User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy

Tricks for consensus in a heated environment

Always assume its possible there's an ambiguity in the text that makes sense one way to you and makes equally good faith sense in a completely different way to someone else. Don't shoot back. When others try to make it personal remember that they are saying nothing about you and are instead telling the world they either lack discipline or else are consciously manipulating you to change the issue. So a personal attack by your assailant is nothing more than their own self-destruction. Smile to yourself, feel sorry for them, and move on. They are creating their own sanction by destroying their own editor-image. If you must stick with it, try very hard to avoid saying "you" and instead say "I" and "me" and stick to the subject matter. Then you don't have to get hot yourself. Often a magic bullet is to ask the other editor for permission to try to repeat back their own argument as neutrally as possible even if you don't agree with it. That instantly tells them you are listening and does 99% of what is possible (at least on your part) to cool things off. Besides, the exercise uncovers simple misunderstanding the majority of the time. If they just stay hot and bothered, there's a good chance they've got some compulsory emotional stuff or else lack good faith, either way... know when to politely quit trying and stick to that decision. Don't waffle back and forth about it or you'll really get bombarded when you try to end it. Just don't shoot any parting salvos and leave the door ajar. (I don't know why doors like to have the company of jars, but it seems to help.) An interesting essay along these lines is writing for your opponent. Feel free to copy reuse trash change distribute. Your mileage may vary.

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

		Civility Award
		For your tireless effort to reach consensus on climate change articles Dkriegls (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Quicklinks & text for my quick reference

• WP:WikiProject Inline Templates
• Block evading IP sockpuppet; see [[User:Arthur Rubin/IP list]]

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Something I wish everyone understood as well as Leonard McCoy (Star Trek)

When planet Vulcan debated a proposal to withdraw from the Federation, Starship Enterprise was sent to represent the Federation, and humans specifically. At the planetary debates, Leonard McCoy took center stage. Audience outbursts were permitted, and so here is one of McCoy's answers to his main heckler:

The data about Earth speaks for itself-” Selv’s thin, angry voice came back.

“No data speaks for itself,” McCoy said, forceful. “Data just lies there. People speak. The idiom ‘speaks for itself’ almost always translates as ‘If I don’t say something about this, no one will notice it.’ Sloppy thinking, Selv! You are dealing with second- and third-hand data. You have never been to Earth, you don’t understand our language – and this is made especially clear by some of the material you claim to be ‘translating’ from Earth publications: an Andorian spirit-dancer with a Ouija board and a Scrabble set could do a better job. Though I must admit I really liked the article on the evolution of the blood sacrifice in Terran culture. That is not what major-league football is for…”

From the novel Spock's World, (Easily googleable... this scene is in googlebooks at the moment)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

25-50-25

• 25% of people will be mad at you (or unteachable) no matter what you do, so don't waste your time trying to change them.
• 25% of people will be thrilled with you (or self-directed learners) so don't waste your time trying to change them.
• Just focus on the 50% where you can make a difference.

ARBCC discretionary sanctions notification

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)

Fine, but would you mind explaining with diffs the reason you felt the need to template me? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In terms of template or not template, the discretionary sanctions system doesn't give use the option. The reason for the notification was the edit to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. All of the users who made an edit on the 31st have been notified which makes dealing with anything which comes up later much easier. Basically the purpose of that template is as a cover for later. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've passed out enough of the same warnings myself, though I have preferred to write original text most of the time. I once asked for ARB clarification if I, a regular editor, could hand out notices and log them as you have done, but the answer was that DS was under general review and I should await the outcome. Do you happen to know what developed in that effort? I haven't checked lately. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Still going it's a job for the new Committee, once they get their heads around the job. In terms of WP:AE a warning which meets the requirements at WP:AC/DS#Warnings and WP:AC/DS#For administrators. {{Uw-sanctions}} is considered to the warning which should be used. And the draft discretionary sanctions or more restrictive about {{Ds/alert}} being the only thing which can be used to notify a user on their talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So I've been telling others about ARBCC for the same purpose you templated me. For example, see these three from the last 10 days. (here and here and here; I'm just a regular editor, and for a long while now I mainly edit in climate change area. My objective in telling people of ARBCC is prevention, and I'm just a regular editor. Do my notices have "stick" for action at AE? In legal terms we would say the recipient of one of my notices has "Actual Notice", but the receiving party might try to argue for summary dismissal on grounds I lacked jurisdiction to serve notice and the notice was just as void as a non-existent notice. In street terms, do my notices have enough "stick" for follow thru at AE without undue worries of a boomerang ? Thanks for advice.... any help in keeping discussions constructive in the climate pages is appreciated. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:27, 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):

1. Does it link to the decision authorising sanctions?
2. Does it tell the user what they need to do?
3. Does it suggest possible consequences for not following policies? This one isn't as important.

