This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

• /Archive 1
  
• /Archive 2
  
• /Archive 3
  

• 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.

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

	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)[reply]

The Malheur Occupation Barnstar

---

For exceptional and tireless work on the Malheur Occupation article and its sub-articles. MB298 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Instructor's Barnstar
		This Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who have performed stellar work in the area of instruction & help for other editors. great work!-Moxy (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 HighInBC 00:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Thanks, I self alerted at the start of my involvement there, and I've alerted several others, so I'm certainly on notice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay good to know. Thanks. HighInBC 00:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning that up before anyone else read it. I need to grab some sleep as I'm obviously too tired to do a decent job. I reverted a couple of my own long edits a couple of months ago, accidentally. Also, I do find the political are an inseparable part of some of these situations which the articles cover. That's certainly the case with the Bundys, as is religion. I don't think any of the players were polygamists, but a great many were close to those FLDS and/or Centennial Park group communities. I haven't seen anyone take note of it in all the coverage. Ugh. Oh, are you going to the Wikipedia conference next month? Activist (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the mormon connection is seriously under told, as is the context in the decades long Sagebrush rebellion. The story of the forest has been lost in the trees. Happy sleeping! I'm turning towards real life myself. As to the conference, nope, not going. You? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, going. Activist (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, enjoy! Ever been to such a thing? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't. I hope I won't be disappointed. Activist (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you post a write up on your talk page afterwards please ping me. Have fun NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy to. Activist (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In going back to review that article, when I noticed it had Finicum's domicile wrong, I noticed that many non-reliable sources referred to his death as a "murder." That even included the obit announcement on Legacy.com So I read it again today and noticed that the weasel word "allegedly" had been used to describe his reaching for gun before his death. I read the sources cited for the standing text and the word wasn't there. So I took your advice, wrote a TALK explanation, and changed the word to "apparently," and provided a definitive source. I posted to the article's TALK page and then made the edit. I expect I may run into a shitstorm. We'll see. Thanks again for the advice. Activist (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like careful editing, thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

housekeeping note, the following refers to this editNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you got me bent out of shape when you accused me of inserting factual errors into the Ammon Bundy page and harshly criticized my approach to the differing viewpoint on the G4S penalty. I am very careful about what I write and took your charge as attacking my honesty. I left a long response as soon as I read your ping, reverted your undo, then went back and did a couple more additions. I'm cooling off a bit as I've gotten off my chest and out of my system. As with ParsleyMan, I've had a lot of respect for both of your work on difficult (high interest, fast breaking, multitude of editors, complex, etc.) articles and was astonished that you would make those accusations. I hope this doesn't affect our future Wikipedia relationship, should we be editing the same articles. I wrote this many hours ago but had to run off to be with friends doing a housewarming, neglecting to hit "send," so I don't know if you've posted anything about this in the interim. Activist (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a good idea to write that sort of thing but then get a good night sleep before sending. Sometimes, I write in Notepad just so I don't hit "send" before I can calmly consider the benefit and goal of my words. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:LaVoy Finicum - Truck stopped by Oregon State Patrol during failed arrest attempt's truck at the first traffic stop.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing

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 removed 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. Majora (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help Majora, copyright is a foreign land to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got a DS alert from you. What is this? and is it because Im conservative? --Zgrillo2004 (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DS alerts are, by definition, no fault / no blame / no shame. They are FYI. Since you're making edits and/or comments about politics in the US, such as the Orlando shooting, I felt it appropriate to call the special rules about US politics to your attention. You can read about those behavioral rules in the links contained in the notice I left on your talk page. In particular, you seem ready to pick sides, or at least make assumptions about other people picking sides. See also WP:NPA and WP:AGF. If you decline to read those things and modify your approach your stay here will likely be brief instead of effective. Your choice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to this. No, we are on the same side if you want to improve WP. We just happened to disagree about one minor thing. Make your argument on the content. My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the essay talk page thread you started eventually; I'm more interested in something else right now, but I have already pinged you where that's being discussed and decline to start it up here too. See WP:MULTI. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to make such a big issue from a single edit in essay? And what exactly do you expect from Bishonen? I do not think you understand the policy. It tells about actions "to repeatedly confront or inhibit [your] work". I did not do it. Even if you think I tracked your edits, it is allowed as long as my edits can be reasonably viewed as improvement of content. My very best wishes (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those who do not engage in Wikilawyering might reasonably disagree as to the spirit of the Wikihounding policy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Looking at your interests here, I think you will find this amusing. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't read. My interests (in terms of wiki process) is more about prevention of edit wars, amicable WP:Dispute resolution, and retention of a diverse population of editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't for the way that the other user spoke to me and threatened me then I would have not responded in the manner that I did. I hope that you have also spoken to him about his conduct. DaveA2424 (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "But DaddaAAAAddddd..... he STARTED it....." wasn't quite what I was suggesting yesterday, when I wrote on your talk page

