "clearly" the best, just an apparent declaration of fiat. As someone who is involved with a lot of topics around here, I know that in most places wikipedia effectively says we don't care if you are an "expert," we reproduce the sources. Preferably from the recognized reference books on the topics. I regret to say, unfortunately, that the editors who seem to understand that least well include several in the hard sciences who seem to be in some cases more devoted to the current academic opinions, some of which are changing as we speak, with even more devotion than some of our most fanatical religionists. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See History of climate change science and WP:ARBCC NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

IP

N, fyi, see their talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy. I think I'm done there. I'll leave him to others from now on, for my own safety and sanity. --Nigelj (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Forces on sails

I invite you to look at the discussion at Talk:Forces on sails#Expert attention and elsewhere in the Talk page, which I have just tied to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing. There are two parallel efforts, one in the main article and one in the sandbox. It appears that the two editors are unlikely to reach a consensus as to which approach is more appropriate to WP:MOS. It would help, if other editors would look at both efforts and comment at the Reorganization? section. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - CAM

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 Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

My apology

Apologies for missing your intervening edit on Transition town as I was reverting edits by a block evading ip. I see user:NebY has already corrected my error. Vsmith (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Solution Stack

When you put your question in the edit-comment like that there is no direct way to answer.

I added a talk page section to address your concerns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Solution_stack#What_is_this_article.3F_Is_it_a_WP:LIST.3F_Who_decides_which_are_the_common.2C_named_stacks.2C_and_which_aren.27t.3F

Arbalest Mike (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

NPA

To assert that another editor is removing "people they don't like" from articles is a personal attack. As a matter of fact, I quite like Klein as a writer. It is an easily checked matter of record that the ref I removed was an essay she wrote (as part of the roll-out of her recent book). Her opinion piece in the Nation is reliable for her opinion, per policy. That is why I removed the ref. Attacking the editor, as opposed to discussing the edit or adding better ref, is uncivil and inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hardly. It might - maybe - indicate doubt about the other's good faith, but its hardly a personal attack. Unless of course you don't assume good faith yourself. That does open the door to your interpretation of this ambiguous example. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi NAEG! Well, I took it that way (removing people they don't like from articles is an act of malice). If the statement was not, I apologize. I find the idea that editors publicly attribute motivations and malice to the other editors generally to be a bad idea. We should, in my opinion, discuss edits their form and their compliance with policy and guidelines. We should not be speculating on the imagined likes and dislikes of other editors. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You're reaching when you just assume other's motivations involve "malice". Could be any number of emotional states, or none at all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I may have been reaching. I "assume" that I was being accused of an act of malice. But perhaps you are correct, I think taking material out of articles by people I don't like because I don't like them is a bad thing and malicious. So I assume when accused of it I am being accused of being malicious. Some people may think removing the material of people they don't like from articles is a good thing and thus could be a compliment in certain circumstances. In this circumstance, however, Niglej clearly didn't think it was a good thing because he reverted the edit with an observation attributing the edit to my personal animus. That's why I assumed it was a personal attack. Again, if I have misunderstood this assertion I apologize. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I will take some time to consider that this was a mere mistake by Nigelj or oversensitivity on my part as I generally think Nigelj a very good editor. Perhaps that's why the edit summary was so jarring. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Sig

You may wish to sign this comment. Am currently thinking about how best to word my own support, . dave souza, talk 18:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks Dave. --Nigelj (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Occupy Wall Street

can you help? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Huge_section_on_Police_infiltration_is_completely_gone.21 16:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

After all these edits by you and other people, I'm afraid I can't, easily. I think that all of you need to stop hacking away at the article in this way, set it back to a stable version, and discuss the proposed edits before making them. --Nigelj (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Your use of the rollback tool

This was an inappropriate use of the rollback tool, which is never to be used except in cases of edits obviously made in bad-faith. Reverts related to content disputes require manual edit summaries explaining your action. Thanks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. My apologies for that. I normally use the Twinkle links, and on that occasion I expected to be presented with a textbox for my summary too, but my memory of that style of rollback link's behaviour was faulty. Therefore I immediately wrote my rationale onto the Talk page. In your experience, though, are there many occasions when deleting an entire section, title and all, is constructive and done in good faith? --Nigelj (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I've probably made the same mistake. Thanks to both of you for the reminder. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Articles on Ship Stability

Dear Nigelj, thanks for improving my edit to the article Jibe.

I would like to draw your attention to a few articles could need a clean-up to become more understandable and readable:

• Metacentric height (could be improved with images from the article of the German wikipedia; also the text needs to be clarified)
• Ship stability (quote: "It should read as increasing, since water will add as a bottom weight there by increasing GM")
• Weather helm (quote: "I cannot tell if the vessel hull under heel really produces any significant turning moment, but the center of sail effort shift is really significant!")

I have worked a bit on the corresponding articles of the German wikipedia but am afraid that my English sailing vocabulary is not up to the task here.

thanks again, --KaiKemmann (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nigelj. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

See this article of earlier interest

See the latest Talk entry at International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. The problem you noted in 2010 still exists, and has gotten murkier, as inline citations are sporadically added (to a 200 page document, without page numbers), thus confusing whether what appears is one set of rules, an amalgam of all rules, etc. Any way to solicit an expert to have a look at this? Cheers, Le Prof. 73.210.155.96 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

www

I added my disscussion in the talk page but you're not even following. Web resources only has to have a URI it doesn't need to be interlinked example ftp://localhost/afd.html is a webresource (as it has an URI) but it is not hyperlinked it is only used to transfer the file afd.html back and forth. So the sentence needs to be changed to (generally interlinked) Uni3993 (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I found your comment, but it was buried in the middle of a two year old discussion higher up the article talk page. I copied it down into the current discussion and I and others are now commenting on it there. I also added a belated 'welcome' template to your talk page, as it contains links to several WP documents that you may find useful to familiarise yourself with. --Nigelj (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Asking for a more detailed answer on article talk page

Hi, Nigelj, you have posted an uncompleted answer in Talk:Circumcision#Where to write on "Forced circumcision of children"?. Please post a full detailed answer there and clarify that whether I should write on "Forced circumcision of children" under the existing Forced circumcision article or not. Once I get a clear suggestion there, I may proceed further.

Abir Babu (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nigelj. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nigelj. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)