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)

I think I was told that for now regular eds should not be logging. Which is why I reverted the log entries I had made including my self-notice. If you know of anything on which I can hang my hat to log notices in the future, please let me know! Thanks for the supportive discussion here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why, there are a few non-admins who log warnings. I had the same feeling before I got the mop. I don't think the Committee has made a decision as to whether non-admins can log but in the mean time as far as I am concerned a logged notification is a logged notifications. As long as you follow WP:Involved (ie you aren't warning everyone on the other side of disputes) I can't see a problem. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I usually thank people on the other side of disputes if they have presented reasoned discussion, RSs, and work within the process. But I have little patience for SOAP and FORUM, which is what we usually get. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hence the need for DS. Thanking them should be fine, but warning them about DS while you are engaged in a content dispute for example would not be okay (and would probably get you sanctioned). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is that someone who posts RS-free SOAP and FORUM in the climate articles is not really engaged in a climate-related content dispute. Rather, they are soapboxing. Hence, I feel that INVOLVED, hinging on it does on there being a content dispute, does not stand in the way of a climate page editor delivering the notice. But I do try to tread lightly and rely on other climate editors also ringing the SOAP bell, because sometimes someone else might see something I don't, as recently happened... and then, after a lot of further discussion, another opined it was still soap. Seemed appropriate for me to deliver the notice in that case. Just for example purposes and not meaning to argue, do you agree ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. The notifications aren't necessarily (although in practice that's how it works most of the time) intended to be used after editors agree that they are breaching policy. How I see it should work is the user makes an edit, the user is notified of discretionary sanctions and that's logged, the user makes edits which are against policy (RS-free SOAP and FORUM) and an admin warns/sanctions or the user is reported to WP:AE. So as far as I am concerned, as soon as they made their first edit to the climate change topic they could have been notified. Does that make sense or have a just muddled it all up? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In theory that works fine, but in practice that would create an enormous secretarial headache. One solution would be to explicitly demarcate the pages where ARBCC applies, and to let the server pop up a warning box when such a page is edited. But I don't see that happening either. A better solution is to encourage anyone to pass and log these notices emphasizing that doing so is not evidence of a BATTLEGROUND mentality.... which is consistent with the disclaimer at the bottom of the template saying the template is not to be taken as an accusation of wrongdoing. In other words, If getting the template is no evidence of wrong, giving and logging should not be evidence of wrong either! Such an action would enhance prevention by protecting good faith editors from fear of backlash if they try to mildly referee their own subject areas prior to formal complaints being filed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the DS review about whether editing a page with an editnotice was enough but it was decided that it wasn't. I think once the new system is rolled out it'll be clearer that they don't imply wrongdoing. But the problem is always going to be the perception that it's being used to intimidate another user. Regarding non-admins giving notifications and logging, {{Ds/sanction}} is coded so that it can be issued by non-admin - have a look at the template's documentation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for a great discussion, which I think has come to a close. I will check out the template doc and ping your talk page if I still have questions after. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 5 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)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

Thanks, but I thought that word was spelled "PITA" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

AE rebuttal format

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)

The statement by User:soandso needs to be seen in the context of xyz (sig)

====Rebuttal to SomeOtherGuy====

SomeOtherGuy gets this wrong (sig)

Their reply still misses a.b.c (sig)

'''Reply to Uninvolved admin'''

Here's more evidence they asked for (sig)

Sailsbystars (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Test the new alert system

This section contains my tests of the new "alert" system... I "alerted" myself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Please carefully read the following notice:

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.

Template:Z33

Please carefully read the following notice:

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.

