What is your opinion on this AfD? @ William M. Connolley: prokaryotes ( talk) 01:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
Swarm ♠ 03:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Copy and paste from
Polar amplification's talk page:
I'm not implying a lack of good faith. Very often I have seen the argument made against removing longstanding content, with its tacit consensus, and the argument typically prevails. I think it's important to an article called "Polar amplification" to include both poles. YoPienso ( talk) 01:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Since I and another editor have both been editing in the climate pages for a long time, and since many threads of content and behavior issues kept popping up, I organized them here. I think there might be some of my commentary mixed in, I don't remember. But since this way of organizing this material has just been complained about, I thought I should add an explanatory note here. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Housekeeping, the OP called this section "stalking me" and I changed it to a neutral heading per TPG
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk) 17:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, please read
WP:HOUND, since you seem to follow most of my edits on the topic of climate change, and start or engage in discussion related to my edits, or revert a considerable amount of them in the past few days.
prokaryotes (
talk) 16:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Contextual notes to self in case this becomes a bigger issue.... awhile back (after a GMO TBAN) Prokaryotes requested a block on their account in an apparent wikibreak and earlier this year requested the block be removed so they could edit again. So far so good, once I also took a long break. The last few days P did a lot of work done at featured article Global warming. It was fast, and there were things that needed discussion even as more edits appeared. If I understand 3RR I could have reported P for edit warring or asked an admin to apply DS under WP:ARBCC because we both meet the technical "awareness" criteria for imposition of DS. Instead of doing either of those aggressive things, I left what I thought was a friendly comment about paying attention to 3RR and slowing down at P's talk page. In part, P told me to "stop interacting with me". The thread is here. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a weird complaint. P edits popular articles that you've been editing for ages; so obviously you'll notice. And a complaint that you engage in discussion is double-weird; that's generally considered good William M. Connolley ( talk) 06:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Recent article here outlines coverage of media in regards to new PNAS Steffen et al. study, there are many other discussions along the way, including from scientists, media, and in the public. My idea is to create a new article along the lines of Climate doom. What do you think? prokaryotes ( talk) 12:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
See this Social media is nice, but probably lacks the mental health benefits of being in a local group, where there is face time. Exerpt
I have to confess, I like your attention to semantics, little details. However, the study you recently cited, is from February 2018, thus not responding to latest Rockström - the new PNAS study which is the subject of that part. And they made an outrages claim, that he was devoid of scientific data. prokaryotes ( talk) 01:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not self-published. The report is a high profile compilation on IPCC, Risks, in this particular content addition, the report cites study results from Naomi Oreskes, who published on this very topic. Also from SPB guide, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field" - this report is from the experts. ... prokaryotes ( talk) 00:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please stop making claims on various talk pages that I violate NPOV with my edits, or similar. I have read your input in this regard, and I disagree with your conclusions. I look forward to keep working with your critical input on various climate related topics, but continued claims of guideline violations are on the verge to disrupt the consensus finding process. You can always ask me to provide reliable sourced references for my commentary. Thank you. prokaryotes ( talk) 16:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This section is provided only for navigation. No discussion here please.
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Check in with File_talk:Earth_heat_balance_Sankey_diagram.svg#Suggestions needs update NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey NewsAndEventsGuy, noticed your revert from a while back on the Global warming page and had a question.
In your summary I saw that you moved the info to the Effects of global warming page, but you also said "Just one single study". I was just curious, what kind of sourcing do you seek out for global warming, climate change and related issues? Any particular outlets you keep an eye on? Thanks! PcPrincipal ( talk) 15:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
About this: That sounds quite reasonable to me. I think I would spin it differently than you pitched it, by focusing on lack of process in the one (and the confusion and drama that can cause), and us having a model for the process in the other, so let's apply the latter to the former. Something like that. And now back to my wikibreak. 2601:643:8300:C96D:CD15:305A:C81B:4798 ( talk) 02:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, NewsAndEventsGuy. 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)
climate change task force
Thank you for quality articles such as SolaRoad, for administering DS alerts even to yourself, for improving the global warming article in additions and discussion, for adding citations from the start in 2011, for "tricks for consensus in a heated environment", for missing with appreciation, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Not too late, I hope ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi NAEG, peace on Earth etc., Talk:Global warming is simmering away. Think we need a more focussed discussion on the scope of GW and CC in relation to sources, and your detailed thoughts will be very welcome – perhaps in the New Year? All the best for 2019, . . dave souza, talk 11:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
With the assumption that presumedly I am one?
