Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 September 2012
Am I to understand that the case is closed, and no mention of the controversy is permitted on the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWorshipMe ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is " Global warming controversy". Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!
[1]. For my own part having lived through WP:ARBCC, I have seen great editors, who had worked tirelessly and diligently to keep the GW articles sane and useful, including throughout the Scibaby era and the CRU e-mail nonsense, pilloried and publicly humiliated using little more than a selection of their talk page diffs. I have therefore tried to become Mr Good Faith Personified whenever a GW edit box is open. I would rather look a prat for having been nice to the devil himself, and still be here to edit the articles, rather than be driven off the project or banned from the subject area like so many good and useful people were at that time. It's hard to be more chatty or more specific as I believe everything here can and will be used against people next time there is, for example a swing to the right in American politics, and these people feel they have the upper hand here again. ;-) -- Nigelj ( talk) 21:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Re [2]: "Only thing I want to hear from Ronz is his answers posted to article talk page, to Qs on that talk page, per WP:BOOMERANG warning issued to Ronz at ANI he started against WMC"
I'm not sure what to make of your edit summary.
As you are aware, I won't be posting anything further on the article talk page for some time. I'd like to resolve these concerns best I can in the meantime. I contacted you here because of your interjection into my doing exactly that.
So you're not interested in discussing anything with me directly? -- Ronz ( talk) 22:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
So I don't understand your behavior. You won't engage with me here, but you repeatedly interject your comments in discussions I'm having with others... -- Ronz ( talk) 17:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hope this is clearer; I'm sorry I didn't make the original statement clear enough. Nyttend ( talk) 12:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Outstanding job, there. Thanks! Karin Anker ( talk) 04:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear NewsAndEventsGuy, Why in the world would you want to sanction me? What rules have I been breaking? I, like many other people on Wikipedia, think this article needs to be less biased. The only reason no one here agrees with me is that they've all tried before and gotten nowhere. I thought that maybe, since I had some good sources and some sense, that I could get you guys to change this article. Believe me, I'm certainly not one of those annoying radical conservatives who like saying "global warming is disproven" (whatever the heck that means). The only reason I KNOW this page is biased is because I've been researching this paritcular topic for nearly a year now, FOR and AGAINST climate change, and this article I'm trying to edit is an offense to science.
Believe me, If this article, "scientific opinion" had ONE thing, ONE LITTLE TINY THING representing the other side, I would be happy. It's the ONLY ARTICLE I've ever sen that is so inappropriately biased.
As for my sources, I have mentioned many times that they are indeed self-published, but THE IPCC QUOTES ARE ALSO SELF PUBLISHED! My petitions are fine, my surveys are fine. My sources are just as good as the sources in the "consensus" section. None of them have "secondary sources" that prove they're scientific. Therefore, I dont' need any.
I am convinced that most of the editors, unlike me, care more about their personal opinion than anything else. If I brought up a peer reviewed, published survey sent out by the IPCC and signed by 5 million meteorologists, somebody would still find fault with it. If people are really so biased that they would sanction me for merely stating facts that they disagree with, I suppose I'd better leave, but I hope that Wikipedia is not that unfair. Cybersaur ( talk) 17:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand why you reverted my edit on the page. In the edit summary you ask for 'single' changes, yet the article as it stands now presently is infected with many falsehoods and required a substantial change, the article gives undue weight to a widely discredited publication by an anti-nuclear advocate- Benjamin K. Sovacool that stands apart from the findings of respected bodies, such as the IPCC. Now due to your revert, the article once again presents a single discredited source as fact. This is giving him undue weight. So I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to revert your censoring of actual rigorous science.
If you have a problem with any of the reference, can you please just discuss it first on my talk page, before moving to do a blanket censor?
Thanks, Boundarylayer ( talk) 20:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey man, trying to take your advice, and seen as you're involved with the ecology aspects of energy production, I thought you might be a good person to ask, if you're willing, for a third party opinion on an edit that continues being entirely reverted by Kim D. Petersen, which is then being followed by odd taunts on my talk page. Speaking of talk pages, could you reply to me there, thanks man.
Here is the edit history of the article page. Personally I believe they are attempting to drag me into a 3RR edit war with them, or something similar. I don't think they understand that if 7 ecologists and biologists publish a peer reviewed paper in 2010 discrediting 1 persons 2009 wind turbine 'avian' death rate(deaths/GWh) per unit of energy generated findings(Sovacool's) and then that same 1 person(Sovacool) later publishes a paper titled 2009 update with the same exact bird death rate, without dealing with the meat of the criticism leveled at him, then the earlier criticism by the 7 scientists still stands. With the 7 ecologists and biologists own bird death rate findings also, obviously, still being needed to make the article more balanced. Here's the peer reviewed criticism of Sovacool's suggestions.- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142150900620X or free full access here - http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/11581 Bats are not birds and other problems with Sovacool's analysis on animal fatalities due to electricity generation. Journal of Energy policy 2010, vol. 38, issue 4, pages 2067-2069.