Dave, please review our policies about how we talk to each other. You can find some of this at WP:Civility, WP:No personal attacks, and the WP:Talk page guidelines. If you decide you crossed the line with anyone, I'm sure they'd appreciate a retraction and apology. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, NewsAndEventsGuy, if you're going to be an immature ass about it then you have no place in this conversation. Secondly, WarMachineWildThing, you quite clearly threatened to have me blocked from Wikipedia and so on. I would also like to point out that, when you removed my content, my 'To Be Inducted In 2017' section was not the only thing that you removed. I had also made perfectly valid changes to the rest of the page as well so you were in violation of Wikipedia's policies in that regard. If either of you don't have anything intelligent to say, then I suggest that you stop harassing me before I take this matter further. DaveA2424 (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Standard warnings were issued via Twinkle, as the history shows I never threatened him. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 12:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you removed my reply to your childish remark so you are clearly not letting me have my say. Your argument is now invalid. DaveA2424 (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom was tired of people appealing their alerts, so they made them unappealable. But the concept that they are not given for any reason is hard to follow to its logical conclusion. Should we have a notification bot that alerts every active editor to ARBEE? When you issue alerts yourself, do you do so randomly? EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good question and in the debates during the overhaul I strongly advocated automatic FYI alerts the moment one sticks their toe in a subject area. After all, if the goal was to pull the fangs from these things so as to de-stygmatize them - which was the publicly articulated reasons for the change - then I believed the best way to de-stigmatize them was to make them (A) automatic and (B) ubiquitous among editors in each area. This was shot down on technical grounds - Although some articles are obviously within a ruling's scope (e.g. global warming is obviously under ARBCC), there are many other venues that are not obviously controlled by ARB rulings but can still play host to individual edits that are indeed subject to them. Since there was a blurry line about qualifying venues, the auto-alert idea failed. Randomly? No, I hand out alerts carefully. Wwherever I've gone (climate and US politics), when there's been conflict I usually make a list of involved editors, I strike from that list venue regulars for whom I have personal knowledge they already know about DS, and all the rest I alert starting with myself. The last "batch" I recall alerting was during the Malheur refuge occupation. I follow up with a note saying they're no-fault/no-shame FYI sorts of things, and I even alerted myself at (whatever diff). I still get huffy notes on my talk page sometimes, but when I explain we've (so far) been able to get back to content BRD without muss/fuss. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't always practical (or justified) to close an AN3 case with a block even when the behavior is borderline. If the report is closed with no action, there is a risk that the problem that led to the report will continue unabated. When closing without a block, issuing an alert to one or more parties is an option for the closing admin to consider. (This is only an issue if the area is under DS). It sounds like you would oppose even this kind of motivation for an alert. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