I wish to inform you that my efforts to reduce the size of the article, are actually due entirely to another editor who chastized me for the length of the article. As you can easily read on my talk page. It is for that reason alone that I'm trying to condense the article as much as possible.
A task that you seem to be undoing. Though I would appreciate if you joined me, now under this true-light you could actually assist in condensing the article. Especially in areas that are transitory, like how some journalist in a magazine went crystal-balling on nuclear power almost a decade ago? We can condense that, if not remove it entirely? Right?
Anyway, thanks for the, unintentional laugh.
Boundarylayer ( talk) 09:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Having noticed you are in WP:STALK mode again, following me into articles including the talk page of Energy Return on Investment recently, an article you have never had any involvement in, only recently, to [ | insert your admitted troll-like comments which you then revert]. It is concerning and a little-tiresome at this stage. Especially considering your now eagerness to issue threats of sanctions, send me frivolous notices on my talk page and whatever you have planned to do next. I will have to take your conduct to the attention of admins if you fail to desist in your, second obsession with me now, in recent years.
Boundarylayer ( talk) 13:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks for your efforts. -- 2604:2000:E010:1100:A1C9:3376:1282:532D ( talk) 23:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
We can make it better! Check out the effort by clicking this thumbnail. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that such a conversation should be had, but I don't think it's feasible. ANI is either mob rule where the person with the most people hounding them loses automatically, or fecklessly talking into the aether hoping one of the good admins like Bish or Swarm or (formerly) Alex Shih happen to stop by. MPants's hounds made themselves really obvious by doing things like retroactively editing their user page so they can claim MPants made fun of them for a disability, or suddenly not knowing what "canvassing" means when it comes to MPants, and they still couldn't be dealt with before we lost a good editor. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
If you make the article about the climate state (I've often tried to link to this non-existent article): this might be a good basis: https://sciencing.com/five-parts-climate-system-21166.html. Personally, I think the article should not be much larger than summing the five components of the climate system. Less is more :). Femkemilene ( talk) 14:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
With the huge project that we're now undertaking in terms of merging and updating article, we might want to start using the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force page. As this wikiproject is somewhat easy to find for new users and some sleeping users seem to follow it still as well, this could engage more people with the project.
I recently put the splitting of the climate change article on there and immediately people started reacting :). Femke Nijsse ( talk) 09:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I hope we can put this behind us. Like I said, it was that I felt process was being ignored. If I was wrong, my apologies. My best wishes and respect to you, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 07:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Why was my section "Green is the new Red" removed from the article "Climate change denial" talk page? I used a reputable source and took statements directly from the source. The article "Climate change drnial" is incorrect in many ways and is in great need of improvement. RHB100 ( talk) 23:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. prokaryotes ( talk) 10:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
One of the major elements of your plan has been executed with the climate system article. The next step for me is to write something systematic about climate variability. I've been thinking about this quite a lot and find it difficult to get a coherent definition distinguishing climate variability and climate change. If I Google climate variability, I mostly get pages seeking to explain the difference between the two. Considering they are very linked, I was thinking we could put both in one article: climate variability and change, with information comparable to https://www.pacificclimatefutures.net/en/help/climate-projections/understanding-climate-variability-and-change/. This would also help:
Practically, I think this should be a very condensed merge between Climate change and climate oscillation, with the latter also split off into a list. What do you think? User:Femkemilene ( talk) 04:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
this should be a very condensed merge between Climate change and climate oscillation, with the latter also split off into a list.Absolutely! The original idea was to gather up the guts of all these little sub articles and incorporate them into Climate system. I don't care much if the list of Climate oscillations and Climate patterns is embedded list in Climate system or a stand-alone list. My preferred criteria for such questions is what will be easiest to maintain?