Would appreciate if you could help explain to them that this material is needed to inject scientific balance. Boundarylayer ( talk) 13:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, this is a courtesy notice to inform you that the clarification request you submitted regarding Climate Chnage has been closed and archived. The archived version can be viewed here, and the orginal here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)#
You need to make that arbitration enforcement request at WP:AE, not WP:AN/I. Prioryman ( talk) 19:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Your response made little sense and I'm not sure what to make of it. I can't tell if you're pro-Global warming or not. Other than that, why did you hide what I said and can you unhide please. It was just a talk page not the actual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.157.112.122 ( talk) 15:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
This is in reply to your post on my talk page and on the talk page of the climate change mitigation article. That New Scientist may not be a RS could be a valid discussion, but just for the record, my edit was concerning adding the para after it. The New Scientist citation was there before my edit. JustBeCool ( talk) 00:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! So I am afraid I'm the bearer of bad news, but I tagged an image you uploaded to commons for speedy deletion. [ Link]. The image has a specific copyright text at the bottom that it is NOT public domain, and is in fact not licensed for commercial use (although it is free for non-profit and educational use). While work done by US Civil servants is public domain, I don't think UCAR/NCAR are actually civil servants. While they are funded by NOAA/NSF grant money, they aren't part of those organizations (it's contracted out). I don't think their work is automatically public domain (especially when their webpage explicitly says it is not). I went to update the image because it turned out to be outdated, but in doing so discovered that the licensing terms are not compatible with wiki. Do you know of another source for the image or similar where the copyright is actually public domain? (we might be able to save it that way) Sorry for the trouble, but licensing issues are really important.... and easily messed up. Sailsbystars ( talk) 20:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
This nomination was random in the sense that someone got arbitrarily singled out for engaging in a behavior that is widely considered acceptable by the community. To put things into perspective:
The catch here is that it takes some serious gall to start launching inquisitions against experienced users because they're either going to persevere or go down kicking and screaming, whereas inexperienced users are easy targets due to usually being unable or unwilling to defend themselves. As such, policy must be adapted to preserve editorial equality and to protect our most vulnerable contributors from fruitless attacks on their productivity. — C M B J 05:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This edit is not only accurate but really made be smile, thanks. Babakathy ( talk) 16:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
How is List of U.S. state budgets not related to Line-item veto in the United States? They're both talking about state and/or federal budgets. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 19:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
From Wickionary> "...talk (plural talks) A conversation or discussion. ...." [3]
The "Rules" say...
"... Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article...." [4]
If the Label states "TALK" yet the ensuing discussion is limited, perhaps the label should be changed. Wiktionary has a(n) ENTRY DISCUSSION CITATIONS format. Maybe the encyclopedia ought to have a(n) ARTICLE PANEL (as in editorial)FORUMS format.
If the forum entry is sensible then refer it to the panel ask them to include their citations. If the contributer falls into a debating, argumentative, rhetorical and similar pitfall, send them back to the forum?
Wiki is a work in progress, but still.... it may be awkward for new or occasional contributers.
Pete318 ( talk) 16:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Guy, for your edits on CEE. Besides taking a look at the source, I'm glad that you took the time to edit the article. Since CEE is back on my radar screen, I think merging it to Library of Economics and Liberty is a good idea. As CEE is a low profile, unassessed stub a WP:BLAR might work. What do you think? – S. Rich ( talk) 16:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Say, do thought experiment with me. Imagine you did this edit: [5]. If someone had reverted your edit and said "non RS" in the edit summary, what would be your course of action? Would you open a discussion and argue that Larry Summers is RS? (I'd think that would be a very short discussion.) On the other hand, wouldn't you hope (or expect) that an edit summary pointing out that Summers has (some) creditability was enough? In any event a discussion has been opened on the Global Warming page. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
@srich - I have never seen this kind of argument from analogy lead to constructive resolution on WP. Invariably it turns out too much is ignored in asserting the analogy. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, explain why you removed the video, here /info/en/?search=Talk:Global_warming#NASA.2FIPCC_model_projections_2013_.28video.29 Prokaryotes ( talk) 19:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, I see that you saw my message on User:Sphilbrick's Talk page and took the time to stop by The Climate Reality Project's Talk page. Thanks so much for reading my request and I hope you'll have time to review more closely later this week. Do let me know if you have any questions at all. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 20:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, could you give me a hand? I'm having a very similar issue as that with Embram with another editor at Polar ice cap. I would really appreciate it if you could stop by. Thank you. Gaba (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, just to offer a suggestion: Use WP:ANEW when it's edit warring, and use WP:AE when you want arbitration sanctions. ANI is perhaps one of the least useful places to ask for specific assistance on wikipedia when dealing with problematic editors. Only in special circumstances is it useful or necessary. Although fringe topics and CC are under sanctions, they don't get acted on at ANI, only really at AE. IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the backgrounder you left on my Talk Page about the deletion of the Dr. Timothy F. Ball article. Wikipedia becomes seriously less useful when it's manipulated by a censorship cabal like William M. Connolley/Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Stephan Schulz/Guettarda group. We shouldn't have to go to French or German Wikipedia in order to find what's missing in en.wikipedia because of censorship. And I certainly shouldn't have to "poke" an article like I did to find out what's going on behind the scenes. Unfortunately, those of us facing an information blackout because of an active censorship cabal like William M. Connolley/Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Stephan Schulz/Guettarda don't have much choice. Those guys are doing serious damage to the credibility of Wikipedia. Santamoly ( talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at my edit request at Talk:Berkeley Earth? I have a COI that limits my willingness to edit the page myself. Dragons flight ( talk) 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
On Talk:Global warming you wrote:
If they deleted it, that means they read it. It's up to them how they manage their talk page.
In the interests of keeping talk page discussion focused, perhaps it would be better to remove that comment. It may be better in future to discuss such matters on user talk pages (either mine or that of the editor whose behaviour is in question, in this case). -- TS 17:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for for your recent comments to me regarding the Global Warming Controversy. :-)
I just shared with 'Gaba' my views on what I think the tension might be in my edits regarding Global Warming Controversy. I was interpreting the article to be a balanced presentation of the arguments for and against Anthropogenic Global Warming. However, it would seem, as recent edit reversions would suggest, the article is about presenting the resolved scientific consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming, and the scientific arguments opposing Climate Skepticism. This for me at least seems to be a drift away from a purely neutral presentation of the Global Warming Controversy, with the article making a relatively poor presentation of the Climate Skeptics' viewpoint.
I think maybe there is slight tension in the article title, Global Warming Controversy.
My suspicion is there would be a number of people coming to the article to get a reasonable articulation of each side of the debate, but they might be a little bit disenchanted with what is presented.
My suggestion and solution therefore, would be that wikipedia develop a separate, genuine article focused on 'Climate Skepticism'. That way wikipedians wouldn't have to exhaust themselves with NPOV arguments regarding the presentation of a Climate Skeptic's POV.
At the moment a wiki search for 'Climate Skepticism' is re-directed to 'Global Warming Controversy' which leaves the reader wanting for a better articulation of the minority viewpoint of the Climate Skeptics.
So what do you think???