depends... if the act injects an element of fault and/or shame, then in my view that is done in contravention of the consensus adopting the new DS standards. On the other hand, if everyone who was mentioned in the filing and is active in the subject area also gets the notice, then that helps further the explicit goal of changing our culture s that they are viewed as no shame/no fault, which was I think the explicit consensus at the time. I would like to add a thank you for all the hard work you put in on this boards. The whole idea is PREVENTION, and we share that end goal.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BAIT, an essay written by one of Wikipedia's most perspicacious and insightful editors. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Boris, know that one well. If I correctly understand the specifics which inspired your remark no worries. In my comments here and here, C is not under my skin, and I made reference to his ad hominem only to introduce the discussion of AGF and fact that evidence of bad faith can defeat it. We have a FORUM problem, not an NPA problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not very gratuitous to inform someone what sort of "flavor" to expect in an ongoing series of discussions. If you check the recent histories of the editors mentioned above, you will see that there has been quite a bit of pointless drama surrounding what would, otherwise be a rather droll discussion. If that doesn't bother you one bit (it doesn't bother me any, at least not in this case), so be it. But I know quite a few editors who would rather bow out of a discussion than get involved in one that's gotten as colorful as that one, and there are pages which have been removed from my watchlist not because I lost interest but because I grew sick of the drama. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At article talk, summing up the crummy behavior of other eds is still talking about behavior, and that's a failure to abide by focus on content. I agree with your comment entirely, just not your choice of venue. Said another way, if you disllke drama, then work your own remarks to do all you can to increase signal-to-noise. At least that's what I do. I can't tell you how many comments I type, and then let sit before posting, and when I come back to them 5 minutes later I just waste 'em because they fail this self-assessment test. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed my point. I tried to inform you about the nature of the discussions occurring there at the start of your recent participation. Had I wished to discuss the behavioral problems that helped (though by no means exclusively) define that nature, I would not have addressed you, but an admin. Note the lack of names named in my comment. That was intentional. It was purely to inform you of what you were getting involved in. If that conveys the appearance of impropriety to you, then so be it. My concern is not my reputation, but in the reduction of the potential for future drama, something which is not well served by alllowing an editor who is new to the current discussion to be blindsided by the rate at which baseless accusations are flying about. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For someone professing a lack of interest in drama, you're going about it in a very strange way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More directly,

1. The info you wished to communicate to a newcomer is great, and that's what user-talk is for. At article talk we focus on content.
2. The thought is appreciated, but unnecessary. I haven't said much lately but I'm an old hand at this article and silence doesn't mean "not reading"
3. Last, if you don't want drama, just ignore stuff like whatever brought you here because pursuing this is.... well..... drama NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that a scientific skeptic is one who has science backing their view. When the vast majority of science disagrees with one, then the term denier would be the correct term. "When a fact is inconvenient, try denial". Jim1138 (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but let's keep the discussion at article talk, and based on what the RSs say. As an aside, the SkepticalScience website founded by Cook is interesting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do about it, then, short of ignoring its existence? El_C 17:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the conversation was already started at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus_clause I'll reply there, per WP:MULTI NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" (Undid revision 783237563 by Lulu71339 (talk) revert good faith; This would be great in the Politics of global warming but this is a bit of weedy mud for this top level article, IMO)"

If this is the intent, then the rest of that section should be deleted as being "weedy mud" as well. If the article is doing the history of who advocated the phrase "global warming" versus "global climate change," then this is this relevant. If the article is not doing the etymology of who used "global warming" versus "global climate change, then most of the text of the section should be deleted. Lulu71339 (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I supplemented the quoted edit summary with a courtesy note at usertalk, but per WP:TPG and WP:BRD this conversation belongs on the article talk page so others can agree with you (or not) as well. If you wish, you're welcome to move this entire thread including my comments to the article talk page.

Having studied it more, and going back through versions to 2011, I still think it belongs in a sub article but now I think your edit could be restored to the section and then the entire section should be replaced. Instead of etymology as the final section of this already dense and long article, let's do two things (A) export etymology (including your addtion of the Luntz memo) to a subarticle, and (B) insert at the top a "terminology" section, just like we did at Climate change. We could create Etymology of global warming and other destination candidates for that material might include Global warming controversy, or Politics of global warming or Public opinion on global warming. See also WP:Main article fixation and the last time we debated the Luntz memo at Global warming, now found in the archives.