I was thinking we could put both in one article: climate variability and changeAt first blush my thought is that it would create yet another article with "climate... change" in the title, and we're trying to clear up the confusion about "climate change" and "global warming". So my initial reaction is negative. But I don't have my head into all this like you do. Why do you want a separate article instead of adding this to Climate system? When I started my sandbox draft, I thought variability would be an intergral part of the climate system article. At present that article has 16,000 bytes of readable prose, so there's plenty of room before we have to worry about WP:SIZESPLIT guidelines.
New paragraph numbers
Possibly a partial response (no computer still)
G) As you're reviewing the article now, would you be tempted to do it officially as well? It's currently a GAN. If you don't have time or don't feel sufficient impartial, that's okay of course. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 06:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
My sincere apologies my skim read missed your hard biogeochemical work! More next week. Stay safe, have fun! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
This thread starts with a misapprehension on my part. Cadar is talking about a proposal to convert the climate change task force (now inactive under Project:Environment) into a stand-alone project in its own right. At first I thought s/he just meant renewing the task force. HI NAEG, thought you might be interested in supporting the launch of the proposed WikiProject Climate Change. Still in the draft stage, but I know this subject is one you have interest in.
Thanks! Cadar ( talk) 18:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi NAEG, thanks for all the input and the discussion, you've forced me to consider some of the aspects which I wasn't previously taking into consideration. And thinking about them and their ramifications has had the (perhaps unintended) benefit for me personally of firming up my intentions and resolve to see the project through. So thanks for that
One thing, though: the decision to advertise the project on the GW talk page is IMO rather precipitous, especially in light of the fact that we haven't yet fully finalised the scope of the project; you've also highlighted a potential NPOV issue. Can we please hold off on getting anyone else involved until the proposal is in a state which all editors are happy with? Especially at this stage of drafting it, the last thing we need is for some of the more sensitive types to throw their toys and decide they will not support it for NPOV or any other issue. And CC editors seem to be nothing if not sensitive
Thanks. Cadar ( talk) 11:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Please post additional comments at the proposal talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. I hope I have not demotivated you. So consider what we have achieved so far: The lead used to say that Global Warming started in or before AD1750 (pre-industrial), in AD1900, and in AD1950. All in the first paragraph! Only the 1950 date is based on the cited sources. So today we have successfully eliminated the 1900 date. Next we need to eliminate the 1750 nonsense, and the lead will be accurate (scrappy and unbalanced, but at least accurate). Please do not give up now. 86.134.18.24 ( talk) 19:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi NAEG, You left a message on my Talk page. I can see that you have good intentions and you want to be helpful. I have answered on my Talk page so that whatever discussion ensues is all in one place. Notagainst ( talk) 05:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
It isn't the first time that I have seen selective naming in order to game the system, but I have been at DRN longer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
As I said before in this edit at Talk:Global_warming: I didn't think the IP's comments amounted to a personal (or even personnel?) attack, and though rather tart, I don't see any malice in them. (Perhaps I have become desensitized?) At any rate: in such cases I would recommend the {{tl|rpa}} template. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Good award for "Boris", wish he could have seen it. He still smiles on my talk. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Climate change articles by importance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
You might be interested in my sandbox where I'm preparing a format for the discussion and I'm collecting arguments. I think you collected a list of previous discussions, right? If so, feel free to post it under the right section. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 08:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
User:NewsAndEventsGuy/000_Partial_Evolution_of_articles_Global_Warming_and_Climate_Change
Please read WP:EL. The section you linked to contains the sentence: "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." that isn't the case here as she is not famous for making selfies. WP:ELMIN, the section below the one you linked to, is very clear that these links are not acceptable. Poveglia ( talk) 07:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Since our disagreement where you were the only person who opposed and reverted my well researched, multi-day edit on climate change there's been zero movement on the climate change topic and it remains utterly broken. Would you be open to allowing my edit now and contributing subsequent edits in an attempt to reorganize the content, or would you still revert my edits? I'm not going to get involved unless you are willing to be constructive.-- Efbrazil ( talk) 19:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
