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 /Archive 3

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.

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)

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)

What I'm doing

I'm busy spelunking in wikipedia history charting climate change vs global warming, while prepping a contrib to the thread(s) at [{Talk:Global warming]]. There's a lot to wade through and I have to take it in bites. Anyone interested in chatting about the past evolution while I put my thoughts together.... you're welcome to peruse my notes in my sandbox, and/or opine away.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Threatening cloud

See my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for ping. Everyone needs a hobby, I guess. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Rbrustman

You recently removed an entry I made, saying it was unsupported. I thought it was supported in the text and links within. In any case, what kind of support do you think is needed? Rbrustman (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If you mean [1] I'd say NAEG was correct William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Rbrustman, you really should study the entry scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change. prokaryotes (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"Edits by block evading socks are revertible on sight"

I would like to know where that[2] is written in policy. Every policy I am familiar with says, implicitly, that we can not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nothing in WP:PRESERVE has the least thing to say about supposed "block evading socks" -- Kendrick7^talk 00:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Per WP:EVADE, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." If you poke around in sockpuppet and block enforcment stuff, you'll find various references to trust being an underpinning of the project, and sockpuppetry to do block evasion is such a violation of that trust that the block-clock can be restarted. In the case of the IP, they have had multiple concurrent blocks on different IP accounts since I started following the matter around 3 years ago. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Proper Interpretation of Talk page guidelines

In my view, it was the topic you were discussing about changing the lead sentence as well as use of "unequivocal." (the topic heading). It is why my comment was placed there. You are actually violating the talk page guidelines by manipulating the meaning or intention of what I write. Please stop. I don't post material that is not relevant to the topic being discussed. If you think it is, post it as a question. Don't move it under a new section or refactor entire sections based on on your own belief that it is not relevant. --DHeyward (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No current smoke, no fire. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Equation needed; ice melt linear or exponential?

I have been looking at the prediction for sea level rise based on ice melt. Most I have seen start with picture of ice mass at a given time in the past compared to percentage left of same ice mass today then draw straight line through both to produce future ice melt (liner model). This had to be revised upwards but they still drawing a straight line through new data point to predict future ice melt. Some talk about an exponential raise in sea level using past data but give no model, leaving results up to interpretation. Their are many variables to be considered but what is the underlining physics of ice melt, linear or exponential that variables should be applied to? In the following experiment, given a 1 meter square block of ice whose temperature has gone from -1c to the experiments starting point of 0c, apply a consent amount of energy on its upper surface only, ice melt allowed to runoff surface. Energy input is constant over time; surface area exposure of ice to energy is constant over time but the ice mass decreases over time as the ice melts down. Would this be a linear or exponential equation? I can find lots of graph showing as energy is inputted into ice temp goes up until it gets to 0c then stays at 0c until melted completely. I can find equations that will tell me total energy to melt given amount of ice. I can not find anything that tells me at 25% of total time needed to melt all the ice you get 25% ice melt, at 75% of total time you get 75% ice melt (linear); OR at 25% of the total time needed to melt ice you get 10% ice melt, at 75% of total time you get 85% ice melt (exponential). thanks Jim MacDonald