Thanks for shining some light on that section

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! thanks for the advise. glad someone is reading the content!! Made some edits... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and though you're working hard, I'm not really impressed by the content. Looks like a fairly indiscriminate catalog of loosely associated events in the news. See WP:What Wikipedia is not. I'm also not real happy with the article's title but I'm not interested enough to try to work on solutions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just going to get worse. It's a sad story in our American experience. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to try to deal with (whatever). How about finding or starting a group to work on (whatever) in your town? This is an encyclopedia project, and I'm not really interested in discussing current events socially. I move my feet in real life when I want to do that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content I added to the lead was not featured in the body of the article, but I was just providing a definition of impeachment. I would say /most/ people do not know that impeachment does not constitute being removed from office. Should I add a definition in the body or what would you suggest? Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡ _ᐁT₳LKᐃ 01:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For examples see Efforts to impeach George W. Bush and Efforts to impeach Barack Obama. Notice they use the phrase, more or less, "impeach and remove from office" (paraphrased). We could just wikilink similar text to take the reader to our best article on the impeachment process for US presidents, whatever page that is. But I do agree that readers would benefit if we help them realize they may not realize they don't know what "impeachment" means, and then provide them with the information. Good idea. What do you think about the wikilink idea?

(-)

Instead of answering here, you're invited to just cut and paste this whole thread to the article talk page, so others can also contribute. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yep, i know. answer on my talk page Gem fr (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to finally see someone interested in helping workout the meaning of our administration pages. Been a long time since an editor seems to care about this. Would love to hear your main concerns and how they can be addressed. WP:RULES lists the types of pages with a brief explanation....we should look at this page as the start point.--Moxy (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm equally impressed with your gratitude (instead of outrage) and the obvious attention you have been giving the matter over several months. Look forward to your further comments at the thread I just started at the VPump Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Have_some_essays_unintentionally_been_given_quasi-rule_status. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a different name before....you don't seem familiar and I can't believe I have not talked to you before. Your the kind of editor I love to engage with. I have written a lot of pages that link from our P/G as well as the P/G themselves. If you ever have time would love your input at Wikipedia:Administration it's a page linked from our main P/G page.....have only ever gotten 1 person to review it. Lots look at this page and would love a good review of it. Not sure you have noticed my talk page grammar and spelling all off....I have MS and don't bother fixings typos on talk pages as I would with articles. PS again great to meet you again if that's the case.--Moxy (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why thanks! No, I've been NewsAndEventsGuy since I got interested in editing in 2011. I only watch a few admin pages. Mostly I pay attention to science and climate articles, some politics. I'll take a look at it, but not promising speed. Feel free to remind me in a month if I haven't said anything. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see not much interest in our problem. Perhaps its because the current template explains things in a reasonable manner so no one really cares. What do you think would be best....should we make a separate section for the supplemental template. ..or move it to the essay section? The only real problem I see with moving the template to the essay section.....is that these pages generally do supplement things in a neutral way and are edited by the community with RfC to determine there content. We are lucky that the template is hardly used. Perhaps a sub section under essays explain more about them...how they are edited by the community and detail information about a preferd method of dealing with a specific situation....yet do not have full community support or deal with a process that is just the community norm and have no need to be detailed in a policy or guideline.--Moxy (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, on different issues I've banged my head on this same wall before. Please see the first part (above the first outdent) of User:NewsAndEventsGuy/BRD; maybe a place to start is to chart the evolution of the ideas, and organize the crumbs chronologically. If we spend gnomish hours doing that, the result might inspire ideas, including pinging eds who cared at one time (if they are still around) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Later) TWO-PART IDEA, goal is to resolve ambiguous status of essays and create more transparency. First, we should make two tweaks to Template:Supplement. For starters we could change the optional parameter for naming the relevant policy(s) or guideline(s) to a requirement. Then, since we provide insturctions to only use it after strong consensus, we should require at least one link to one thread showing this consensus. Otherwise, the "Supplement" tag should not be allowed. Second, all essays tagged with Template:Guidance essay should undergo WP:USERFICATION after a reasonable process of notice at the relevant policy/guideline talk pages in case someone wants to advocate for elevating them to "Supplement" status. Thereafter, Template:Guidance essay should be converted to a redir pointing at Template:Supplement. An open question is what to do with other similar essays that have no tag, but in reality if they have no tag they probably don't have any impact so who cares? That said, I suppose people running across an obscure essay that is presently missing the "guidance essay" tag could be nominated for userfication if anyone cares enough to bother. If we did this, we would resolve the paradoxes and contradictions we've been discussing, and ensuring "supplemental" essays really do have backing of a consensus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE Instead of userfying "Guidance essays" that don't make the cut to "supplement" status, we could replace the "guidance essay" template with a new "Draft supplement essay" template. Good drafts can bubble up into suppelements, bad drafts that fail to keep the community's attention eventually turn into stale drafts and become ripe for MFD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my view Guidance essays and Supplemental essays are 2 very different things. We also dont userfy essays just because there not widely seen. Plus Category:Wikipedia guidance essays contains both project and user pages. Your proposing alot of change when really very very few pages use the "Supplement" tag. To be honest I am thinking of proposing a merger of templates .....drop the "Supplement" tag all together. Not to many will go for more bureaucratic creep for pages that are not P/G.....would be very hard to convince the community to have 3 levels of pages VS the longstanding norm. Will explain more in a bit.--Moxy (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: we think in the same basic direction! If the supplement tag gets the ax, what do you propose we do with the essays that are already tagged with it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tag them with Template:Guidance essay.....Category:Wikipedia supplemental pages has very few essays and would not change there status as in there not a P/G. Some seem to think only pages linked from a P/G have this.....certainly not the case thousands of essays not tagged as "Supplement" are linked from P/G. As seen at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.--Moxy (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, if the idea to delete template supplement comes up elsewhere I will support unless something changes my mind.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good proposal for the name change. This is the type of proposal that will get attention I think. Been writing on G/P/I pages for a decade now and find that if you don't propose a solution or solutions to a precived problem the proposal goes nowhere. I was thinking of nominating the suplement template for merger...but noticed your taking the time to review where it's placed etc. You want me to leave it be for now?....see if others raise a concern? What your doing in reguards to changing it in places looks good to me.-Moxy (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, as I have spent time loading it in my brain I keep being surprised at the things I have never seen after years here and just ho much creep has crept in. Thought we could whittle on that a bit. I don't see vast numbers of pages linking o most of these and doubt anyone has made systematic attempt to validate the template choices. Guess my thought was to clean up the low I,pact items as much as we can and then take stock. Expect ending the supplement tag will generate lots of strong though poorly reasoned opinions, and while I think that's a good idea it might help matters to clean up the little stuff as much as possible. Should be a long process I would expect. At any rate I appreciate the note, I probably would lose interest much faster than you if I found the task as lonely as you have. Definitely pulling oars same general direction here. Let's see how how to goes then take stock. 12:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