The GW & CC Barnstar | |
For your uncompensated and conspicuously constructive diligence in mediating, guiding, educating, thought-provoking, advising, resolving, and coordinating, especially in matters related to Global Warming, Climate Change, under whatsoever names by which they may hereinafter be designated. — RCraig09 ( talk) 18:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC) |
Why thank you... both for the barnstar and the subtle humor! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
OK MartiniShaw ( talk) 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello NewsAndEventsGuy. Please would you archive the section 'This is NOT a Fan Page!' on GT which I started? The article does not now seem to be a fawning fan page. Legitimate concerns are now raised and discussed properly (eg concerns about the use of the word "shitting"). If you think the section should remain unarchived for whatever reason, That's OK. Thanks! MartiniShaw ( talk) 22:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello NewsAndEventsGuy,
I don't know how much influence you have but you seem to have more experience of Wikipedia internal processes than I do. I really don't enjoy getting involved in internal Wikipedia discussion but we have enough problems where I live with external obstacles to Wikipedia without having to put up with obsolete internal blocks. So I have made this request to remove PV magazine from the blacklist. If you are able to help with it in any way I would be most grateful. Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 12:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Note: the short-cut route you propose also requires discussion and cannot be executed fast. See Wikipedia:Merging#Step_3:_Discuss_the_merger and Wikipedia:Merging#Step_4:_Close_the_merger_discussion_and_determine_consensus. I'm noticing that I'm slowly getting frustrated with the discussion and feel we're both only moving towards each other within the bounds of our big ideas. It would be so nice if we can just agree on any move forward now, as our main goal (getting rid of climate change's title) is the same. Would you at least agree my proposal is a huge step forwards? We might have to do this in steps instead of getting to the 'right' solution immediately. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 12:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
To help the discussion forward, could you entertain the possibility of renaming 'climate change' (same scope) and come up with what you consider the best name if we were to do this? I know this would be a second-best solution for you, but for me it's massively helpful to know what second best is for you to be able to move closer to you (btw, the same goes for names of global warming; it's massively useful if you would change some of your survey 'votes' into weakly or strongly disagree as there doesn't seem high support for the long title you proposed). Femke Nijsse ( talk) 12:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
In the "real discussion" if people strongly prefer your way, I would be able to acknowledge that... I'm not so stubborn as to stand in the way of a strong leaning one way... even if it isn't mine. But its time to hvae the real discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I'm up for that. Will be gone over the weekend though. The advice at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Starting a RM with a probable WP:NOGOODOPTIONS was to have a good idea of consensus for an option before formally starting the process. I'll go over my sandbox one more time to simplify a bit, and will then post that. If, after a week or so, a consensus appears, I'll propose that one formally. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 13:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
And btw, yes, you may call me a close Wikifriend. I definitely regard you as such. I think I've changed my mind about what the best alternative name is after people's comments: climate change (general concept). Only adding the word general didn't specify it sufficiently, but stating that it's a concept (instead of an issue or problem) makes it clear that we're talking conceptually instead of about something specific. I've put it there inconspicuously in a couple of comment & in introduction and, if it gains traction with the few that have commented so far, maybe I'll put that as an explicit second proposal. Happy I followed the advice at RM and didn't start the formal procedure yet. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 08:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Just a quick question arising from your changes in the redirecting placeholder section. When (if?) we get a move of climate change, what do you see as the follow-on process? I'm thinking.
(# Possibility for discussion merge if you want. Note that merge might create double redirects, which a bot will solve for us)
Thanks :). Femke Nijsse ( talk) 10:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
What do you see as the follow-on process...in terms of the article content at Climate change (general concept)?