Changing the heart of the battle-doers

Re: [1]: 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)

Anything that supports the people in the middle without letting the 25% on the ogre end of things burn down the house, I support. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Constitutionalist

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)

Agreed; I have started looking carefully at the top level article, Constitution Party (United States). But I am really behind in a lot of other stuff so probably won't devote a lot of time to it. For one thing, take a look at Originalism vs Original intent and then apply those ideas to improving the CP stuff and it quickly bogs down NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Took him to ANI. Started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Massachusetts - several of these should just be redirects. Not sure about Young Constitutionalists. Thanks a lot for your help. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

After I cleaned up the dead links and eggs in Young Constitutionalists there isn't anything of note left. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So shall I add it to the main article and turn YC into a redirect? I think that would be the decision at an AfD. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Lacking any sources, outright deletion seems more appropriate.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No sources is not surprising, it never really existed - no chapters were ever set up and it was dissolved last year. I'm disappointed no one else has responded at NPOVN or ANI. Anyway, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Constitutionalists. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

How RSs describe the Constitution Party

Not sure Theocratic is better than theonomy if the articles describe them correctly. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll be glad to follow RSs that describe the party as antibiotic-free grassfed beef if you can find 'em. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Global Warming Article

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)

First you would have to win consensus to change the talk page guidelines so that "educational value" becomes a legitimate purpose of article talk pages. Good luck with that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

disruptive editing (humor)

Re your comment on AC DS review [2]; 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)

That's the best laugh I've had at my own talk page, thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Global warming edit

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)

You removed a critical primary reference from the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis page.

Wear your badge of Wikipedia editing ignorance with honor. CosmicLifeform (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

OK NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:TPS here. CosmicLifeform: personal attacks like this one or those you made at Younger Dryas impact hypothesis will get you blocked. I suggest you strike them out and take a deep breath. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, its so silly I was just going to ignore the talk page nonsense. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

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)

Who said that's a thankless task ya'll are doing? >>>>>>> Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Transparency

To avoid any misunderstanding, I've added a comment here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I was watching the page but I do appreciate the courtesy! I replied there, but mostly to say we (including me) should be talking about ed behavior at ed talk pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Just wanted to make sure you saw my reply. Jinkinson talk to me 20:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW, of the part of my talk page comment you removed, which of the examples did it fall under, in your opinion? Jinkinson talk to me 01:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

None of the part I removed addressed article improvements. It might be an interesting wikilawyer exercise to parse the "harmful" line under TPO, or think about other related guidelines etc to think if something else might apply better, but I decline. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

More on the RSST

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)

Also: I've added a bunch more sites to the tool than are listed on the subpage, I just never updated it b/c as I said before I never thought anyone would give a shit. I can tell you what they are, or add them, or whatever you want me to do. Jinkinson talk to me 03:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't a clue, but before I worried about the mechanics of the packaging I would seek others' input on the concept itself. For both purposes I suggest soliciting advice from the nice folks at the reliable sources noticeboard, and maybe one or more of the village pumps. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: the subpage has been deleted per your request. Jinkinson talk to me 01:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Did I ask that? I only recall suggesting the conversation move to the reliable sources noticeboard. But whatever, have fun NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this will jog your memory: "Since the purpose of the page is to post the url to a blacklisted site, in my view, the page is inapproporiately gaming the system by trying to side-step the blacklisting, and it should therefore be deleted, hopefully by its creator, or alternatively via WP:MFD." Diff: [3] Jinkinson talk to me 13:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I did say that. Thanks for bringing that back to my attention. Those braincells were overwritten by a subsequent study of WP:Blacklist and warming to the interesting aspects of the idea. Hopefully I also communicated that I'd like to see additional user input at the noticeboard not just to create an obstacle, but because it merits discussion. But if that wasn't clear before, that is at least what I was trying to say.... most recently, anyhow! Thanks for not thumping my forgetfulness too hard. I went looking for my comments at the talk page, but they must've been toasted when the page was deleted. Anyway, carry on! I'm not going to participate in further discussion, but if it becomes hosted at a toolserver sometime, please let me know! Good luck. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

How was I trolling?

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)

The community at large has agreed to some talk page guidelines which say that the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss suggestions for article improvement based on what wikipedia defines as reliable sources. The wikilawyers can debate the technical applicability of the word "troll", but I'm more interested in what article improvement you were trying to advocate with that statement? If there wasn't any, then regardless of label your remark still fell outside of the talk page guidelines. If you can think of an article improvement based on what wikipedia defines as reliable sources, I'd love the chance to review a bold edit or discuss the idea at the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

PS Another question, what's with the weird, hard-to-contrast single-edit user names ?