MoS has the biggest creep problem....when I first read the MoS it was only 5 or 6 pages.....now over 75. Stick around the topic of P/G/I pages....very few of us that work on these pages.....but we are all very level headed and support common sense changes by editors to these pages.--Moxy (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instructor's Barnstar .....great work!-Moxy (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; There sure is a lot of overlap between templates and namespaces. As you probably noticed from my contribs or otherwise, I experimented moving a couple low impact/low traffic "wikipedia how-to" pages from Wikipedia namespace to Help namespace. That seemed to go OK so later i started moving others. BTW, Moxy, is there anywhere in the rabbit hole you haven't been? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol....big hole.....perhaps time for new reports? They be of use to you...... Wikipedia:WikiProject Essays/Assessment/Links and Wikipedia:Help Project/page statistics.....will look into this in the upcoming weekend .--Moxy (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as dustballs go this housekeeping task is on the large size, for sure. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy:, those are great tools. Is there a tool that will report on help namespace pages that do NOT have template Foo? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no....but you can look one by one.... thousands special help namespace.--Moxy (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self, I'd like to suppress subpages on that tool NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. That would be a great tool for cleanup projects NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hard to keep track because of all the redirects between help and project namespace. .....that said I can delete pages if you need to move stuff....just ask.--Moxy (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've always found it odd that policies and the guideline and the MSO don't have their own namespace. This would also help with searching the topics at hand and would also help distinguish pages that are official vs non-official. it has been proposed in the past but for some odd reason the community doesn't want it but yet we have a help namedspace so editors can search things easier. Wikipedia space should be for process pages only.....but my understanding is this is just how meta software is set up all over outside Wikipedia. We are lucky that the MSO has a prefix that allows for searching.--Moxy (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's odd as well. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be one way of supporting the project, charging a fee for new pag.. oh.. never mind. :) --☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Did I make a funny typo someplace? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, indeed I did. Since this is my idea, I'm willing to license it to the Foundation for 1/1000th of 1 percent royalty. Whoooo hoooo, I'm rich!! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I approved your request for AWB. Check out the manual for how to use it! Malinaccier (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NAEG, is this notice here enough for a ARB warning, or do I have to use the template (can you link to it?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarioProtIV#Your_fringe_claim_at_Hurricane_Harvey Thanks prokaryotes (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we used to have a warning system but emphatically rejected it in about 2013 or so. Now it is a no fault FYI "alert". anyone can give them to anyone else as soon as the recipient makes a topical edit, even a good edit. It's just FYI after all. Search on "discretionary sanctions" and read the general info for details. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the info, found the notification. prokaryotes (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a unilateral decision on your part, as I'm unaware of any discussion or consensus to repeat sections of US law verbatim. I went ahead and changed it to "Simply repeating the code is not what we do" over at Talk:United States Flag Code. –dlthewave ☎ 17:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny! Thanks for the correction and subtle humor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments on the course assignment I designed. I like your idea of having students post on their own talk page. I am still very new to using Wikipedia for teaching, and I'm not a contributor myself. So, I certainly have work to do to learn the norms and practices. I apologize if I caused you a headache. Ian Porter (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and I'll be glad to help if you have specific questions. The idea of having students graded on their participation in WP:dispute resolution has always intrigued me. The response from other eds in a dispute is unpredicatble... some will be (or become) professional and civil if they think constructive effort is being made. Others won't. But of course that shouldn't matter. Its how students deal and respond that I find pedagogically interesting. By analogy, in a human development class I once had to parent a virtual child from gestation to age 18 over a semester. For fun, at each chance to input a parenting decision I tried to be the most horrible parent possible, and by the end of the semester my kid was addicted to crack and had been in jail multiple times. I was graded on assessment reports I wrote from the perspective of a case worker on the outside looking in. That would be really interesting to do with our dispute and consensus processes. Anyway, soapbox off. Drop me a note here if you need additional input beyond that of the editor that's helping with your project. You can also embed a "ping" for anyone at any talk page anywhere in the English encylopedia using the syntax {{Ping|UserName}}. Have funNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging a few people who may be involved with this [[1]]. Springee (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To best of my recollection I haven't interacted with the IP, or the new username they flagged, and haven't talked to the old/former editor for a long time. Good luck. As an aside sometimes I think its easier to forget the LTA and just proceed simply with the current diffs showing (alleged) crap. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Context, I reverted a new section at an article talk page, with edit summary saying simply "spam". I also marked the users post as 'unsigned' since their signature violates signature NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it spam? It’s my opinion on global warming. And that’s the truth, that is what could happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IloveRumania (talk • contribs)