What do you see as the follow-on process...for the new "climate change" redirect, which at that time will simply point at Climate change (general concept)?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Section heading changed by me. Per WP:TPG all headings must be neutrally phrased. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Would you kindly consider to clarify what led you to send an NPA warning to me while giving friendly support to the User who started the PA [1] with these words: "Bernd Bricken has been trying to attack and rewrits the German article from a "skeptic's" viewpoint. ... "? Thanks. -- Bernd.Brincken ( talk) 17:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi - do you know about {{Ds/aware}}? And thanks for your help. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
X1\ ( talk) 01:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
What is your opinion on this AfD? @ William M. Connolley: prokaryotes ( talk) 01:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
Swarm ♠ 03:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Copy and paste from
Polar amplification's talk page:
I'm not implying a lack of good faith. Very often I have seen the argument made against removing longstanding content, with its tacit consensus, and the argument typically prevails. I think it's important to an article called "Polar amplification" to include both poles. YoPienso ( talk) 01:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Since I and another editor have both been editing in the climate pages for a long time, and since many threads of content and behavior issues kept popping up, I organized them here. I think there might be some of my commentary mixed in, I don't remember. But since this way of organizing this material has just been complained about, I thought I should add an explanatory note here. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Housekeeping, the OP called this section "stalking me" and I changed it to a neutral heading per TPG
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk) 17:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, please read
WP:HOUND, since you seem to follow most of my edits on the topic of climate change, and start or engage in discussion related to my edits, or revert a considerable amount of them in the past few days.
prokaryotes (
talk) 16:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Contextual notes to self in case this becomes a bigger issue.... awhile back (after a GMO TBAN) Prokaryotes requested a block on their account in an apparent wikibreak and earlier this year requested the block be removed so they could edit again. So far so good, once I also took a long break. The last few days P did a lot of work done at featured article Global warming. It was fast, and there were things that needed discussion even as more edits appeared. If I understand 3RR I could have reported P for edit warring or asked an admin to apply DS under WP:ARBCC because we both meet the technical "awareness" criteria for imposition of DS. Instead of doing either of those aggressive things, I left what I thought was a friendly comment about paying attention to 3RR and slowing down at P's talk page. In part, P told me to "stop interacting with me". The thread is here. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a weird complaint. P edits popular articles that you've been editing for ages; so obviously you'll notice. And a complaint that you engage in discussion is double-weird; that's generally considered good William M. Connolley ( talk) 06:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Recent article here outlines coverage of media in regards to new PNAS Steffen et al. study, there are many other discussions along the way, including from scientists, media, and in the public. My idea is to create a new article along the lines of Climate doom. What do you think? prokaryotes ( talk) 12:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
See this Social media is nice, but probably lacks the mental health benefits of being in a local group, where there is face time. Exerpt
I have to confess, I like your attention to semantics, little details. However, the study you recently cited, is from February 2018, thus not responding to latest Rockström - the new PNAS study which is the subject of that part. And they made an outrages claim, that he was devoid of scientific data. prokaryotes ( talk) 01:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not self-published. The report is a high profile compilation on IPCC, Risks, in this particular content addition, the report cites study results from Naomi Oreskes, who published on this very topic. Also from SPB guide, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field" - this report is from the experts. ... prokaryotes ( talk) 00:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please stop making claims on various talk pages that I violate NPOV with my edits, or similar. I have read your input in this regard, and I disagree with your conclusions. I look forward to keep working with your critical input on various climate related topics, but continued claims of guideline violations are on the verge to disrupt the consensus finding process. You can always ask me to provide reliable sourced references for my commentary. Thank you. prokaryotes ( talk) 16:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This section is provided only for navigation. No discussion here please.
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Check in with File_talk:Earth_heat_balance_Sankey_diagram.svg#Suggestions needs update NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey NewsAndEventsGuy, noticed your revert from a while back on the Global warming page and had a question.
In your summary I saw that you moved the info to the Effects of global warming page, but you also said "Just one single study". I was just curious, what kind of sourcing do you seek out for global warming, climate change and related issues? Any particular outlets you keep an eye on? Thanks! PcPrincipal ( talk) 15:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
About this: That sounds quite reasonable to me. I think I would spin it differently than you pitched it, by focusing on lack of process in the one (and the confusion and drama that can cause), and us having a model for the process in the other, so let's apply the latter to the former. Something like that. And now back to my wikibreak. 2601:643:8300:C96D:CD15:305A:C81B:4798 ( talk) 02:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, NewsAndEventsGuy. 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)
climate change task force
Thank you for quality articles such as SolaRoad, for administering DS alerts even to yourself, for improving the global warming article in additions and discussion, for adding citations from the start in 2011, for "tricks for consensus in a heated environment", for missing with appreciation, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Not too late, I hope ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi NAEG, peace on Earth etc., Talk:Global warming is simmering away. Think we need a more focussed discussion on the scope of GW and CC in relation to sources, and your detailed thoughts will be very welcome – perhaps in the New Year? All the best for 2019, . . dave souza, talk 11:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
With the assumption that presumedly I am one?