A new article dedicated to discussing Climate Skepticism would be much more useful in my humble opinion....rather than people getting stuck in endless debates about NPOVs....???
Kind regards :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfcan777 ( talk • contribs) 13:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
on Wikipedia:Purpose NEG. 141.218.35.129 ( talk) 20:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
My apologies. The intention was to share some of the world's most interesting knowledge with the public. At your request, I will indeed put your message back on my talk page. And, in the future, I ensure you that I will create my own work based off information I obtain, Jwratner1 ( talk)
This is a warning that your editing of the Global Warming Talk page, appears to be contrary to WP:DISRUPT and to NPOV. Attacking other editors for disruptive editing without strong evidence and compressing talk discussions on the false claim that no specific proposal had been made makes it difficult to have coherent productive discussions. cwmacdougall 13:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a second warning that your editing of the Global Warming Talk page appears to be contrary to WP:DISRUPT and to NPOV. For a second time you have compressed a talk discussion on the basis of a false claim, hiding crucial statements in an ongoing discussion, and inserting a biased incorrect editorial judgement in the explanation for the collapse. Such behaviour makes it difficult to have coherent productive discussions, and calls into question the neutrality of your editing of the article itself. cwmacdougall 0:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Restoring them, not a good idea. Please stop. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey. Just some backstory on the ID article. We've been discussing the issue you brought up for the past 6 or so months. The last 3 months or so have been solid discussion, non-stop. Consensus has strongly supported the current version of the article (with some minor adjustments) in all that time. The point of confusion is really just article scope. Some editors (two in particular) feel that the article scope should be some broad conception of intelligent design which includes historic figures (i.e. the teleological argument). The current article scope, however, is not that. It is currently written about a very specific form of the teleological argument which is promulgated essentially exclusively by the Discovery Institute. All the sources we have available back up that definition, and support the notion that the DI's version of ID is a unique concept. If you feel the article scope should be broader, then we would need new sources which showed that ID extended significantly beyond the DI... but honestly, I don't think now is the best time to start that, given the old discussion must have just been archived. It's been a really long issue, and I think we're all glad it's over without having to be escalated.
Anyway, I hope that's helpful. I reverted the failed verification tag just because consensus has pretty strongly supported the current wording for a while now, and I think it should probably be discussed first before we start tagging away. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 00:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
-- at the $1 biilion (or a lot less) thread. I can never remember how to do one of those hat/hide tricks!
Interesting how these things get puffed up, even in places that should know better: SciAm, Nature Climate News, etc. etc. And, for all his protestations, Prof Robert J. Brulle, PhD (sic)'s news release is full of dubious puffery too -- though in fairness some of that could be his employers PR dept. Ah well. Best for 2014, Pete Tillman ( talk) 01:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Attempts at communicating with the IP and other details of this story have been moved to their own page.
Also,
IN SUM, too bad the IP doesn't just pick a single article at a time, and spend a little time to actually make it better instead of just sticking in newslinks all the time. He is distracting other editors from making substantive improvements. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
PS A play-dumb exchange April 2013 NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a question I raised here? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 21:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
... that [7] there is enough jumping around in all of the different threads and topics already? People are already mingling criteria, categories, notability, verifiability and god knows what else all over the place. As said it is much like a Gish gallop... whenever a point is reached on either of those, where it would actually be possible to have a meeting of minds, the discussion changes to another of them.
I really hope:
etc etc.
But right at the moment it is one large soup of comingled discusssion taking place all over the place without any focus. :( -- Kim D. Petersen 20:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
As for a cut off date, I think you are dead wrong that we can just pick one without an outside source, and I'll continue to say so. If we can make progress on the other things on your list, that will be great. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious... why don't you just create such an article [8]? Why would you want to "transform" the list into something that it has never been? It is (in my view) like taking an article about "climate change and livestock" and transform it into an article about "climate change and horticulture" because you figure that horticulture is more important. Sure there are similarities, but it is not as if Wikipedia is made of paper and paper is scarce. I would've answered on the list, if i wasn't tired of proposals being sidetracked by related but not on-topic things. -- Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I was templated with the ugly ARBCC warning and deleted it for looks. Here is the ensuing discussion NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
As long as it meets the requirements at WP:AC/DS#Warnings and WP:AC/DS#For administrators which {{ Ds/sanctions}} is designed to do and it is logged on the case page then I don't really care who issued the warning (if it's by a sockpuppet it gets difficult). Re your three examples, even if they were logged, I would say that Cwmacdougall and Darkness Shines would meet the requirements but Punksta may not. My standard is (which is my interpretation of WP:AC/DS):
So overall, I have no problem with a non-admin issuing the notification as long as it meets the requirements and it's logged. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 16:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
You are missing the main point of the notifications. Their purpose is speed-banning. Anyone who receives one of these notifications can then be blocked or banned for a year with no warning, and no discussion; and it can be done by any one of the thousand or so active admins. And not just for editing in that topic. The notifications can, and have been, used on someone who makes a good faith comment on a talk page or AE or RFA. And you think they can be appealed, just by putting an unblock request on your talk page? Think again. Any admin who unblocks you can be subject to disciplinary actions themselves. The only person who will be determining the status of your unblock request is the same person who blocked you in the first place. And they have never been known to reverse themselves. — Neotarf ( talk) 03:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
Even if we disagree on some content(NASA video) i always appreciate your input. Prokaryotes ( talk) 15:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
Generally in any of the arbcom/arb enforcement procedures, users are generally supposed to comment only in their own area, but there are many ways of doing so. You can post under a subheading, either using a lower level heading than the main section or a line of bold text. You can also just indent on your initial remarks. You can also indent under reply to a particular individual to keep up a conversation of sorts. Some examples are below for your edification.
===Statement by Sailsbystars===
Here I present evidence blah blah blah (sig)
====Rebuttal to SomeOtherGuy====
SomeOtherGuy gets this wrong (sig)
'''Reply to Uninvolved admin'''
Here's more evidence they asked for (sig)
Sailsbystars ( talk) 01:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
This section contains my tests of the new "alert" system... I "alerted" myself. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee have authorised discretionary sanctions for Climate change, which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.
Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior and applicable policies. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee have authorised discretionary sanctions for , which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.
Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior and applicable policies. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.Re: [9]: Unfortunately, we, as human beings, can unintentionally change the heart of battle-doers for the worse if we are not careful. With some luck, we can also slowly coax it away from the battle lines if we use diplomacy. I speak as someone who is slowly turning from totally tackless in person to someone who is approaching "average" in my diplomatic skills and seeing the fruits of it.
I've been following an ARBCOM action (it's tangentially related to an WikiProject I'm involved in), and the bottom line is that if any one of the editors who are having to defend their actions had been a little more peaceful and a little less defensive, it is likely that neither party would have been combative enough to be looking at sanctions. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
All of these are a mess. ANI may be the only way to go for this editor, but another one is removing 'right wing' from articles. Dougweller ( talk) 09:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Not sure Theocratic is better than theonomy if the articles describe them correctly. Dougweller ( talk) 16:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I saw the discussion on the global warming controversy got collapsed. I thought the talk section was very well thought out. After reading the entries I learned a lot and went off to read up, but then it got closed out. Any thoughts on getting it redisplayed for its educational value? Kd4ttc ( talk) 04:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Re your comment on AC DS review [10]; that's just wrong: ruining Chocolate Chip cookies by putting nuts in them is entirely unacceptable, and, per WP:BEANS, should not be mentioned on-wiki. Yuk. Shudder. NE Ent 11:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for the comment on my page.
One of the issues that interests me on wikipedia, and one of the reasons I make edits, is the neutrality of articles. I do not think my edit was a "bold edit"particularly - but one that is clearly likely to be more accurate and is also more neutral. "Challenge" is a much broader term and does not infer motives in quite the way that 'undermine' and does have the same negative connotations. The claim that all such think tanks were aiming to 'undermine' is actually quite a big claim and one that is probably unknowable. The best you can do is write that this particular author claimed these think tanks were trying to undermine something. 'Challenge' is a more appropriate word since it is a much broader term, definitely accurate since it is incontrovertable - both 'sides' on this particular debate would certainly agree with it. It is a less strong claim, but one that can be made without the need to add something like "It has been claimed" to preface it.
Thank you for the gentle tone of your message too. Atshal ( talk) 15:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Wear your badge of Wikipedia editing ignorance with honor. CosmicLifeform ( talk) 18:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
To avoid any misunderstanding, I've added a comment here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure you saw my reply. Jinkinson talk to me 20:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing it--I didn't think anyone ever would. I've been using it myself fairly frequently (and have no idea whether anyone else ever has), but the idea of converting it into a real tool like those on Tool Labs is an appealing one. Can you explain how I would go about doing so? Jinkinson talk to me 03:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Please explain why you deleted my comments. I wasn't trolling. Consensus means nothing with regards to science. It just means people agree. There was once a scientific consensus that the earth was flat. there was once a consensus within the nazi party that all jews were bad.
Here are my comments. Please nit pick them and show me where I'm trolling... or you could just delete me again.
"The scientific method has NOTHING to do with consensus. The scientific method is about having a theory and setting out to disprove that theory. If you can't disprove it then your theory MIGHT have merit. Completely accepting anything without skepticism is wholly UNSCIENTIFIC. Especially a relatively new theory and science such as climate change, which even if true, is bound to be wrought with errors and inaccuracies." 2601:8:1E00:138:652E:FBCC:ECEF:88E5 ( talk) 04:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, do you have a opinion about the inclusion of CR's @paleoclimatology? See the discussion here, thanks. prokaryotes ( talk) 15:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Please explain here what you regard as bad edits, thanks. There are considerable improvements to the article. prokaryotes ( talk) 23:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the templates per WP:OWNTALK There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. prokaryotes ( talk) 20:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
User talk:Anna Frodesiak#The Michigan Kid
Anna Frodesiak (
talk) 22:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Background: This thread relates to a "civility request" I left for John2510 at his talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 08:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. Please refrain from making baseless and unsupported accusations on other editors' talk pages. Thank you. John2510 ( talk) 03:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
And I was worried you were going to beat me to it. !! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I removed the PROD you placed at Wikipedia talk:Talk page formatting, as PROD is inapplicable in the Wikipedia namespace. However, I have nominated the essay for deletion at Miscellany for Deletion. Please comment here if you wish, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Talk page formatting. Safiel ( talk) 16:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
You just did what I went to do and the realised that it was a good edit - just unexplained. I have left a polite message at the IPs talk page that edit summaries would be good. I would suggest restoring the text deletion - it makes better sense after the deletion. Thanks Velella Velella Talk 19:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Re: "Anyone can complain about legal threats made against third parties, and.... I intend to do so if you start editing elsewhere w/o deleting that material first", see User talk:JamesBWatson#DRN and legal threats. JamesBWatson hasn't edited Wikipedia since I posted that so I assume that he hasn't seen it. You can do as you think best, but I would prefer that he be given a chance to handle it.
BTW, I loved "The issue is that wikipedia editors have to have a mutual trust and respect.... we can debate vociferously, we can get so fed up with each other we work on different parts of the project without speaking, but talking on the wikipedia platform about litigation against one another is not allowed." Well said. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:OWNTALK, I deleted boilerplate EW warning notice I received from.... Thank you! This is User:CloudComputation User talk:CloudComputation 02:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I am notifying everyone who participated in the Solar Roadways DRN that there is an open RfC at Talk:Solar_Roadways#RfC:_Should_the_cost_to_cover_the_entire_USA_be_included.3F. Thanks. -- Green C 20:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm busy spelunking in wikipedia history charting climate change vs global warming, while prepping a contrib to the thread(s) at [{Talk:Global warming]]. There's a lot to wade through and I have to take it in bites. Anyone interested in chatting about the past evolution while I put my thoughts together.... you're welcome to peruse my notes in my sandbox, and/or opine away.... NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
See my talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 10:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
You recently removed an entry I made, saying it was unsupported. I thought it was supported in the text and links within. In any case, what kind of support do you think is needed? Rbrustman ( talk) 21:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 September 2012
Am I to understand that the case is closed, and no mention of the controversy is permitted on the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWorshipMe ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is " Global warming controversy". Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!