promoting external links without intending to discuss article improvements is not what we do; I'm not inclined to parse hairs over the words we use. See WP:SPAM WP:TRUTH and WP:NOTHERE just to name a few. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Ice dam#Move to "Ice jam" to move "Ice dam" to "Ice jam". You may be interested in offering your opinion. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy, thanks for working with me at Talk:Ice jam. I was a bit confused with your last edit, wherein you caused a lot of the record of the discussion to disappear. Was that intentional? I thought that generally one does not delete the record of discussion on a talk page and especially not what another editor wrote, per WP:SIGCLEAN. In any event, I understood you to be OK with my boldly editing the lead. Confusingly, you deleted from the discussion the portion that I thought best reflected where we were headed. I'll wait for a reply here, for a while. Absent one, I'll restore the missing text and add your most recent contribution at the end of the restored text. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Error on my part, thanks for calling to me attention. I think I fixed it. You're welcome to move/tweak my comments there to clean up if I did not fix it 100% NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion on this AfD? @William M. Connolley:prokaryotes (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I answered at the AFD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot decide. He is however often mentioned on social networks, or blogs, when discussing his denialism. prokaryotes (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Swarm ♠ 03:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Swarm NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste from Polar amplification's talk page:

You didn't explain why the subsection has been allowed to stand for over 4 years. That doesn't make sense; the article's been edited hundreds of times since then. YoPienso (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sort of irrelevant, and if you're implying a lack of good faith please post to my user talk and we can discuss it there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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)[reply]