I wish to inform you that my efforts to reduce the size of the article, are actually due entirely to another editor who chastized me for the length of the article. As you can easily read on my talk page. It is for that reason alone that I'm trying to condense the article as much as possible.
A task that you seem to be undoing. Though I would appreciate if you joined me, now under this true-light you could actually assist in condensing the article. Especially in areas that are transitory, like how some journalist in a magazine went crystal-balling on nuclear power almost a decade ago? We can condense that, if not remove it entirely? Right?
Anyway, thanks for the, unintentional laugh.
Boundarylayer ( talk) 09:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Having noticed you are in WP:STALK mode again, following me into articles including the talk page of Energy Return on Investment recently, an article you have never had any involvement in, only recently, to [ | insert your admitted troll-like comments which you then revert]. It is concerning and a little-tiresome at this stage. Especially considering your now eagerness to issue threats of sanctions, send me frivolous notices on my talk page and whatever you have planned to do next. I will have to take your conduct to the attention of admins if you fail to desist in your, second obsession with me now, in recent years.
Boundarylayer ( talk) 13:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks for your efforts. -- 2604:2000:E010:1100:A1C9:3376:1282:532D ( talk) 23:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
We can make it better! Check out the effort by clicking this thumbnail. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that such a conversation should be had, but I don't think it's feasible. ANI is either mob rule where the person with the most people hounding them loses automatically, or fecklessly talking into the aether hoping one of the good admins like Bish or Swarm or (formerly) Alex Shih happen to stop by. MPants's hounds made themselves really obvious by doing things like retroactively editing their user page so they can claim MPants made fun of them for a disability, or suddenly not knowing what "canvassing" means when it comes to MPants, and they still couldn't be dealt with before we lost a good editor. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
If you make the article about the climate state (I've often tried to link to this non-existent article): this might be a good basis: https://sciencing.com/five-parts-climate-system-21166.html. Personally, I think the article should not be much larger than summing the five components of the climate system. Less is more :). Femkemilene ( talk) 14:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
With the huge project that we're now undertaking in terms of merging and updating article, we might want to start using the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force page. As this wikiproject is somewhat easy to find for new users and some sleeping users seem to follow it still as well, this could engage more people with the project.
I recently put the splitting of the climate change article on there and immediately people started reacting :). Femke Nijsse ( talk) 09:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I hope we can put this behind us. Like I said, it was that I felt process was being ignored. If I was wrong, my apologies. My best wishes and respect to you, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 07:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Why was my section "Green is the new Red" removed from the article "Climate change denial" talk page? I used a reputable source and took statements directly from the source. The article "Climate change drnial" is incorrect in many ways and is in great need of improvement. RHB100 ( talk) 23:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. prokaryotes ( talk) 10:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
One of the major elements of your plan has been executed with the climate system article. The next step for me is to write something systematic about climate variability. I've been thinking about this quite a lot and find it difficult to get a coherent definition distinguishing climate variability and climate change. If I Google climate variability, I mostly get pages seeking to explain the difference between the two. Considering they are very linked, I was thinking we could put both in one article: climate variability and change, with information comparable to https://www.pacificclimatefutures.net/en/help/climate-projections/understanding-climate-variability-and-change/. This would also help:
Practically, I think this should be a very condensed merge between Climate change and climate oscillation, with the latter also split off into a list. What do you think? User:Femkemilene ( talk) 04:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
this should be a very condensed merge between Climate change and climate oscillation, with the latter also split off into a list.Absolutely! The original idea was to gather up the guts of all these little sub articles and incorporate them into Climate system. I don't care much if the list of Climate oscillations and Climate patterns is embedded list in Climate system or a stand-alone list. My preferred criteria for such questions is what will be easiest to maintain?
