Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:46, 13 April 2015

This is the user sandbox of NewsAndEventsGuy. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here. Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Misplaced Pages? Submit your draft for review!

more

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility
• 3rr report tool
• Reflist-talk
• Example of setting up archiving
• {{noindex}} for userspace that should not be indexed to the web
• {{subst:alert|cc}} ~~~~ but note that old system notifications are valid thru 5-3-15
• Force loading of the DS alert warning box, to aide research into alerts issued in prior 12 months
• Talk:IPCC Fifth Assessment Report/citation
• Manually look up user's DS Alert log..... talk page, version history, in tag field add discretionary sanctions alert
• <span style="color:red">Red text</span>
• Misplaced Pages:Mass_message_senders
• example video linking ]
• To leave an invisible comment, <!--Text goes here-->
• deleting user subpages
• Whatsup
  
• Some favorite essays

• The_unblockables
• a bunch more

• User_talk:Adjwilley#Possible_sock

please suggest some draft text, with ] to what ]. @@ without suggesting any specific improvements amounts to a general discussion and this is not a forum for general topic discussion

For speedy deletion of linkfarm talk pages {{db-g5|Arthur Rubin/IP list}}

TODO: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Quiddity&diff=640128313&oldid=640119055

WP:RFO

For new editors... although the poll sort of looks like a vote that is not what it is. Misplaced Pages treats polls such as these as a way of organizing discussion of the principles and the strength of the reasons underlying editors' viewpoints. It is not a majority rule voting process. As it says in WP:Consensus "...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are given the highest weight."

Do not edit war

Once you have been reverted, you are expected to discuss the matter at the article talk page. One of the reverting editors has already started a thread for that purpose. Please click this link and discuss the improvements you think need to be made, instead of repeatedly editing the article, because that looks a lot like edit warring, which can lead to sanctions.

Great, now learn how to use a talk page

Thanks for replying at article talk. Next, please learn how to discuss at those talk (or this) talk page. Three things

• Sign your posts by typing 4 tildes at the end. Like this ~~~~
• Learn to indent to show who you are replying to, using colons Like this : or :::: etc
• Read the talk page guidelines

Before any more editing, please review about ]. The next step is to DISCUSS at the article talk page, where we have ]. If you are unhappy with the discussion, don't keep restoring the reverted text or variations of it. Instead, rely on ] ~~~~

"The magnitude of climate change and the severity of its impacts will depend on the actions that human societies take to respond to these risks." pg 2 America's Climate Choices: Advancing the Science of Climate Change (Report in Brief) Matson, et al US National Research Council 2010 http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf

Before Global warming lead revamp reconfirm scope of article

section Moved to sandbox3

table formatting

Originally posted at BLPN, then I learned about a very similar discussion at the FRINGE noticeboard. Parking here while I mull things over.

I am struggling to reconcile some ANI closing instructions with our BLP policy. This will be the first I've raised my confusion to the closing admin, but I thought I'd raise the question here for others interested in BLP issues.

Back in Jan 2014 TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) concluded an ANI with the following instructions

"Use what the sources say. If the majority of sources call a subject a "skeptic" then they are a skeptic. If the sources calls them a "climate change denier" then call them that. We use what the majority of sources use. Single partisan sources that are used in opposition to the majority of sources will be considered POV pushing and sanctioned under WP:ARBCC. Mass changes of any material without discussion is disruptive.--v/r"

I was not involved in that action. However, these closing instruction were recently cited in context of discussion at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger), where I am involved.

The article subject, Anthony Watts, is a public figure, who runs what he calls the world's most-viewed blog on climate change (Watts up with that). Like most public figures, there is a range of commentary in the sources. From my own research, it appears that only a handful of sources have been discussed so far. Before I spend a lot more time looking into it, I'm hoping to get some guidance as to how the results could be used.

The closing instructions from TParis appear to close the door on minority voices found in otherwise respectable RSs. As I read BLP policy, that isn't quite how we handle public figures. The key section seems to be

"Public figures

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

• "Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."
• "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."

As I read the policy, the ANI's closing instructions seem to shut the door on RSs holding a minority view of the public figure. In the present instance, the policy seems to require reporting when most quality sources say Jane Doe is a "climate skeptic" while adding that some quality sources allege Jane Doe is a "climate denier". TParis' closing instructions appear to say that doing so will incur the wrath of AE under WP:ARBCC.

TParis (talk · contribs), did I understand and reiterate your closing instructions correctly? Can you help me reconcile this perceived conflict between those instructions and the policy?

And what do you other members of this board think about it all? Can we make mention when a minority of quality sources allege Jane Doe is a climate denier? Or should we get sanctioned for doing so? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Reserved for closing admin TParis rats, it looks like this excellent admin has retiredNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

General Discussion

• Comments anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Think it started here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29&diff=648509927&oldid=648509406

posted this at the wrong venue. It may or may not be needed soon so park here for a few days 7&6=thirteen Diffs (reasoning follows)

• Third re-revert w/o discussion 16:21, April 13, 2015 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)? m . . (3,755 bytes) (+1,194)? . . (Undid revision 656287013 by MONGO; Wrong. Please take it to talk page.

>>>15:57, April 13, 2015 Talk thread started by other user (me) This next diff was part of the same contested material

• Second re-revert w/o discussion 15:27, April 13, 2015 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)? . . (3,755 bytes) (+473)? . . (Undid revision 656283420 by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) Wrong. Take it to the talk page.
• First re-revert w/o discussion 14:31, April 13, 2015 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)? . . (3,755 bytes) (+1,189)? . . (Undid revision 656216973 by MONGO (talk) WP:RS Your opinion ("nonsense:))

Reasoning based on diffs

All Caps refer to subheadings at WP:ARBCC#Principles

The user has adopted boldly-added new text, and is edit warring to keep it in the article. At the time of the ed's first re-revert, we were already at the Discuss requirement of BRD. Instead, of initiating "discussion" the ed puts hangs a little smiley face on "your opinion nonsense". UNCIVIL / / EDITWAR&BATTLE.

After checking the source I have access to (not including the youtube ext links) I again deleted part of the new text. It's FRINGE stuff reporting that some dude thinks something, and the RS is the dude's own blog. Well, who cares? This is a science article. As our guidelines say "Anyone can pay to publish a book". Being FRINGE stuff based on JOSchmo's own blog (hyping his book available for sale of course) I deleted this part. In the ed's second re-revert they merely said "Take it to talk". EDITWAR&BATTLE, SOURCING, UNDUE WEIGHT

OK, so I started a talk thread which the user has (so far) ignored. Meanwhile, another editor again removed the entire boldly added new text. For a third time the user re-reverted and ironically again saying "take it to talk" even though they were at that time ignoring the thread I had already started

DS notice provided to user on March 1 2015