I do not. Instead, I think its important for such an article to discuss polar amplification at both poles. The disputed text in this case is stand alone text talking about projections of sea ice extent. As I've said (more than once I think) that is a stand-alone discussion of sea ice extent, not a discussion of polar amplification (which is about temperature). It can certainly be in articles where it would be appropriate, and if the RSs are there, and someone who knows the RSs wants to write about it, maybe it will be part of an antarctica polar amplification discussion also. But as stand alone text, its just a sea ice discussion, not a temperature discussion. Are you volunteering? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re, the long-standing text wrinkle... see policy WP:Consensus can change and essay WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Unchallenged material (or content age). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know those pages. My question wasn't whether consensus can change, but why it did.

OK, in my mind the sea ice is so basic to amplification I saw it as the same thing. I get your point now. I was thinking of something like "Previous studies have attributed an overall weaker (or slower) polar amplification in Antarctica compared to the Arctic to a weaker Antarctic surface albedo feedback and also to more efficient ocean heat uptake in the Southern Ocean in combination with Antarctic ozone depletion" from "The polar amplification asymmetry: role of Antarctic surface height." Otherwise, we could redirect to "Arctic amplification," which is also used in the literature. My personal preference would be to explain that the phenomenon is far more prevalent in the Artic than the Antarctic.

I should probably state those ideas on the article talk page. YoPienso (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Please do. I don't think "weaker" is the right word, would be interested to hear the specific comparison words used by RSs. Agree its time to move back to the article and its talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral heading

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Read the entire policy section. I'll quote and bold part to call to your attention.

(A) From WP:HOUND, "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." The key thing here is "no overriding reason". In my opinion, there is a higher than average rate of error in your science page contribs, so I watch to fix what I can. Often I think you may not be following the RSs, or have a very thorough understanding of the subject, or made edits that are poorly executed in the context of other articles and text. Examples include starting (in good faith) an article on the European heat wave when there already is one (nice job resolving that) and (in good faith but carelessly) re-reverting someone else when they appeared to delete a study you liked but you hadn't looked at the full context and so you ended up restoring the second iteration of the parpagraph plus a line with just a wikilink floating in space. I don't watch your climate and science edits to harrass you, only to make sure our article are well written and follow the sources. That leads us to the second criteria for being guilty of "hounding", doing it in a disruptive manner Read on...

(B) Also from WP:HOUND, "If..... following another user around is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, (then.....) it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." You have not shown the existence of any sign of disruption (see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, a shortcut I created because I try hard to call people on disruption myself). You have only said I watch your edits. You have not shown that I do it in a disruptive way, nor "for no overriding reason". If I were doing it to get at you personally I would watch ALL your edits, not just the ones that deal with climate related items. You've been around a long time with many other subject areas of interest. If I were after you personally I'd be looking up the other subjects and undoing your work there also. Sure, you haven't been to some of these in a long time but they'd still pop up a notice that you had been reverted. I'm not doing that am I? I doubt you can find a pattern in my comments of even rude remarks. Have a complaint beyond mere fact that I showed up at the same place you were and we can talk about it. Can you find examples where you asked a reasonable question and I just blew you off? There's probably one or two that I overlooked. Good luck showing a pattern.

(C) Wrap-up..... Follow the sources, place text in proper context, write well, follow MOS, and read the surrounding text to see how it all fits together, and you'll hardly ever see me tweak your contribs. If you want to know why I tweaked something, ask and assume good faith and I'll explain. If you disagree, there's always dispute resolution. I'll be glad to join you in any of those processes at your request. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks William. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Climate doom

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)[reply]

Good name for a personal blog maybe, but it would take a fair bit of persuasion that "climate doom" passes our naming policy (see WP:NPOVTITLE). Apparently we've both been reading a lot of the coverage of the Steffen paper. The particular one you cite here ("Terrified by ‘hothouse Earth’? Don’t despair — do something") is from Grist, which reads to me like a fair bit of opinion from the Grist author laid on top of the scientific content of the Steffen paper. This body of writing, coupled with the extreme weather and fires, can easily lead some to feel a sense of doom, but we still have to be neutral about it.