I was thinking we could put both in one article: climate variability and changeAt first blush my thought is that it would create yet another article with "climate... change" in the title, and we're trying to clear up the confusion about "climate change" and "global warming". So my initial reaction is negative. But I don't have my head into all this like you do. Why do you want a separate article instead of adding this to Climate system? When I started my sandbox draft, I thought variability would be an intergral part of the climate system article. At present that article has 16,000 bytes of readable prose, so there's plenty of room before we have to worry about WP:SIZESPLIT guidelines.
New paragraph numbers
Possibly a partial response (no computer still)
G) As you're reviewing the article now, would you be tempted to do it officially as well? It's currently a GAN. If you don't have time or don't feel sufficient impartial, that's okay of course. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 06:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
My sincere apologies my skim read missed your hard biogeochemical work! More next week. Stay safe, have fun! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
This thread starts with a misapprehension on my part. Cadar is talking about a proposal to convert the climate change task force (now inactive under Project:Environment) into a stand-alone project in its own right. At first I thought s/he just meant renewing the task force. HI NAEG, thought you might be interested in supporting the launch of the proposed WikiProject Climate Change. Still in the draft stage, but I know this subject is one you have interest in.
Thanks! Cadar ( talk) 18:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi NAEG, thanks for all the input and the discussion, you've forced me to consider some of the aspects which I wasn't previously taking into consideration. And thinking about them and their ramifications has had the (perhaps unintended) benefit for me personally of firming up my intentions and resolve to see the project through. So thanks for that
One thing, though: the decision to advertise the project on the GW talk page is IMO rather precipitous, especially in light of the fact that we haven't yet fully finalised the scope of the project; you've also highlighted a potential NPOV issue. Can we please hold off on getting anyone else involved until the proposal is in a state which all editors are happy with? Especially at this stage of drafting it, the last thing we need is for some of the more sensitive types to throw their toys and decide they will not support it for NPOV or any other issue. And CC editors seem to be nothing if not sensitive
Thanks. Cadar ( talk) 11:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Please post additional comments at the proposal talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. I hope I have not demotivated you. So consider what we have achieved so far: The lead used to say that Global Warming started in or before AD1750 (pre-industrial), in AD1900, and in AD1950. All in the first paragraph! Only the 1950 date is based on the cited sources. So today we have successfully eliminated the 1900 date. Next we need to eliminate the 1750 nonsense, and the lead will be accurate (scrappy and unbalanced, but at least accurate). Please do not give up now. 86.134.18.24 ( talk) 19:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi NAEG, You left a message on my Talk page. I can see that you have good intentions and you want to be helpful. I have answered on my Talk page so that whatever discussion ensues is all in one place. Notagainst ( talk) 05:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
It isn't the first time that I have seen selective naming in order to game the system, but I have been at DRN longer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
As I said before in this edit at Talk:Global_warming: I didn't think the IP's comments amounted to a personal (or even personnel?) attack, and though rather tart, I don't see any malice in them. (Perhaps I have become desensitized?) At any rate: in such cases I would recommend the {{tl|rpa}} template. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Good award for "Boris", wish he could have seen it. He still smiles on my talk. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Climate change articles by importance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
You might be interested in my sandbox where I'm preparing a format for the discussion and I'm collecting arguments. I think you collected a list of previous discussions, right? If so, feel free to post it under the right section. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 08:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
User:NewsAndEventsGuy/000_Partial_Evolution_of_articles_Global_Warming_and_Climate_Change
Please read WP:EL. The section you linked to contains the sentence: "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." that isn't the case here as she is not famous for making selfies. WP:ELMIN, the section below the one you linked to, is very clear that these links are not acceptable. Poveglia ( talk) 07:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Since our disagreement where you were the only person who opposed and reverted my well researched, multi-day edit on climate change there's been zero movement on the climate change topic and it remains utterly broken. Would you be open to allowing my edit now and contributing subsequent edits in an attempt to reorganize the content, or would you still revert my edits? I'm not going to get involved unless you are willing to be constructive.-- Efbrazil ( talk) 19:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
The GW & CC Barnstar | |