[1]. For my own part having lived through WP:ARBCC, I have seen great editors, who had worked tirelessly and diligently to keep the GW articles sane and useful, including throughout the Scibaby era and the CRU e-mail nonsense, pilloried and publicly humiliated using little more than a selection of their talk page diffs. I have therefore tried to become Mr Good Faith Personified whenever a GW edit box is open. I would rather look a prat for having been nice to the devil himself, and still be here to edit the articles, rather than be driven off the project or banned from the subject area like so many good and useful people were at that time. It's hard to be more chatty or more specific as I believe everything here can and will be used against people next time there is, for example a swing to the right in American politics, and these people feel they have the upper hand here again. ;-) -- Nigelj ( talk) 21:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Re [2]: "Only thing I want to hear from Ronz is his answers posted to article talk page, to Qs on that talk page, per WP:BOOMERANG warning issued to Ronz at ANI he started against WMC"
I'm not sure what to make of your edit summary.
As you are aware, I won't be posting anything further on the article talk page for some time. I'd like to resolve these concerns best I can in the meantime. I contacted you here because of your interjection into my doing exactly that.
So you're not interested in discussing anything with me directly? -- Ronz ( talk) 22:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
So I don't understand your behavior. You won't engage with me here, but you repeatedly interject your comments in discussions I'm having with others... -- Ronz ( talk) 17:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hope this is clearer; I'm sorry I didn't make the original statement clear enough. Nyttend ( talk) 12:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Outstanding job, there. Thanks! Karin Anker ( talk) 04:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear NewsAndEventsGuy, Why in the world would you want to sanction me? What rules have I been breaking? I, like many other people on Wikipedia, think this article needs to be less biased. The only reason no one here agrees with me is that they've all tried before and gotten nowhere. I thought that maybe, since I had some good sources and some sense, that I could get you guys to change this article. Believe me, I'm certainly not one of those annoying radical conservatives who like saying "global warming is disproven" (whatever the heck that means). The only reason I KNOW this page is biased is because I've been researching this paritcular topic for nearly a year now, FOR and AGAINST climate change, and this article I'm trying to edit is an offense to science.
Believe me, If this article, "scientific opinion" had ONE thing, ONE LITTLE TINY THING representing the other side, I would be happy. It's the ONLY ARTICLE I've ever sen that is so inappropriately biased.
As for my sources, I have mentioned many times that they are indeed self-published, but THE IPCC QUOTES ARE ALSO SELF PUBLISHED! My petitions are fine, my surveys are fine. My sources are just as good as the sources in the "consensus" section. None of them have "secondary sources" that prove they're scientific. Therefore, I dont' need any.
I am convinced that most of the editors, unlike me, care more about their personal opinion than anything else. If I brought up a peer reviewed, published survey sent out by the IPCC and signed by 5 million meteorologists, somebody would still find fault with it. If people are really so biased that they would sanction me for merely stating facts that they disagree with, I suppose I'd better leave, but I hope that Wikipedia is not that unfair. Cybersaur ( talk) 17:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand why you reverted my edit on the page. In the edit summary you ask for 'single' changes, yet the article as it stands now presently is infected with many falsehoods and required a substantial change, the article gives undue weight to a widely discredited publication by an anti-nuclear advocate- Benjamin K. Sovacool that stands apart from the findings of respected bodies, such as the IPCC. Now due to your revert, the article once again presents a single discredited source as fact. This is giving him undue weight. So I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to revert your censoring of actual rigorous science.
If you have a problem with any of the reference, can you please just discuss it first on my talk page, before moving to do a blanket censor?
Thanks, Boundarylayer ( talk) 20:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey man, trying to take your advice, and seen as you're involved with the ecology aspects of energy production, I thought you might be a good person to ask, if you're willing, for a third party opinion on an edit that continues being entirely reverted by Kim D. Petersen, which is then being followed by odd taunts on my talk page. Speaking of talk pages, could you reply to me there, thanks man.
Here is the edit history of the article page. Personally I believe they are attempting to drag me into a 3RR edit war with them, or something similar. I don't think they understand that if 7 ecologists and biologists publish a peer reviewed paper in 2010 discrediting 1 persons 2009 wind turbine 'avian' death rate(deaths/GWh) per unit of energy generated findings(Sovacool's) and then that same 1 person(Sovacool) later publishes a paper titled 2009 update with the same exact bird death rate, without dealing with the meat of the criticism leveled at him, then the earlier criticism by the 7 scientists still stands. With the 7 ecologists and biologists own bird death rate findings also, obviously, still being needed to make the article more balanced. Here's the peer reviewed criticism of Sovacool's suggestions.- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142150900620X or free full access here - http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/11581 Bats are not birds and other problems with Sovacool's analysis on animal fatalities due to electricity generation. Journal of Energy policy 2010, vol. 38, issue 4, pages 2067-2069.