I suggest bifurcating this into climate science and mental health.

The best places to cover the content of the Steffen paper are climate change feedback and runaway climate change with shorter mentions elsewhere that include wikilinks back to those two articles. If you haven't already woven Steffen into Paris Agreement and climate change mitigation those are a couple possibilities.

Then there's the mental health side. An article begging to be created is Ecological grief, see paper in Nature. That article should include a few lines about the quandary I've often seen mentioned - should we talk up just how bad some say things are, or is doing that ultimately self-defeating in terms of advancing societal change and mitigation policy? This is a question others are asking and I'm not suggesting we have a discussion about this, only that I've seen that mentioned in many places. It wasn't something I was working on and I didn't compile a bibliography. If research finds this dilemna in real RSs, as opposed to blogs and the like, then it would be good to develop text on that somewhere, including summary and pointer links at places like politics of global warming, ecological grief, public opinion on global warming, climate change mitigation. Etc.

But to the original question, I doubt "climate doom" would survive the inevitable challenge unless going in you had compiled a lot of unquestionably reliable sources to meet the subjective threshold test in WP:NPOVTITLE. But adding the 'doom' part as an element of ecological grief and the scary projections as part of the climate science articles would allow you to proceed on the content, without a battle from the skeptics. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Along these lines, you could also look for sufficient RSs to create an article for the book "Climate Wars" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, climate doom was just a pointer, could be also Climate despair, if you google these two words, lots of results. Currently not sure how much time I have for Wikipedia, will keep thinking about this topic. prokaryotes (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Googling is helpful to see what terms are popular, but doesn't really matter that much. See WP:GOOGLETEST NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

"In a tweet, Diana Liverman, a climate scientist and co-author of the paper called out the media directly: “Clearly people aren’t reading the paper we wrote where our point is exactly that Hothouse Earth is not our destiny and that social system feedbacks are starting to move us to the Stable Earth. But media goes for worst case and makes it sound certain.”NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics

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)[reply]

Thanks, and while you were leaving this, I actually compared the lead text in Planetary boundary to the source you added to resolve the CN and .... they did NOT match. Amazing what happens when one actually reads the sources, or at least skims. Beware of confirmation bias. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedbacks in the scripture, are the climate feedbacks.... feedbacks mentioned under section title climate change.prokaryotes (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What scripture? Koran? Bible? Torah? I have no idea what you are talking aboutNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The paper you mentioned above, you actually read. Twenty four mentions of feedback, explicit referring to specific climate feedbacks, such as the ice-albedo feedback. Anyway, added the reference directly now. prokaryotes (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self published

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)[reply]

Wrong spot. Post to article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claims

Other threads of note

Check in with File_talk:Earth_heat_balance_Sankey_diagram.svg#Suggestions^{[needs update]} NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good questions, thanks. As you probably know, complex topics on Wikipedia are organized in something of a tree, with a main article, and then some "main" sub-articles, which themselves might be fleshed out in sub-sub-article and even sub-sub-sub-articles. At the top articles, its preferred to have high quality WP:SECONDARY sources. These might include "literature review" articles in the professional journals, or quality media, and best are the ones that summarize a lot of scientific work. Its really tempting to add the latest soundbite from the latest paper that catches our fancy, and at main articles some of us - including me - try to keep that to a minimum because it makes for very disjointed and rapidly-dated writing. I'm not sure if this will really answer your questions, but here goes.... one can approach GW wikipedia editing in at least two ways. On the one hand, you watch headlines in something like GoogleNews and GoogleScholar and in fits of WP:RECENTISM try to shoehorn in the tag lines as they appear in search engines or social media. The other and far better way is to read our articles, and where you find a nuance that isn't explained very well start researching that nuance and propose a paragraph or two (or an article!) to improve our coverage of that little piece. If you do the latter you might be looking at old sources as well as new ones. An area where we are really weak is Climate security. That article is begging for well-written cohesive overhaul. Hope that helps! If you want to ask again, or ask something else, please do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I was not aware of WP:RECENTISM, that will be quite helpful to investigate further. Certainly makes sense given what you said about "rapidly dated writing". Thanks for you response and help! PcPrincipal (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]