Misplaced Pages

User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:22, 26 December 2013 editCwmacdougall (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,018 edits →Disruptive Editing← Previous edit Revision as of 13:39, 26 December 2013 edit undoNewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,732 edits →Disruptive Editing: WP:THIRD or other venue ok with meNext edit →
Line 151: Line 151:


This is a warning that your editing of the Global Warming Talk page, appears to be contrary to WP:DISRUPT and to NPOV. Attacking other editors for disruptive editing without strong evidence and compressing talk discussions on the false claim that no specific proposal had been made makes it difficult to have coherent productive discussions. ] 13:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC) This is a warning that your editing of the Global Warming Talk page, appears to be contrary to WP:DISRUPT and to NPOV. Attacking other editors for disruptive editing without strong evidence and compressing talk discussions on the false claim that no specific proposal had been made makes it difficult to have coherent productive discussions. ] 13:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
:I'll be happy to have this discussion at ] or other ] of your choice. ] (]) 13:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:39, 26 December 2013

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


/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.

Michigan global warming external link spamming IP

Attempts at communicating with the IP and other details of this story have been moved to their own page.

Also,

IN SUM, too bad the IP doesn't just pick a single article at a time, and spend a little time to actually make it better instead of just sticking in newslinks all the time. He is distracting other editors from making substantive improvements. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

PS A play-dumb exchange April 2013 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, could you give me a hand? I'm having a very similar issue as that with Embram with another editor at Polar ice cap. I would really appreciate it if you could stop by. Thank you. Gaba 21:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Intending this as a bigger favor than the one you requested Gaba, I think I will decline and caution you regarding WP:CANVAS. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
But wait.... I would not be surprised if the two users are actually the same. Check both user's block logs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Noted, although I believe I kept the request for assistance pretty neutral. Yes, I was thinking something along the same lines. Since I don't want to engage in an edit war over at Polar ice cap I'll wait to see if the editor self reverts and if not I'll see what next step to take. Cheers. Gaba 21:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this specific issue would constitute canvassing. The edits are clearly problematic, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for opining, and I should clarify that I did not say it would absolutely-positively constitute canvassing. I only meant that it exposes the parties to a non-frivolous claim of canvassing. Whether the various "appropriate" exclusions apply can be subjective. Who wants to go there, if it can be avoided? In other words.... stay out of the mud when possible. (Unless you want to kick your shoes off and play in it on purpose) That's all I meant. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI ANEW AE

Hi, just to offer a suggestion: Use WP:ANEW when it's edit warring, and use WP:AE when you want arbitration sanctions. ANI is perhaps one of the least useful places to ask for specific assistance on wikipedia when dealing with problematic editors. Only in special circumstances is it useful or necessary. Although fringe topics and CC are under sanctions, they don't get acted on at ANI, only really at AE. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I meant to ask for the official ARBCC warning. Awhile back when I was asking for a clarification at ARBCC it was suggested that (requesting any admin to do it at ANI) was a decent way to go. But of course, I forgot to add that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Whoever thought ANI was a good way to go has never edited at ANI. AE is by far the best bet. As long as concise dated diffs are presented demonstrating the issue, it generally gets dealt with, IRWolfie- (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh thanks for brining this back to my attention, I forgot about that post. After I said that I was thinking more about it, and now believe I was only told to find an uninvolved admin, but not told how to find an uninvolved admin. So it's on me. Anyway, thanks, I'll try AE next time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Timothy F. Ball

Thanks for the backgrounder you left on my Talk Page about the deletion of the Dr. Timothy F. Ball article. Misplaced Pages becomes seriously less useful when it's manipulated by a censorship cabal like William M. Connolley/Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Stephan Schulz/Guettarda group. We shouldn't have to go to French or German Misplaced Pages in order to find what's missing in en.wikipedia because of censorship. And I certainly shouldn't have to "poke" an article like I did to find out what's going on behind the scenes. Unfortunately, those of us facing an information blackout because of an active censorship cabal like William M. Connolley/Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Stephan Schulz/Guettarda don't have much choice. Those guys are doing serious damage to the credibility of Misplaced Pages. Santamoly (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Moving forward, if you can't make your criticisms by
don't expect editors like me to take you seriously.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get what any of that has to do with me having to look for information on German or French Misplaced Pages simply because that same information is not permitted to appear on English Misplaced Pages. Some interest groups have discovered that a cabal of 3 or 4 editors can remove articles at will from en.Misplaced Pages by declaring that a notable subject is "not notable". Thanks for your puzzling suggestions but, actually, there's not a thing we can do about this. Santamoly (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is. You canfocus on content, talk about sources instead of editors, and make effective use of dispute resolution. Or, you can continue to just gripe. Personally, I'm not persuaded the guy is all that notable, either. You can insult me along with those other eds if you like, but that won't persuade me to change my mind. Good arguments expressed in a civil way and based on good RSs might, but that's not what you're doing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you understand how this looks from the reader's perspective, for example. None of what you say applies. How does "Focusing On Content", for example, help me find out why some people get their shorts in a knot over this guy? It doesn't. Dispute resolution doesn't help when a single reader is looking for information that a cabal is determined to suppress. There's no dispute since nothing exists. Reliable Sources don't help because the article doesn't stay in place long enough for facts to be sourced. And I can see that you're not impressed with his notability, but how does any of that help the reader to find out what Tim Ball (for example) has said or done to make the climate dudes get so agitated that they delete any mention of the man? The whole world knows he exists (over 2 million Google hits, plus articles in foreign Wikipedias), and we can all see that he was deleted from WP by a small group that simply doesn't like him. They've found a way to effectively censor Misplaced Pages. Santamoly (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I spend time talking to people who want to improve the encyclopedia. What I said applies to those people. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Berkeley Earth