For your uncompensated and conspicuously constructive diligence in mediating, guiding, educating, thought-provoking, advising, resolving, and coordinating, especially in matters related to Global Warming, Climate Change, under whatsoever names by which they may hereinafter be designated. — RCraig09 ( talk) 18:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC) |
Why thank you... both for the barnstar and the subtle humor! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
OK MartiniShaw ( talk) 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello NewsAndEventsGuy. Please would you archive the section 'This is NOT a Fan Page!' on GT which I started? The article does not now seem to be a fawning fan page. Legitimate concerns are now raised and discussed properly (eg concerns about the use of the word "shitting"). If you think the section should remain unarchived for whatever reason, That's OK. Thanks! MartiniShaw ( talk) 22:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello NewsAndEventsGuy,
I don't know how much influence you have but you seem to have more experience of Wikipedia internal processes than I do. I really don't enjoy getting involved in internal Wikipedia discussion but we have enough problems where I live with external obstacles to Wikipedia without having to put up with obsolete internal blocks. So I have made this request to remove PV magazine from the blacklist. If you are able to help with it in any way I would be most grateful. Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 12:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Note: the short-cut route you propose also requires discussion and cannot be executed fast. See Wikipedia:Merging#Step_3:_Discuss_the_merger and Wikipedia:Merging#Step_4:_Close_the_merger_discussion_and_determine_consensus. I'm noticing that I'm slowly getting frustrated with the discussion and feel we're both only moving towards each other within the bounds of our big ideas. It would be so nice if we can just agree on any move forward now, as our main goal (getting rid of climate change's title) is the same. Would you at least agree my proposal is a huge step forwards? We might have to do this in steps instead of getting to the 'right' solution immediately. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 12:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
To help the discussion forward, could you entertain the possibility of renaming 'climate change' (same scope) and come up with what you consider the best name if we were to do this? I know this would be a second-best solution for you, but for me it's massively helpful to know what second best is for you to be able to move closer to you (btw, the same goes for names of global warming; it's massively useful if you would change some of your survey 'votes' into weakly or strongly disagree as there doesn't seem high support for the long title you proposed). Femke Nijsse ( talk) 12:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
In the "real discussion" if people strongly prefer your way, I would be able to acknowledge that... I'm not so stubborn as to stand in the way of a strong leaning one way... even if it isn't mine. But its time to hvae the real discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I'm up for that. Will be gone over the weekend though. The advice at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Starting a RM with a probable WP:NOGOODOPTIONS was to have a good idea of consensus for an option before formally starting the process. I'll go over my sandbox one more time to simplify a bit, and will then post that. If, after a week or so, a consensus appears, I'll propose that one formally. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 13:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
And btw, yes, you may call me a close Wikifriend. I definitely regard you as such. I think I've changed my mind about what the best alternative name is after people's comments: climate change (general concept). Only adding the word general didn't specify it sufficiently, but stating that it's a concept (instead of an issue or problem) makes it clear that we're talking conceptually instead of about something specific. I've put it there inconspicuously in a couple of comment & in introduction and, if it gains traction with the few that have commented so far, maybe I'll put that as an explicit second proposal. Happy I followed the advice at RM and didn't start the formal procedure yet. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 08:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Just a quick question arising from your changes in the redirecting placeholder section. When (if?) we get a move of climate change, what do you see as the follow-on process? I'm thinking.
(# Possibility for discussion merge if you want. Note that merge might create double redirects, which a bot will solve for us)
Thanks :). Femke Nijsse ( talk) 10:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
What do you see as the follow-on process...in terms of the article content at Climate change (general concept)?
What do you see as the follow-on process...for the new "climate change" redirect, which at that time will simply point at Climate change (general concept)?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Section heading changed by me. Per WP:TPG all headings must be neutrally phrased. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Would you kindly consider to clarify what led you to send an NPA warning to me while giving friendly support to the User who started the PA [1] with these words: "Bernd Bricken has been trying to attack and rewrits the German article from a "skeptic's" viewpoint. ... "? Thanks. -- Bernd.Brincken ( talk) 17:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi - do you know about {{Ds/aware}}? And thanks for your help. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
X1\ ( talk) 01:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)