• 2601:8:1E00:138:A09B:6206:4FA0:F0D2
• 2601:8:1E00:138:652E:FBCC:ECEF:88E5

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Psss... IPV6... It's IP addresses, but the new version of them. Right now IPv6 represent a small number of IP edits to wiki, but eventually they will be all of them. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Ohhhh, and Thhhhaaannnksssss. I didn't knnnow about thaaaaaat. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Cosmic rays

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)

Answered there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert

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 watch that talk page carefully but thanks for going out of your way to let me know anyway. I'll reply there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I've summarized my main edits, if you take issue with the removal of certain images, we can re-add them, rather than to revert evyerthing. prokaryotes (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

First, paragraph 1 pleaseread my first reply above Edited by me to fix a formatting error from a couple days ago NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you add the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlglQFYHNMw to Earth's energy budget (under external links), since i edited the video i don't want to add it myself, but ask you to do it, thanks! prokaryotes (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If you feel you can't add it yourself, then I decline to become involved at your request. I'm not sure that WP:CANVASS applies exactly, but I just don't want to go there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI

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)

Not the most effective way to deal with a content dispute, but whatever. For posterity the pinpoint link is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_editors_required_for_polar_amplification NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Last watch

User talk:Anna Frodesiak#The Michigan Kid Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It was nice to have hope (for a nanosecond). Thanks for stopping by, and the pithy summary you pinged about. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am always hopelessly hopeful. And thank you for being so kind. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Civility Request

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)

note in passing...

And I was worried you were going to beat me to it. !! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your prodding of the talk page essay

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)

I was wondering about that, but didn't see anything on point in the doc for that template. Admittedly, I only skimmed it. Anyway, thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Drought

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)

Good point; done. For that matter, the entire paragraph is weak in the extreme and essentially unsourced besides.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats made by an IP

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)

Thanks for ping, I'll reply to your request at James' page so he is also in the loop. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Followup: The IP address is currently blocked and I closed the DRN case. The block log entry says:

"JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) blocked 71.74.249.0 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 years (Making legal threats: <!-- There has also been much other disruptive editing -->)"

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Definition of edit war

Per WP:OWNTALK, I deleted boilerplate EW warning notice I received from.... Thank you! This is User:CloudComputationUser talk:CloudComputation 02:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(A) New users probably ought not pass these things out, since they likely haven't an appropriate level of experience just yet, and

(B) Chronological analysis of the page and talk page histories demonstrates this is nonsense

(C) If you want to improve things around here, you might try commenting on the merits of the various proposals at the EW talk page instead of looking to stir up drama here

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm an autoconfiremed (Not new) user, A is wrong, and C obviously violates WP:AGF. Can you explain why it's nonsense? Can you assume that I am trying to tell you don't start an edit war instead of stirring up a drama here? I uses an good faith template instead of bad faith. If you still insist that I'm stirring up a drama here I may revert and add uw-agf1. Again, please assume good faith. Thank you! This is CloudComputation 05:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(A) Unless this is a new user name, your contrib history unambiguously shows you are a relative newcomer at wikipedia.

(B) Actions by admins at the noticeboards are not punitive. They are preventative. If you look at the time stamp of my posts at WP:Edit warring, and the time stamps of my posts at its talk page, you'll see that my actions have focused on discussing the text I think needs improvement.

(C) Please leave me alone.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(A) Please depend on account registeration time not contributions,

(B) Of course I know the templates didn't mean to punish but to prevent. I didn't mean to punish you!

(C) YOU ALSO REMOVED AN WP:AN/I NOTICE!. Wikipedia isn't owned by you, or me, or administrators, or even Jimmy Wales.

If you still continuing removing warnings, as your excuse says, "Per WP:OWNTALK", that's it. I'll call an admin to discuss WP:OWNTALK and you. Thank you! This is CloudComputation 12:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Solar Roadways

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. -- GreenC 20:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

thx, goodpingNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit war and personal attacks

Please do not delete stuff[4] about costs that we are talking about until you have reached consensus. You deleted Green Cardamom's additions also.[5]

If you edit war, I'll report you to WP:3RR and WP:ANI. Do not edit other editors comments per WP:TALK. [6]

Likewise, if you make further anti-assume good faith remarks about editors including myself [7] I'll seek a block for that too.

WP:Focus on content

WP:Focus on content

WP:Focus on content Wholesomegood (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a victim of him. He always deletes WP:UW or WP:AN templates, as his excuse says, "Per WP:OWNTALK". I think I have to start an WP:AN/I Discussion to discuss have he abused WP:OWNTALK. Thank you! This is CloudComputation 07:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't delete stuff based on who wrote it. Apparently I disagree with more than one of you. Meanwhile, better read WP:BOOMERANG before filing at ANI. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)