Would appreciate if you could help explain to them that this material is needed to inject scientific balance. Boundarylayer ( talk) 13:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, this is a courtesy notice to inform you that the clarification request you submitted regarding Climate Chnage has been closed and archived. The archived version can be viewed here, and the orginal here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)#
You need to make that arbitration enforcement request at WP:AE, not WP:AN/I. Prioryman ( talk) 19:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Your response made little sense and I'm not sure what to make of it. I can't tell if you're pro-Global warming or not. Other than that, why did you hide what I said and can you unhide please. It was just a talk page not the actual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.157.112.122 ( talk) 15:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
This is in reply to your post on my talk page and on the talk page of the climate change mitigation article. That New Scientist may not be a RS could be a valid discussion, but just for the record, my edit was concerning adding the para after it. The New Scientist citation was there before my edit. JustBeCool ( talk) 00:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! So I am afraid I'm the bearer of bad news, but I tagged an image you uploaded to commons for speedy deletion. [ Link]. The image has a specific copyright text at the bottom that it is NOT public domain, and is in fact not licensed for commercial use (although it is free for non-profit and educational use). While work done by US Civil servants is public domain, I don't think UCAR/NCAR are actually civil servants. While they are funded by NOAA/NSF grant money, they aren't part of those organizations (it's contracted out). I don't think their work is automatically public domain (especially when their webpage explicitly says it is not). I went to update the image because it turned out to be outdated, but in doing so discovered that the licensing terms are not compatible with wiki. Do you know of another source for the image or similar where the copyright is actually public domain? (we might be able to save it that way) Sorry for the trouble, but licensing issues are really important.... and easily messed up. Sailsbystars ( talk) 20:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
This nomination was random in the sense that someone got arbitrarily singled out for engaging in a behavior that is widely considered acceptable by the community. To put things into perspective:
The catch here is that it takes some serious gall to start launching inquisitions against experienced users because they're either going to persevere or go down kicking and screaming, whereas inexperienced users are easy targets due to usually being unable or unwilling to defend themselves. As such, policy must be adapted to preserve editorial equality and to protect our most vulnerable contributors from fruitless attacks on their productivity. — C M B J 05:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This edit is not only accurate but really made be smile, thanks. Babakathy ( talk) 16:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
How is List of U.S. state budgets not related to Line-item veto in the United States? They're both talking about state and/or federal budgets. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 19:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
From Wickionary> "...talk (plural talks) A conversation or discussion. ...." [3]
The "Rules" say...
"... Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article...." [4]
If the Label states "TALK" yet the ensuing discussion is limited, perhaps the label should be changed. Wiktionary has a(n) ENTRY DISCUSSION CITATIONS format. Maybe the encyclopedia ought to have a(n) ARTICLE PANEL (as in editorial)FORUMS format.
If the forum entry is sensible then refer it to the panel ask them to include their citations. If the contributer falls into a debating, argumentative, rhetorical and similar pitfall, send them back to the forum?
Wiki is a work in progress, but still.... it may be awkward for new or occasional contributers.
Pete318 ( talk) 16:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Guy, for your edits on CEE. Besides taking a look at the source, I'm glad that you took the time to edit the article. Since CEE is back on my radar screen, I think merging it to Library of Economics and Liberty is a good idea. As CEE is a low profile, unassessed stub a WP:BLAR might work. What do you think? – S. Rich ( talk) 16:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Say, do thought experiment with me. Imagine you did this edit: [5]. If someone had reverted your edit and said "non RS" in the edit summary, what would be your course of action? Would you open a discussion and argue that Larry Summers is RS? (I'd think that would be a very short discussion.) On the other hand, wouldn't you hope (or expect) that an edit summary pointing out that Summers has (some) creditability was enough? In any event a discussion has been opened on the Global Warming page. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
@srich - I have never seen this kind of argument from analogy lead to constructive resolution on WP. Invariably it turns out too much is ignored in asserting the analogy. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, explain why you removed the video, here /info/en/?search=Talk:Global_warming#NASA.2FIPCC_model_projections_2013_.28video.29 Prokaryotes ( talk) 19:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, I see that you saw my message on User:Sphilbrick's Talk page and took the time to stop by The Climate Reality Project's Talk page. Thanks so much for reading my request and I hope you'll have time to review more closely later this week. Do let me know if you have any questions at all. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 20:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, could you give me a hand? I'm having a very similar issue as that with Embram with another editor at Polar ice cap. I would really appreciate it if you could stop by. Thank you. Gaba (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, just to offer a suggestion: Use WP:ANEW when it's edit warring, and use WP:AE when you want arbitration sanctions. ANI is perhaps one of the least useful places to ask for specific assistance on wikipedia when dealing with problematic editors. Only in special circumstances is it useful or necessary. Although fringe topics and CC are under sanctions, they don't get acted on at ANI, only really at AE. IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the backgrounder you left on my Talk Page about the deletion of the Dr. Timothy F. Ball article. Wikipedia becomes seriously less useful when it's manipulated by a censorship cabal like William M. Connolley/Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Stephan Schulz/Guettarda group. We shouldn't have to go to French or German Wikipedia in order to find what's missing in en.wikipedia because of censorship. And I certainly shouldn't have to "poke" an article like I did to find out what's going on behind the scenes. Unfortunately, those of us facing an information blackout because of an active censorship cabal like William M. Connolley/Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Stephan Schulz/Guettarda don't have much choice. Those guys are doing serious damage to the credibility of Wikipedia. Santamoly ( talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at my edit request at Talk:Berkeley Earth? I have a COI that limits my willingness to edit the page myself. Dragons flight ( talk) 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
On Talk:Global warming you wrote:
If they deleted it, that means they read it. It's up to them how they manage their talk page.
In the interests of keeping talk page discussion focused, perhaps it would be better to remove that comment. It may be better in future to discuss such matters on user talk pages (either mine or that of the editor whose behaviour is in question, in this case). -- TS 17:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for for your recent comments to me regarding the Global Warming Controversy. :-)
I just shared with 'Gaba' my views on what I think the tension might be in my edits regarding Global Warming Controversy. I was interpreting the article to be a balanced presentation of the arguments for and against Anthropogenic Global Warming. However, it would seem, as recent edit reversions would suggest, the article is about presenting the resolved scientific consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming, and the scientific arguments opposing Climate Skepticism. This for me at least seems to be a drift away from a purely neutral presentation of the Global Warming Controversy, with the article making a relatively poor presentation of the Climate Skeptics' viewpoint.
I think maybe there is slight tension in the article title, Global Warming Controversy.
My suspicion is there would be a number of people coming to the article to get a reasonable articulation of each side of the debate, but they might be a little bit disenchanted with what is presented.
My suggestion and solution therefore, would be that wikipedia develop a separate, genuine article focused on 'Climate Skepticism'. That way wikipedians wouldn't have to exhaust themselves with NPOV arguments regarding the presentation of a Climate Skeptic's POV.
At the moment a wiki search for 'Climate Skepticism' is re-directed to 'Global Warming Controversy' which leaves the reader wanting for a better articulation of the minority viewpoint of the Climate Skeptics.
So what do you think???