Would you mind taking a look at my edit request at Talk:Berkeley Earth? I have a COI that limits my willingness to edit the page myself. Dragons flight (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Dragons flight (talk · contribs), I will be glad to think about them sometime during the next week. Please ping if I appear to forget. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

On user talk notices

On Talk:Global warming you wrote:

I know we don't usually talk about behavior on article pages but thought I'd mention, FYI, that this user has previously deleted an ARBCC head's up from their talk page.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If they deleted it, that means they read it. It's up to them how they manage their talk page.

In the interests of keeping talk page discussion focused, perhaps it would be better to remove that comment. It may be better in future to discuss such matters on user talk pages (either mine or that of the editor whose behaviour is in question, in this case). --TS 17:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of a notice does indeed indicate that the user read it, according to WP:TALK. I'm happy with saying such things on articles' talk pages, for benefit of other editors who may be interested in enforcement. However, our of respect for yourself, and since you ask nicely, will do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Article titled "Global warming controversy"

Hi there NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for for your recent comments to me regarding the Global Warming Controversy. :-)

I just shared with 'Gaba' my views on what I think the tension might be in my edits regarding Global Warming Controversy. I was interpreting the article to be a balanced presentation of the arguments for and against Anthropogenic Global Warming. However, it would seem, as recent edit reversions would suggest, the article is about presenting the resolved scientific consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming, and the scientific arguments opposing Climate Skepticism. This for me at least seems to be a drift away from a purely neutral presentation of the Global Warming Controversy, with the article making a relatively poor presentation of the Climate Skeptics' viewpoint.

I think maybe there is slight tension in the article title, Global Warming Controversy.

My suspicion is there would be a number of people coming to the article to get a reasonable articulation of each side of the debate, but they might be a little bit disenchanted with what is presented.

My suggestion and solution therefore, would be that wikipedia develop a separate, genuine article focused on 'Climate Skepticism'. That way wikipedians wouldn't have to exhaust themselves with NPOV arguments regarding the presentation of a Climate Skeptic's POV.

At the moment a wiki search for 'Climate Skepticism' is re-directed to 'Global Warming Controversy' which leaves the reader wanting for a better articulation of the minority viewpoint of the Climate Skeptics.

So what do you think???

A new article dedicated to discussing Climate Skepticism would be much more useful in my humble opinion....rather than people getting stuck in endless debates about NPOVs....???

Kind regards :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfcan777 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Pursuant to the talk page guidelines the best place to suggest these things is at the article talk page. One specific proviso in the talk page guidelines that is currently a problem is WP:MULTI. At my last count there are four threads on three users' talk pages, plus the article talk page, all relating to your ideas about how our coverage of the topic might be improved.
Since you appear to be relatively new, here is the basic idea. Discussion about proposed
  • ARTICLE-IMPROVEMENT and
  • VALUE/MEANING/USE OF SOURCES
all belong on the article talk pages. Since a lot of other editors are interested in this topic, I am going to refrain from commenting on such suggestions until you propose them at the proper venue, i.e., article talk pages instead of user talk pages.
That said, it is OK to leave FYI notes on user talk pages. For example, at your talk page I might say "Hey Gfcan777 (talk · contribs), did you see the discussion I started at Talk:Global_warming_controversy#Paleoclimate_records? Your input would be appreciated." That said, you also have to be careful to keep it neutral and honest because we frown on canvassing to drum up support.
See you at the article talk page, mate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Focus

on Misplaced Pages:Purpose NEG. 141.218.35.129 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent advice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Copyright issues

My apologies. The intention was to share some of the world's most interesting knowledge with the public. At your request, I will indeed put your message back on my talk page. And, in the future, I ensure you that I will create my own work based off information I obtain, Jwratner1 (talk)

That will be great, and we really love enthusiastic new editors. First, please clean up by deleting all the copyright protected imagery you uploaded. You are welcome to truly design your own WP:IMAGES but copying textbooks doesn't count. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)
So, it turns out that the book I cited is entirely available for free on Google Books. Does that change anything? Jwratner1 (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
You've been here long enough now to know there are lots of guidelines. They are not hard to find. You'll get the most encouragement if you demonstrate at least some effort to look stuff up yourself, for example.... please see WP:Copyright violations, and if there's something specific in there you don't understand I'll be happy to help find the answer.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

This is a warning that your editing of the Global Warming Talk page, appears to be contrary to WP:DISRUPT and to NPOV. Attacking other editors for disruptive editing without strong evidence and compressing talk discussions on the false claim that no specific proposal had been made makes it difficult to have coherent productive discussions. cwmacdougall 13:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll be happy to have this discussion at WP:THIRD or other dispute resolution forum of your choice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)