A new article dedicated to discussing Climate Skepticism would be much more useful in my humble opinion....rather than people getting stuck in endless debates about NPOVs....???
Kind regards :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfcan777 ( talk • contribs) 13:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
on Wikipedia:Purpose NEG. 141.218.35.129 ( talk) 20:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
My apologies. The intention was to share some of the world's most interesting knowledge with the public. At your request, I will indeed put your message back on my talk page. And, in the future, I ensure you that I will create my own work based off information I obtain, Jwratner1 ( talk)
This is a warning that your editing of the Global Warming Talk page, appears to be contrary to WP:DISRUPT and to NPOV. Attacking other editors for disruptive editing without strong evidence and compressing talk discussions on the false claim that no specific proposal had been made makes it difficult to have coherent productive discussions. cwmacdougall 13:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a second warning that your editing of the Global Warming Talk page appears to be contrary to WP:DISRUPT and to NPOV. For a second time you have compressed a talk discussion on the basis of a false claim, hiding crucial statements in an ongoing discussion, and inserting a biased incorrect editorial judgement in the explanation for the collapse. Such behaviour makes it difficult to have coherent productive discussions, and calls into question the neutrality of your editing of the article itself. cwmacdougall 0:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Restoring them, not a good idea. Please stop. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey. Just some backstory on the ID article. We've been discussing the issue you brought up for the past 6 or so months. The last 3 months or so have been solid discussion, non-stop. Consensus has strongly supported the current version of the article (with some minor adjustments) in all that time. The point of confusion is really just article scope. Some editors (two in particular) feel that the article scope should be some broad conception of intelligent design which includes historic figures (i.e. the teleological argument). The current article scope, however, is not that. It is currently written about a very specific form of the teleological argument which is promulgated essentially exclusively by the Discovery Institute. All the sources we have available back up that definition, and support the notion that the DI's version of ID is a unique concept. If you feel the article scope should be broader, then we would need new sources which showed that ID extended significantly beyond the DI... but honestly, I don't think now is the best time to start that, given the old discussion must have just been archived. It's been a really long issue, and I think we're all glad it's over without having to be escalated.
Anyway, I hope that's helpful. I reverted the failed verification tag just because consensus has pretty strongly supported the current wording for a while now, and I think it should probably be discussed first before we start tagging away. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 00:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
-- at the $1 biilion (or a lot less) thread. I can never remember how to do one of those hat/hide tricks!
Interesting how these things get puffed up, even in places that should know better: SciAm, Nature Climate News, etc. etc. And, for all his protestations, Prof Robert J. Brulle, PhD (sic)'s news release is full of dubious puffery too -- though in fairness some of that could be his employers PR dept. Ah well. Best for 2014, Pete Tillman ( talk) 01:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Attempts at communicating with the IP and other details of this story have been moved to their own page.
Also,
IN SUM, too bad the IP doesn't just pick a single article at a time, and spend a little time to actually make it better instead of just sticking in newslinks all the time. He is distracting other editors from making substantive improvements. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
PS A play-dumb exchange April 2013 NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a question I raised here? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 21:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
... that [7] there is enough jumping around in all of the different threads and topics already? People are already mingling criteria, categories, notability, verifiability and god knows what else all over the place. As said it is much like a Gish gallop... whenever a point is reached on either of those, where it would actually be possible to have a meeting of minds, the discussion changes to another of them.
I really hope:
etc etc.
But right at the moment it is one large soup of comingled discusssion taking place all over the place without any focus. :( -- Kim D. Petersen 20:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
As for a cut off date, I think you are dead wrong that we can just pick one without an outside source, and I'll continue to say so. If we can make progress on the other things on your list, that will be great. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious... why don't you just create such an article [8]? Why would you want to "transform" the list into something that it has never been? It is (in my view) like taking an article about "climate change and livestock" and transform it into an article about "climate change and horticulture" because you figure that horticulture is more important. Sure there are similarities, but it is not as if Wikipedia is made of paper and paper is scarce. I would've answered on the list, if i wasn't tired of proposals being sidetracked by related but not on-topic things. -- Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I was templated with the ugly ARBCC warning and deleted it for looks. Here is the ensuing discussion NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
As long as it meets the requirements at WP:AC/DS#Warnings and WP:AC/DS#For administrators which {{ Ds/sanctions}} is designed to do and it is logged on the case page then I don't really care who issued the warning (if it's by a sockpuppet it gets difficult). Re your three examples, even if they were logged, I would say that Cwmacdougall and Darkness Shines would meet the requirements but Punksta may not. My standard is (which is my interpretation of WP:AC/DS):
So overall, I have no problem with a non-admin issuing the notification as long as it meets the requirements and it's logged. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 16:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
You are missing the main point of the notifications. Their purpose is speed-banning. Anyone who receives one of these notifications can then be blocked or banned for a year with no warning, and no discussion; and it can be done by any one of the thousand or so active admins. And not just for editing in that topic. The notifications can, and have been, used on someone who makes a good faith comment on a talk page or AE or RFA. And you think they can be appealed, just by putting an unblock request on your talk page? Think again. Any admin who unblocks you can be subject to disciplinary actions themselves. The only person who will be determining the status of your unblock request is the same person who blocked you in the first place. And they have never been known to reverse themselves. — Neotarf ( talk) 03:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
Even if we disagree on some content(NASA video) i always appreciate your input. Prokaryotes ( talk) 15:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
Generally in any of the arbcom/arb enforcement procedures, users are generally supposed to comment only in their own area, but there are many ways of doing so. You can post under a subheading, either using a lower level heading than the main section or a line of bold text. You can also just indent on your initial remarks. You can also indent under reply to a particular individual to keep up a conversation of sorts. Some examples are below for your edification.
===Statement by Sailsbystars===
Here I present evidence blah blah blah (sig)
====Rebuttal to SomeOtherGuy====
SomeOtherGuy gets this wrong (sig)
'''Reply to Uninvolved admin'''
Here's more evidence they asked for (sig)
Sailsbystars ( talk) 01:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
This section contains my tests of the new "alert" system... I "alerted" myself. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee have authorised discretionary sanctions for Climate change, which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.
Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior and applicable policies. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee have authorised discretionary sanctions for , which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.
Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior and applicable policies. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.Re: [9]: Unfortunately, we, as human beings, can unintentionally change the heart of battle-doers for the worse if we are not careful. With some luck, we can also slowly coax it away from the battle lines if we use diplomacy. I speak as someone who is slowly turning from totally tackless in person to someone who is approaching "average" in my diplomatic skills and seeing the fruits of it.
I've been following an ARBCOM action (it's tangentially related to an WikiProject I'm involved in), and the bottom line is that if any one of the editors who are having to defend their actions had been a little more peaceful and a little less defensive, it is likely that neither party would have been combative enough to be looking at sanctions. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
All of these are a mess. ANI may be the only way to go for this editor, but another one is removing 'right wing' from articles. Dougweller ( talk) 09:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Not sure Theocratic is better than theonomy if the articles describe them correctly. Dougweller ( talk) 16:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I saw the discussion on the global warming controversy got collapsed. I thought the talk section was very well thought out. After reading the entries I learned a lot and went off to read up, but then it got closed out. Any thoughts on getting it redisplayed for its educational value? Kd4ttc ( talk) 04:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Re your comment on AC DS review [10]; that's just wrong: ruining Chocolate Chip cookies by putting nuts in them is entirely unacceptable, and, per WP:BEANS, should not be mentioned on-wiki. Yuk. Shudder. NE Ent 11:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for the comment on my page.
One of the issues that interests me on wikipedia, and one of the reasons I make edits, is the neutrality of articles. I do not think my edit was a "bold edit"particularly - but one that is clearly likely to be more accurate and is also more neutral. "Challenge" is a much broader term and does not infer motives in quite the way that 'undermine' and does have the same negative connotations. The claim that all such think tanks were aiming to 'undermine' is actually quite a big claim and one that is probably unknowable. The best you can do is write that this particular author claimed these think tanks were trying to undermine something. 'Challenge' is a more appropriate word since it is a much broader term, definitely accurate since it is incontrovertable - both 'sides' on this particular debate would certainly agree with it. It is a less strong claim, but one that can be made without the need to add something like "It has been claimed" to preface it.
Thank you for the gentle tone of your message too. Atshal ( talk) 15:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Wear your badge of Wikipedia editing ignorance with honor. CosmicLifeform ( talk) 18:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
To avoid any misunderstanding, I've added a comment here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure you saw my reply. Jinkinson talk to me 20:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing it--I didn't think anyone ever would. I've been using it myself fairly frequently (and have no idea whether anyone else ever has), but the idea of converting it into a real tool like those on Tool Labs is an appealing one. Can you explain how I would go about doing so? Jinkinson talk to me 03:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Please explain why you deleted my comments. I wasn't trolling. Consensus means nothing with regards to science. It just means people agree. There was once a scientific consensus that the earth was flat. there was once a consensus within the nazi party that all jews were bad.
Here are my comments. Please nit pick them and show me where I'm trolling... or you could just delete me again.
"The scientific method has NOTHING to do with consensus. The scientific method is about having a theory and setting out to disprove that theory. If you can't disprove it then your theory MIGHT have merit. Completely accepting anything without skepticism is wholly UNSCIENTIFIC. Especially a relatively new theory and science such as climate change, which even if true, is bound to be wrought with errors and inaccuracies." 2601:8:1E00:138:652E:FBCC:ECEF:88E5 ( talk) 04:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, do you have a opinion about the inclusion of CR's @paleoclimatology? See the discussion here, thanks. prokaryotes ( talk) 15:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Please explain here what you regard as bad edits, thanks. There are considerable improvements to the article. prokaryotes ( talk) 23:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the templates per WP:OWNTALK There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. prokaryotes ( talk) 20:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
User talk:Anna Frodesiak#The Michigan Kid
Anna Frodesiak (
talk) 22:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Background: This thread relates to a "civility request" I left for John2510 at his talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 08:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. Please refrain from making baseless and unsupported accusations on other editors' talk pages. Thank you. John2510 ( talk) 03:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
And I was worried you were going to beat me to it. !! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I removed the PROD you placed at Wikipedia talk:Talk page formatting, as PROD is inapplicable in the Wikipedia namespace. However, I have nominated the essay for deletion at Miscellany for Deletion. Please comment here if you wish, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Talk page formatting. Safiel ( talk) 16:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
You just did what I went to do and the realised that it was a good edit - just unexplained. I have left a polite message at the IPs talk page that edit summaries would be good. I would suggest restoring the text deletion - it makes better sense after the deletion. Thanks Velella Velella Talk 19:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Re: "Anyone can complain about legal threats made against third parties, and.... I intend to do so if you start editing elsewhere w/o deleting that material first", see User talk:JamesBWatson#DRN and legal threats. JamesBWatson hasn't edited Wikipedia since I posted that so I assume that he hasn't seen it. You can do as you think best, but I would prefer that he be given a chance to handle it.
BTW, I loved "The issue is that wikipedia editors have to have a mutual trust and respect.... we can debate vociferously, we can get so fed up with each other we work on different parts of the project without speaking, but talking on the wikipedia platform about litigation against one another is not allowed." Well said. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:OWNTALK, I deleted boilerplate EW warning notice I received from.... Thank you! This is User:CloudComputation User talk:CloudComputation 02:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I am notifying everyone who participated in the Solar Roadways DRN that there is an open RfC at Talk:Solar_Roadways#RfC:_Should_the_cost_to_cover_the_entire_USA_be_included.3F. Thanks. -- Green C 20:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm busy spelunking in wikipedia history charting climate change vs global warming, while prepping a contrib to the thread(s) at [{Talk:Global warming]]. There's a lot to wade through and I have to take it in bites. Anyone interested in chatting about the past evolution while I put my thoughts together.... you're welcome to peruse my notes in my sandbox, and/or opine away.... NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
See my talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 10:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
You recently removed an entry I made, saying it was unsupported. I thought it was supported in the text and links within. In any case, what kind of support do you think is needed? Rbrustman ( talk) 21:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)